joanameliabryan I enjoyed the film very much and have also read the book. The acting was very good and the scenery was beautifulI would like to visit the locations in Scotland where the film was made and wondered if anyone has actually been there. If so I will be pleased to hear from you.Thank you

henryhertzhobbit The movie lacks credence with the helicopters which didn't exist until the 1950s. But no woman would do what was done here, even a woman before the women's movement of the 60s and 70s. About the only portion of the movie that you could believe in was that Germany would want to know where the landing would be. Ignore for the moment that the British had captured all the spies but even if they had not, they wouldn't have let one roam around like this just to reassure the Germans that the landing would be at Calais. It isn't one major thing that makes the movie not work. It is the culmination of all the things wrong that makes the movie fail. Bad directing, bad scripts, no attempt at authenticity (at all) all combine to just make the movie fall flat. Generally speaking spies should fade into the woodwork. The suspense comes in with the spy wondering if the information they have is valid or not and worrying about being detected. On this one that game was over from the start. This spy was doing anything but spying. Your only chance at getting something that has some credibility and instills some suspense may be to read the book.

mack9201 The movie Eye of the Needle is one of the most exciting pictures I've ever seen - in 40 years of being a movie buff. The historical setting of England at the start of World War II, and the remote channel island puts you in another world. As in other movies, where we often side with the villain, we find a German Admiral played by Donald Sutherland, a spy operating in England. His dedication to his assignment causes him to work tirelessly, and at times ruthlessly for Germany. You might hope that things could end differently, because it involves a heartbreaking romance with Kate Nelligan in an outstanding performance. If you haven't seen this movie, I suggest you make an effort to do so.

lhhung_himself I loved the first 100 minutes of the film. This is an old-school war movie, back in the days where there was a truly unavoidable war and the belief in a higher cause. Personal dramas take second place to the consequences of losing the war and the responsibility that entails on both sides. But people are people and no matter how noble or cold-blooded, there is always that conflict between duty and desire.For the most part, the film is a taut yet believable thriller. Everything that Donald Sutherland does is completely in character, as are the reactions of those around him. The historical details are fairly accurate (except for the hyperbole about losing the war if the D-Day site were known) which is something rare these days. The triangle is believable, as are the conflicts that develop as we learn about our protagonists.But then we get to the climactic scene at the end. The actions of our confused heroine as she flees from Sutherland are a bit annoying but explainable - and it all could have worked except for the presence of the child. I might believe that Sutherland would leave her alive (though it might have worked better had she not cut off his fingers..). I might possibly believe that she could fall in love with a man enough in two days to forget that he killed her husband, and murdered her shepherd friend. I just can't believe that after this man threatens her child that she would feel that strongly for him. She's not *that* weak especially after she had just shocked herself in an attempt to prevent him from completing his mission. So the entire stumbling sequence to get to the scene at the end where they gaze into each others eyes is *so* contrived. While such weak plot devices are everywhere these days, the lazy scripting is an insult to the rest of the film.But if you ignore that bit - it's very good.