robert-temple-1 I don't know why several people have criticised this film so severely. It does not have the fast pace of a nail-biting thriller, but then it is not meant to be one. Despite the fact that the setting and activities of the characters are concerned with espionage in postwar Berlin, this is not an espionage story but a tragic love story about people whose lives are ruined by what they do and have done. The screenplay is by Ian McEwan, based upon his own novel. These days he is best known for writing the novel ATONEMENT, filmed in 2007. The director was John Schlesinger, near the end of his career, for he would only make four more films (of his total of 28) after this. Sometimes Schlesinger could go really wrong, as in THE DAY OF THE LOCUST (1975), which I found unwatchable. But many of his films are classics, and he was an immensely gifted director. It was obvious as long ago as 1962 that Schlesinger was going to be a major director, and he did become one of Britain's finest. Campbell Scott is perfectly cast as Leonard, a shy young Englishman who lives with his mother, has never had a girlfriend, and works for the G.P.O. For those too young to remember, the GPO (General Post Office) had the monopoly in the past of all postal deliveries and telephone services in Britain. In the sixties you had to wait between six weeks and three months for the GPO to connect a new telephone if you moved house. They were so notoriously lazy, complacent, and incompetent, that everyone was thrilled when competition was introduced to telephony and British Telecom and Mercury emerged as commercial rivals. But that is enough about the history of telephony in Britain. The mail is today divided into Royal Mail (which is about to be privatised) and Parcel Force (which delivers, or in many cases fails to deliver, parcels.) But that is enough also about postal services in Britain. Scott is one of the few really bright people at the GPO, and he is indeed so clever that he is sent off to Berlin and seconded to the Yanks on a top secret surveillance project called 'Gold'. This is based upon real events. The Americans really did dig a tunnel 100 yards into the Soviet zone of Berlin and tap the East German and Soviet phone lines during the Cold War. Scott plays the bright boy who actually does the tapping. The story is rather unconvincing here, for surely the Americans had their own such people, and also, surely a young nerd from the GPO was not the best that the Brits could supply? Well, never mind, it is a novel and a film, not a history book (though some history books are even 'less true; than novels, aren't they? I leave aside the question as to whether truth is absolute and so there is no such thing as being 'less true'.) Now the film goes astray at this point, because the man in charge of the American operation is a spook played by Anthony Hopkins. I believe he gives a magnificent and subtle performance, but his American accent is simply not good enough, and that has justly irritated many people. Hopkins is also an acquired taste in general. But the history of this production may explain Hopkins being cast in this lead role, for he had at least some attraction to investors, though whether he was 'fully bankable' in 1993 I cannot say. This film was produced by a very charming woman named Norma Hayman. But three weeks before shooting, her distributors pulled the rug out from under her. I don't know how she saved the film, but in the process it was entirely recast. I had a very uncomfortable experience about twenty years ago when I was with a close friend who was an executive producer who raised money for films. He got a call from Norma Hayman asking whether she could come to his home and see him urgently. He did not like being disturbed at home, and was very grumpy about it, and he also smelled a whiff of desperation in the air, which destroys confidence. So she arrived and they closeted themselves in a room for ages, but when they emerged, my friend was treating her very badly, indeed with contempt, which greatly shocked me, as I had never seen him behave like that. She was crestfallen. I needed to go and so she and I shared a cab into the centre of town (London). It was a sad and gloomy experience, she talked little, and I thought it best to leave her to her unhappy thoughts rather than to irritate her with chatting. As this film was made about that time, I wonder if this was the film she was trying to save on that day. Well, in the story Scott falls in love with the irresistibly alluring Isabella Rossellini, who plays a mysterious German woman, and she introduces him to the carnal side of life. But he then discovers she is married to a drunken brute named Otto, who beats her up and is refusing to sign her divorce papers. And lots of things begin to go seriously wrong. Scott wants to marry Rossellini, and who wouldn't, but then a terrible, bloody event takes place, just the sort of perverse thing that Ian McEwan seems to like inflicting on his readers and viewers, though Schlesinger resists any temptation to 'do a Tarantino' with that material, and is as discreet as it is possible to be about something so awful. I think if the story were a bit less extreme in that particular, people would have liked the film more. However, the film is otherwise very good in my opinion, very sad and moving. It has an intriguing, very emotional ending which I am not permitted by IMDb reviewing rules to reveal.

trpdean I knew nothing of this but the fact that it was adapted from a novel by the brilliant Ian McEwan (which I had not read), was directed by John Schlesinger (whose A Kind of Loving, Midnight Cowboy, Sunday Bloody Snday, Far From the Madding Crowd and particularly Darling I have always loved), and starred three actors I liked - Anthony Hopkins, Isabella Rosselini and Campbell Scott.With these people, how could this have been SO awful? Oh my! From the very beginning, when we see that all three lead actors are chosen for roles different than their own nationalities - an absolutely bizarre Anthony Hopkins with an atrocious American accent playing a character created out of some apparent hatred of Americans, a wee timid Campbell Scott playing an Englishman who had apparently never really left the nursery and an Isabella Rosselini playing a German hausfrau -- we realize something is seriously SERIOUSLY wrong here.We see scene after tedious scene that we've witnessed filmed FAR more interestingly in hundreds of other films.We care nothing for the characters.There are whole plot angles that are simply left dangling.This is a disaster. Avoid it.

ksilva This movie has three serious flaws. It never finds a focus, (ultimately, I cared very little about any of the characters), it has the always fateful flaw of dialog that gets lost in whispered tones or buried beneath the score or SFX, and finally ... WHY, in heaven's name is Anthony Hopkins using his not-so-convincing American accent to play a character that could have been played better by half-a-dozen American actors? And I'm a Hopkins fan! Sorry, it just doesn't work. Although it tries to be both a suspense and love story, it accomplishes neither. That's all the more frustrating when the end arrives with what I assume is an homage to Casablanca. The whole thing is poorly focused and generally weak, despite solid performances by Isabella and Scott.

faustian_jargon I quite liked this film. But probably because I think there are perhaps more important things than the manner in which Anthony Hopkins is miscast. You just have to overlook that. Campbell Scott is great and really carries the whole film. I really enjoyed the way the film was held together, the cinematography and the use of really bad American Music to get across the brashness and invasiveness of their culture even back then. If you've read books like Spycatcher you'll appreciate this film. On the other hand if you think Bond films are good, you'll most likely hate it. I would have liked the sex scenes to be more, shall we say 'fleshed out', they fade off all too quickly. It's very rare in popular film that you get good sex scenes that are filmed with warmth and tenderness. The use of lighting and angles is great. What got to me more than Hopkin's dodgy accent was the stupid female character. Can't we just forget reality for a bit and stop casting women as quivering idiots. Sure that's how they seem to behave in all important situations, but it's so annoying to be put through it over and over again. Let's have an intelligent female lead who decides she's going to take responsibility for her dumb, impulsive behaviour and make amends. As opposed to leaving everything up to the bloke and then running off with his friend. And did anyone notice that all the men around her drink heavily? I think this would be a good book and there's obviously stuff missing from the film, but still I give it 8/10.