oloiatao I only watched this picture because of my current obsession with Charles Dance. It's a very strange film, rather too artsy and noir for my taste, but in general a pretty good picture.A few items: far too much is made of the "hidden city" component. Any older city has subterranean tunnels and chambers. Disused subways, dry drains, utility shafts and connectors, power cable channels, catacombs, and sewage pipes form a veritable honeycomb beneath a city's surface. Not secret so much as not relevant to the daily life of ordinary people. That these areas might be useful for file storage is sensible and efficient. The more intriguing mystery for me was why the writers writers (who otherwise did an excellent job) failed to give us explanations to these questions: Why would an intelligent, sophisticated, educated man disregard several days' worth of scheduled meetings in order to assist a complete stranger in an ill-defined quest for information of questionable value?Why, having learned the mysterious government secret, do the pair do absolutely nothing with what they've learned? It's implausible that anybody would go to so much trouble merely to satisfy idle curiosity.And finally, why do the pair decide to continue rummaging for secrets?On the plus side, "Hidden City" does include a very excellent performance by Charles Dance. I think that one of the more difficult challenges for an actor is speaking lines that convey information the audience needs but would never be uttered in real-life conversation. The film contains an astonishingly large number of such lines, and Dance delivered them so naturally that only when I'd finished watching did I realize. In fact, I can't think of a better example of that sort of acting. Well done, Charles Dance!

pyenme I read all the other comments - are we watching the same movie?? Apparently this director went on to bigger and better things, but this movie was not good, not even for a starter. The premise was okay, but the execution was not. The female lead needed to stop yelling, at the least. She was never a sympathetic character; I thought she was annoying. The dialog was shallow, and did not really develop the characters. Lots of walking, no talking. It was a 15 minute plot in movie form. Charles Dance seems to have spent most of his earlier film career in fuzzy, badly produced movies. I wonder what could have happened had he spent more time in Hollywood, or if Merchant and Ivory had found places for him in their films.... When he has the right material, he is good. I waited for this movie to show more intrigue - all I got was waiting for scenes where there was some real action and some real acting (and scenes that did not feature the female lead). Oh, well.

winsfordtown 'Hidden City' has become another good example how British films of the eighties have disappeared without a trace. Having found a rare video copy this film I have had the chance to reassess this possible lost gem. Cassie Stuart plays Sharon, a mysterious girl who turns up in the life of lecturer, Charles Dance with a mysterious piece of film placed at the end of fifties public information film. What unfolds is a genuinely interesting look at how Governments have so many secrets they can sometimes get lost. What is also interesting is how this gives an insight in to the early work of writer Stephen Poliakoff and how he still follows many of these theme in his later work more critically acclaim work. Unfortunately 'Hidden City' has dated in it's look and the plot just fails to hit the target. However it is certainly worth looking out for because just like the two leading characters the viewer is drawn into the film's theme of intrigue and mystery hidden in the bowels of London.

samwise2 I loved this film for two reasons.Firstly, it was well written and the direction was strong which is something often lacking in a British film.Secondly, the scenes of London were fantastic; especially those parts of the city not always open to the public eye.