Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (Focus Features)

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

Studio: Focus Features

Dec 10, 2011 By Austin Trunick Web Exclusive

Even an ensemble cast of a very high pedigree can’t overcome a plot that’s been compacted into near-incomprehensibility. John Le Carré‘s bestselling Cold War thriller Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy was previously adapted as an acclaimed seven-part BBC miniseries. Even then, several of the thick novel’s complexities had to be smoothed over to account for limited screen time; squeezed down to just two hours, this new Tinker is, at many points, boggling. Important events are forced to occur off screen, and so many threads are left hanging that even viewers familiar with the source material are apt to find themselves playing mental catch-up.

Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, John Hurt, and Mark Strong round out a cast that at times seems as confused as the audience, while Gary Oldman, starring as retired MI6 agent George Smiley, does his best to spin it all together. Who is the mole at the top of the British Secret Intelligence Service? Is it one crusty British suit referred to exclusively by a code name, or the other? (Or maybe it’s that other one, over there?) Are we supposed to be in Budapest or Istanbul right now? Who’s sleeping with whose wife? Be prepared to take a lot of notes. (www.focusfeatures.com)

Author rating: 3/10

Rate this movie
Average reader rating: 7/10

Comments

Submit your comment

Naperville Dentists
April 10th 2012
10:36pm

This is a good movie. I saw its trailer. I will definitely watch this. It is somehow interesting.

maya
October 23rd 2016
8:07pm

Completely agree with this review. The plot was extremely difficult to follow, to the point where I was rather apathetic about what was occurring. What lets this movie down the most though is the lack of empathy and depth in it’s characters. A fatal flaw for a character-driven film. The acting was superb, but all the same I found myself not much caring about the fate of any of them. There were a few too many characters for any of them to have much meaning. I didn’t care who the mole was, whose wife was having an affair, whose life was in apparent danger and so on. Apart from a few very well-done scenes, there didn’t seem to be an real stakes. All the action was happening off screen, and many characters talked about were never shown, thereby negating much of their importance.
When the final song begun to play and the subplots begun to tie themselves up for it’s duration, the only thought that I had was, “is that it?”
The movie seemed to be trying to convince me this was an uplifting and triumphant moment. Instead it felt largely out of place, a complete change in tone from the betrayal and paranoia from not 5 minutes earlier.

I really wanted to love this film, and while I did enjoy it to some degree, it isn’t one I’d re-watch anytime soon or recommend. The whole time I was watching I got the impression that something was happening off screen that we weren’t being shown. That we were given a very limited view of this world. I think the best way to describe this film is that everything happens, but at the same time nothing does. If that confuses you then good, you understand exactly how I felt watching this movie.

Bill D
November 16th 2016
9:04pm

Oh dear! Sounds like a few precious reviewers require their meals served up in small, easily digested pieces.
As a screen writer I found the film riviting, complex and such a model.

maya
November 21st 2016
10:52pm

From what I heard about the book it’s based upon, the screen writer did a wonderful job of condensing a very information heavy book into film. I admire the work, but personally found it to be flawed. Judging from the amount of positive reviews this film has, I’d say I’m in the minority. Just different tastes I suppose.

Reviews