Avaliações de usuários

If you like intricate plots, this is a good flick to watch. To catch all the details, though, I recommend watching it twice. Surprising how much more sense the story makes the second time around. The details fit together like a find Swiss watch. To catch all the heavy British accent dialog, consider enabling subtitles.

Atmosphere: superb. Acting: outstanding. Cinematography: wonderful. Soundtrack: very nice.

Still, I didn't like this film. And that's because of its only weak point: the storyline. I have never read the book it is based on, nor seen the television series, and I completely lost track of the intricacies of the plot. I had only a vague idea of what was going on, where the story was headed and what the time perspective was (indications of the years in the flashbacks would be helpful).

I watched this movie late on a Friday night after a busy working week, so maybe I wasn't as sharp as I should be. You have to be absolutely concentrated every single second to understand everything that happens in this film.

Perhaps the movie was not meant to be crystal clear, and perhaps the director wants the viewer to discover all the subtleties after a second or third viewing. But then you are left with lots of scenes in which middle-aged men with stiff upper lips exchange what seems to be incomprehensible inside information. The lack of much real action might be a plus for viewers who like serious films, but it's a disadvantage when you lose track of what is actually happening.

There is a certain snobbery with films that require more than a small amount of attention – an opinion that if you even ask about a small detail that you missed that you should then go watch Transformers and leave real films to the grownups. It is unpleasant superiority and it is mostly undeserved because to be honest this is a hard film to follow and it does demand attention. Those wishing to insult me via private message can do so, but I did struggle several times to understand how things fitted together and what relevance certain scenes had. This didn't limit my enjoyment of the film though and mostly I still followed the broad stroke of the plot, even if some bits of it did lose me.

I've not read the tome of a book or seen the BBC mini-series, so I can't comment how well it compresses down to this two-hour film, but for me it did at times seem to be cramming a lot into a small time and occasionally it felt like it was unnecessarily convoluted or confusing. If you stay with it as best you can, it is intriguing and rather dramatic considering that much of the film is people talking to one another as opposed to chases and gun fights. The success of this is mostly down to the atmosphere and tone created by director Alfredson, because there is a constant tension to the film – cold perhaps, but very tense at times, certainly not bored even if it can look that way from a distance.

This is not what he does best though, because to there was an aspect to the film that was excellent and this was the feeling of outdatedness, of an unnecessary function and a pointless "war". This feeling is in the characters, in the set-decoration and in every shot. The men we follow had the height of their import many years ago – now it appears they are mainly fighting their equal numbers on the other side simply because they exist. I really liked this overarching sense of smallness that sat across the film and I enjoyed finding it being employed in even the smallest detail – in the attitude of a minor character through to the cheap "do not unplug" text scrawled on the wall (those that work in older offices will know this feeling). Alfredson is bang on the money with this feeling, it is part of the story and it is brilliantly delivered throughout.

Speaking of brilliant delivery, the cast is deep in British talent and unsurprisingly they deliver. Oldman may not have won the Oscar but he is great here – working with restraint and doing so much. He does so much with minor reactions and movements and he is a great character. He is the lead here but alongside him is a cast that is hard not to just list – Cumberbach, Hurt, Jones, Firth, Burke, Graham, Hardy and so on; British all perhaps but it says a lot that almost all of the supporting players here will be recognised internationally. Everyone gives strong performances and everyone seems to understand what Alfredson is doing.

Overall, this is a great film albeit one that is not as easy to follow as those impatient snobs would have you believe. It is OK to struggle with some aspects and it is still easy to enjoy the film. The plot engaged me but what stayed with me more than anything else was how it all seemed so unimportant, how those involved were all working to ignore the irrelevance of their work and how very tired this world seemed – this aspect was very well done and made the film as much as Oldman's strong central performance.

Forty-six year old Swedish director Tomas Alfredson came to prominence three years ago when he directed the film adaptation of John Ajvide Lindqvist's novel 'Let The Right One In'. After the initial success of the vampiric romantic drama, Alfredson became attached to an international adaptation of John le Carre's espionage-novel 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy'. Based on aspects of le Carre's (also known as David Cornwell) experiences during his time as a member of the British Intelligence service sectors MI5 and MI6 during the 1950s and 1960s, Alfredson creates a fine, absorbing picture which engrosses from beginning to end.

Control (John Hurt), the leader of an unknown sector of the British Intelligence service, is ousted along with his long-standing companion George Smiley (Gary Oldman) due to a botched operation in Budapest, Hungary which saw the officer Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong) murdered in public. Control was under the impression that there was a mole among the top ranking members of the service, referred to as the Circus by the other top ranking members due to its location in Cambridge Circus, London, and Smiley is drawn out of retirement to pinpoint the culprit after Control passes away. Alongside the young Intelligence officer Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch), Smiley has four primary candidates to focus his investigation upon; they are the last remaining members of the Circus, Bill Haydon (Colin Firth), Percy Alleline (Toby Jones), Roy Bland (Ciaran Hinds) and Toby Esterhase (David Dencik).

Utilizing an all-star, established cast, Alfredson allows the film to unfold at an almost flawless pace. Every sequence contains a small snippet of information which allows the viewer to conduct their own investigation alongside that of Smiley's. While the narrative is also driven along by strong performances from the primarily male cast, Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Toby Jones, Ciaran Hinds, David Dencik, Stephen Graham and Kathy Burke all give strong, commanding performances. While the true artists of the piece are Benedict Cumberbatch, who plays the young, and somewhat naive intelligent officer assigned to assist Smiley. John Hurt as the aging, instinct-driven leader of the British service, and Tom Hardy, who is Ricki Tarr the dirty cleaner for British intelligence's most fowl operations. Their performances go above and beyond in their supporting roles, and at times eclipse Gary Oldman's subdued portrayal of a man drawn back into the murky world of corruption, betrayal and treasure.

Alongside the narrative and its cast, one of the more surprising aspects of the film, is Alfredson, Cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema and Editor Dino Jonsater's use of stylistic nuances that further enhance the viewing experience. Lingering close-up shots of seemingly insignificant objects and shallow focus shots constantly evoke the nature of mystery and intrigue which surrounds such clandestine organisations. Alfredson never rushes any moment, instead he allows for the audience to become accustomed to their surroundings and appreciate their beauty. Wide angle shots and long lenses are used for interior and exterior locations, showcasing the breakdowns of their interiors, while close-up shots are used to examine objects and characters in their most frail states. During the opening sequence involving Prideaux's botched secret mission, a simple concoction of jump cuts and lingering static shots concentrating upon various characters within the vicinity creates a sense of the tension, suspense and vulnerability of the situation and this is how Alfredson constantly keeps the audience engrossed. By providing those observing the action on screen with just enough information that they themselves become entwined within Smiley's investigation as he moves forward.

Once the credits and a dedication to the films screenwriter Bridget O'Connor who passed away last year finish, the viewer is left with an overriding sense of satisfaction. Smiley's world is a far cry away from the glitz and glamour that the espionage genre has become accustomed to. There are no martinis in sight, but only reel upon reel of bureaucratic wrangling, childish bickering and greed-induced deal-making, where it seems everybody is working for themselves and their reputation rather than the nation's government that is employing them. Since its premiere at the 68th Venice International Film Festival 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy' has been touted as an Oscar contender and it is easy to understand why, Tomas Alfredson has taken a solid source novel, utilized an established cast and infused the final concoction with elements from his own visual repertoire to create a wonderfully crafted film that does the original BBC televised series justice.

You know. When you are dealing with a complex writer like LeCarre, you are going to get a complex movie. Unfortunately, to the casual viewer, there's an awful lot that is going on that is grounded in the long dark past. While the story of the search for a mole in the network is a valid pivot point, there are so many intricacies that you are left to guess. Perhaps I am not that bright, but I need a bit more. I guess the question is, do I need a George Smiley playbook or a stack of books to follow this film. If that's the case, how many people can appreciate this? The time period in issue is really in the fairly distant past. I have to agree that so much of what we see is really dumbed down, but when the plots are so slowly developed and depend on so much inside stuff, even the astute viewer is left in the lurch. It isn't that I didn't like it. But I may have to give it another shot to really appreciate it.

I love this movie. I have found that everyone in my household also loves this film. This includes people from the baby boomer generation, Gen X, and a teenager. The hazy, monochromatic tone and slow pace gradually draws you into another time and every time I watch it I discover new details, hints and clues that were previously missed. Yes, it is a little confusing the first time you watch it, but ride it out. Watch it again. I guarantee you'll grow an appreciation for it.

Fans of mystery writer John LeCarre will be delighted with this artistic "film noir" style interpretation of his best selling spy novel "Tinker Tailer Soldier Spy". Performances by Gary Oldman as the quietly brilliant George Smiley and Colin Firth as a mysterious leading character create all the viewer should need to enjoy this movie; but, having read LeCarre's book helps, as watching the artistry of the film goes only so far. Eventually, the viewer must come to an understanding of the plot- a story about the way clandestine operations were executed, figuratively and otherwise, in the days post Cold War. Lots of Sherlock Holmes ponder- thinking goes into Smiley's ultimate conclusions, which makes this story a classic. Oldman is the perfect Smiley, so he kept the often confusing script together, simply by bringing LeCarre's lead spy to life. I recommend this movie but also suggest the viewer enjoy LeCarre's book prior to viewing. Wonderful performances throughout the film.

I have been eagerly awaiting this production for a long time and have not been disappointed. Never have I seen such a compilation of such fabulous performances together. No way is this another James Bond, it is how the world of espionage was, and is today. No car chases in Aston Martins or gadgets but a world of seedy little offices and the grim reality of this genre. What had the greatest impact on myself was the slow deep menace conveyed by all. Difficult to single out any one performance as all were amazing but I particularly admired Gary Oldman, Mark Strong and Tom Hardy for their work. At times this film has some unexpected moments of shocking cruelty. Complex character portrayal is presented in a slow deep style that only inspires you to know more about the person. The story itself is a classic and known by many, yet this production introduces a few changes which work well. One of the most absorbing and classy movies I have seen and has left a lasting impact on me. Please, please, please, make Smiley's People now.

John Le Carre is without doubt one of the literary greats of the late 20th Century . A master of complex story telling his novels are often composed of characters standing around discussing complicated geo-political situations and the human condition . This means that his novels are fundamentally uncinematic , a fact reflected that so little of his work has been adapted to the silver screen . With this adaptation of his 1974 novel I doubt if anyone was expecting a James Bond thriller and I know I wasn't but even so you're struck as to how a Le Carre thriller doesn't lend itself to mainstream cinema

You can't fault the film for its production values . It contains a who's who of prestigious big hitting British character actors such as Oldman , Hurt and Firth alongside up and coming peers such as Hardy and Cumberbatch . We also get a host of under rated actors in Strong and Burke and at a casting level none of this can be faulted . The look of the film is fantastic with the brownish dull hues reflecting both Communist Eastern Europe and run down Britain in the early 1970s and a day after seeing the movie my abiding memory of the film is the cinematography

The problem is that - and I'm afraid to admit this - is that I didn't have a clue what was going on most of the time . A British agent is shot and caputured in Hungary and MI6 believes he was set up by a mole . I understood this but then we cut to a character after character discussing who the mole might be , do we have a mole and we don't have a mole and very soon I was very lost . This film topped the film charts in Britain for a grand total of three weeks and one suspects by way of a backhanded compliment many people went to the cinema for a second and third time in order to unravel the plot . This is all well and good but illustrates the fact highly regarded novels often don't lend themselves to great cinema . Let's not forget two of the most memorable movies of the 1970s THE GODFATHER and JAWS were based on novels dismissed as trash

This film is set in London in the 1970s. Apparently, the plot is about the British Secret Service trying to a find a double agent in their ranks who also works for the Soviet Union . The film is based on the novel by John Le Carré.

I truly have no idea what the hell this movie was about. Scene after scene, the execution looked fine but I was lost most of the way. I tried to understand the plot by reading it on Wikipedia but I was still confused.

As the film is highly acclaimed, I felt I had missed out on something until I read an excerpt from a dissenting reviewer Peter Hitchens of The Mail on Sunday who wrote that the plot would be too baffling for viewers who had not read the book, and that the film's makers had "needlessly messed it up". Another quote: "Unfortunately, the plot is every bit as bewildering with an overload of spy-speak, a few too many characters to keep track of and a final act that ends with a whimper, rather than a bang."

So perhaps I would have gained more if I had read the novel. Likewise, this film is a condensed version of a previous adaptation that had been made into a seven-part TV mini-series. In the past, I did attempt a Le Carré novel in the 1980s, "The Little Drummer Girl" and gave up after about fifty pages. Maybe this is just not my thing though I've enjoyed other spy movies in the past. - dbamateurcritic.

I've seen this film many times. With each viewing I've come to love it even more. I love a great spy film and this one hits all of the notes for me.

The first episode of the BBC series sets the tone perfectly, introducing the key players and telling us what kind of people they are, all by just having them enter a room for a meeting without saying a word. The trouble with the movie version is that we never get the chance to know the characters. They are faceless people with difficult names and we don't care which one of them is the bad guy. I have read the book at least three times, seen the TV series twice and was still totally confused by the movie. Anyone who hasn't read the book, I would suggest, doesn't stand a chance. The grimy landscape around the Hotel Islay was nicely done. But why make every scene grimy? Where was the circus? Where were the lights of Shaftsbury Avenue? Where were the green fields around Jim Prideaux's prep school? The key scene with Connie Sachs is destroyed by a totally out-of-place crudity and the climax, when the mole is revealed, is thrown away with zero drama. What was going on?

It really is interesting to read the above reviews. I've just come back from seeing it and thoroughly enjoyed it, but I wondered if for people who hadn't read the book or seen the TV series it would make sense, and obviously it doesn't. It also doesn't fit the change in perception that the current generation have needing an edit at least every 5 seconds and a linear storyline, that's not ageist, just what we in a much older generation have left as our inheritance, sadly. I really enjoyed the film references whether they are intentional or not, they range from Rear Window to La Nuit Americaine to Mr Bean's Holiday to Godard. Gary Oldman as Smiley is very good, much colder that AG and as in the book a bit younger. It is also less of the feel of a group of Oxbridge Dons in charge rather ex servicemen as MI5 was in those days. I was in my 20's in the early 1970's and the general dullness of everything during that time comes through very well. I would think that after they edited it they wished they hadn't had some rather crass graffiti so prominent, but I remember it was all over London at that time. Good film with a plot that makes you concentrate and you have to use your brain, well worth seeing, but don't go if you want thrills and spills.

Boldly announcing himself upon the stage of international cinema with 2009's Let the Right One In, the significant critical and commercial acclaim accorded director Thomas Alfredson clearly proved him a filmmaker capable of pulling off high quality adaptations of complex and dark literary sources.

Called back into service to uncover the identity of a Soviet mole at the height of the Cold War, retired British intelligence operative George Smiley is tasked with unwinding a vastly convoluted web of conspiracy, codenames, double agents, and deceit.

The movement from relatively low-budget foreign language filmmaking to helming star casts in comparably costly productions is one that, historically, holds significant risk for directorial careers. Add to the mix the danger of bringing a much-loved novel to life on screen, and Alfredson is certainly faced with a substantial task. An espionage thriller, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy—based on John le Carré's book—throws an extremely layered narrative at its audience and insists they keep up, making little in the way of allowance for those accustomed to excess plot exposition. Concerning an approximate dozen key characters—most of whom go by at least two names—the film contains a considerable quantity of raw information to be processed, particularly considering its reserved pace; the camera scrolls slowly across the screen in step with the story's measured progression, constantly moving along yet never losing the integral tension of its hastelessness. Alfredson and screenwriters Bridget O' Connor and Peter Straughan demonstrate a keenness for the more tensely-oriented end of the genre, delving into an atmosphere of unease rather than one of brisk spy action. There is almost an air of claustrophobia to much of the film, the caliginous cinematography and mysterious score combining to evoke an aura of noir paranoia. Much like Let the Right One In, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy boasts a thrilling visual panache; indeed, Hoyte van Hoytema's cinematography is oftentimes so remarkably involving that entire scenes may pass by without any absorption of the dialogical details disclosed therein—the brain is simply too overcome by the aesthetic bombardment of visual pleasure to decipher the explicit aural signals. One particular shot—an extreme close-up of Smiley's wearied face draped in shadow— affords the audience the time to study the furrowed ridges of his forehead and the weighted bags of his eyelids, giving us an entitled sense of knowledge of, and familiarity with, this character. It seems almost redundant to offer praise to the film's extraordinary cast; a brief glance at the list of exemplary names will disclose the sheer calibre of talent on display: a veritable dream team of the finest names of modern British cinema. From Firth to Hurt, Hardy to Cumberbatch, Oldman to Dencik, the phenomenal cast plays beautifully together, each actor inhabiting their character with award-courting flair. Where Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy really shines is in its characterisation—an all-too often underutilised aspect in this genre—each of them distinctly human rather than simply mouths through which the plot developments are channelled. Their primary concern may be with their espionage, but ours is with them: exploring their motivations; their private lives; their loyalties; and just how a career like theirs affects an existence. A recurring Christmas party scene revisited a number of times throughout the film reminds us regularly that these intelligence agents are not solely extensions of the government's facilities, but rather human beings with emotions, afflicted by the agonies of their toils, burying themselves in vodka-laced punch to just get away from it all.

Hitting all the right notes in its performances, script, and direction, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy triumphantly infuses a challengingly multifarious narrative with a deeper humanity, questioning by proxy the way in which devotion to duty affects all aspects of our lives. Shot with unforgettable effulgence—committing to memory eternal every last contour of Oldman's storied brow—it is a genuine achievement in cinematic storytelling.

Jazz music comes from musicians "playing around the notes". In other words, instead of playing the root notes on the downbeat, they deliberately omit the obvious melody, and fill in the spaces with embellishments that suggest the primary structure. For the educated ear, the way the musician artfully colours between the lines is the source of entertainment. As a moviegoer, I don't mind being presented a puzzle, where you have to think a bit at how the movie is playing around the more conventional spy thriller notes. Strangely, this well heeled story may have become more of a jigsaw puzzle with many pieces missing purely because of the running time. Reportedly the running time was much longer in the original cut, so these holes in the story may have been cut out of necessity.

I am writing this review after watching it a second time, and can say that all the motives and activities are accounted for. I have to commend screenwriters as well as the editor for patching together a complex but intricately told tale. Part of the fun is being aware of the ride you are being taken on. For instance, George Smiley, our main character, is seen a great deal of time without every actually speaking. And when he does speak, it is very calculated, since he doesn't know quite who to trust. There is a subtext about secret sexual relationships, where Smiley's wife appears in a couple scenes but you never see her face. The main group of suspects are a who's who of familiar faces from some of the best films in the last decade. The supporting cast delivers poignant exposition and avoids stereotype dialogue. I could easily see how someone may not like the longer gaps in explanation as to why a certain character appears to be dead and suddenly is alive in an unexpected way. But a similar type of mystery surrounds each of the main characters, and is eventually played out as part of the larger payoff, who is the traitor in the British intelligence service? The greatest appreciation one can have is the ability of the filmmakers to tell a story this complex using visual cues as much as possible. Key moments in the story are told with spare conversation, allowing the audience to mentally piece together what is implied. The stone faced hero played by Gary Oldman, is akin the quiet hero, such as the tight lipped vigilante gunslinger, who carefully carries out justice.

I am an avid film-watcher, but I could not make out what was happening at all. Although I hate those subtitles that tell you where the action is taking place, I gradually began to miss them as the film went on! A great cast, wonderful feel and colour to the film, cinematography, set design - all excellent. But I would like someone with a pen and paper to explain who was who, and their interconnections........ even which side they were on!!

Going into watching this film, I had recently watched the BBC adaptation, which is a master piece of television. So when I review this film, it is in comparison with the BBC version from 1979.

Firstly I have to talk about the Mise en scène. The film is set in 1973 and everything is made to feel drab, desaturated and used, as if the 60s never happened. The feeling is that Britain is old, not the power that it once was, where bureaucracy is beginning to take over and everyone is feeling negative.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy has a very strong cast and I think, mostly everyone does very well. Gary Oldman is one of my favourite actor and his portrayal of George Smiley is one of the most subtle and destingished performances I have seen from an actor, He is soft spoken, often letting his gestures and movements do the talking. Tom Hardy again shows that he is one of the best up and coming actors, dominates his scenes, with skill and vigour, that never goes over the top. It actually show the skill that Gary Oldman has that he doesn't feel the need to compete and it reinforces the gravitas that his character has.

Benedict Cumberbatch is good in his role, though I don't always feel that he has a toughness that his character should have. Kathy Burke handles a very hard role well, though she isn't in the film for long and her scene doesn't feel as important, as I feel it should. The role of Control is probably the most over the top and for me works the least well. Mark Strong gives a good performance but I would have liked to see slightly more of his character.

John Hurt tries very hard as a man running out of time but the character feels forced and doesn't quite work. I am not sure if this is down to the acting of just the way the character was originally written.

With the four members of the top of the circus, I have mixed views. The film starts to try and build the four of them up but then fails to keep the early momentum going. I think the acting is well done, though Toby Jones character isn't nearly as pompous as I would have liked and David Dencik just breaks down to easily towards the end. Ciarán Hinds is a very strong actor but he isn't given enough to do which does leave a problem. Colin Firth plays the most likable character in the entire film and does a good job, coming over as friendly and reliable.

I am not a fan of films where the cinematography is particularly noticeable and this is one of the more distracting things for me with the new version of the film. Hoyte Van Hoytema is a very talented director of photography and is quite amazing, for me Oscar worthy if you enjoy it. But I just found that the constant use of and changing of depth of field, especially in the first half of the film was too artsy. It didn't help much with the pacing of the film, which I will go onto in a while. The score by Alberto Iglesias is very underplayed but perfectly fits the tone of the film, never distracting and extremely subtle. There is also a very interesting moment in the film where is played which although from the 1930s works very well.

Tomas Alfredson is a good director and I suspect a very good actors director, bringing out some very good performances. I cannot give complete praise though. Scenes don't always seem to flow as well as I would have liked, in conjunction with the cinematography there is a lot of lingering around, where nothing his happening, which is meant to show a character contemplating but is just slow.

In the end though the biggest problem with the film is time, Bridget O'Connor and Peter Straughan have done a sterling job of trying to adapt John le Carré book, but I just don't feel that they can succeed in the time allowed for a film. There are just so many little things that the film has to either cut or condense, and some of the characters are never given the space that they need, to build up the tension that is needed for a 'who done it'.

The film is not bad, in fact it is good. It cannot compete with the BBC series though and how ever good Gary Oldman, he runs up against the classic performance Alec Guinness gave in the role. If you have not seen the BBC series, I would suggest watching the film first and then watching the TV series because it is the definitive version of the story and also leads to Smiley's People which for me is even better.

The acting was first-rate. The adaptation was horrible. There are so many holes in the plot I felt as though I missed the first 15 minutes of the movie......you know, the part where we're supposed to see the birth of the story line and some character development. Anyone who wasn't already familiar with the book would be completely lost. It's like I was watching part 2 of a two-part miniseries without having seen part 1. It was beyond disjointed. Did Cirian Hinds even have any lines in the movie?? He was in scene after scene but I don't remember him saying anything.

In any case, I was hugely disappointed in this film. The BBC miniseries with Alec Guiness is vastly superior.

Freezing. John Le Carre's spy story has a new version. Tomas Alfredson the Swedish director of the chillingly great "Let The Righ On In" understands the British climate. Impersonal raincoats wore by the very personal Gary Oldman are only part of the story. An undercurrent of passionate wheelings and dealings with poker face players makes for an engrossing tale that allows us some kind of distance. The production design is a masterpiece on its on. Just look at the wallpapers. I'm not going to venture into the actual plot but the performances. Gary Oldman is superb in a slightly younger and more virile version of Alec Guinness who played George Smiley in a celebrated British miniseries in 1979. Colin Firth's bisexual turn brings a dark sort of lightness to the proceedings. Tom Hardy is also superb as are Mark Strong and John Hurt. If you're a Le Carre fan you'll be enthralled, if you're not you may become one.

Those more accustomed to a 'modern' spy thriller may be overwhelmed by Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, which is a slow pace, well acted spy drama, full of interconnected sub-plots, over a dozen characters, and a mere one or two action sequences (all low key, realistic affairs). Thus, modern spy fans may well be disappointed; overwhelmed with the chronology defying story and bored with the film's snail's pace. But of course, this does not make Tinker, Tailor a bad film, but rather something very different from what modern audiences are used to.

Tinker tailor is a strange kind of film; marketed as a thriller, it is in fact a story driven drama which keeps espionage and spying to such a minimum that at times one would struggle to even call it a spy film. James bond it is not; it is far darker and infinitely more realistic. Yet equally it is also in no way similar to the Bourne franchise, Bond's darker brother. In fact, Tinker Tailor has more in come with a character driven drama than any modern spy film.

I entered the film with no prior knowledge of the film or it's source material (or previous adaptations for that matter), other than its basic plot line; that is, a retired spy (Oldman, on top form) is brought back into British Intelligence (Circus) to investigate the existence of a mole working for the Russians. This simple premise is quickly elaborated on, and I found that, with my lack of knowledge of the source material, combined with the films casual and frequent use of the flashback without warning, that I quickly lost track of the plot. Characters are brought in, disguised as main characters, and then never seen from again until much later in the film. Names are thrown around but as the audience is not that familiar with them it is easy to lose track of who is who, and perhaps worst of all, the huge ensemble cast means that each character (even , criminally, Oldman) is given little screen time and thus almost all our underdeveloped. I would have preferred the film to have been a bit longer, to allow all the characters to fully develop. This character development is never fully achieved, and so by the end of the film, it is hard for the viewer to even care about whom the mole is, and thus the final reveal is a real let down, with no tension or shock accompanying it

Fortunately, the film is about more than just the final reveal of who the mole is; the journey is equally important, and at times, this journey is incredibly exciting. Standout scenes include Cumberbatch's (again, underused, considering his ability) sneaky attempt at retrieving a file from Circus (one of the films few tense scenes), and the brilliant ending scene with the juxtaposed soundtrack. In fact, it is a shame that the film didn't have a few more scenes like the final one, which had a real scenes of fun and style, despite the violent and serious events portrayed .

Moreover, anyone going to see the film with even a slight interest in cinema, will instantly realise the cast is a magnificent one; in fact it was really the cast that drew me to the film in the first place. Oldman is terrific, and it is good to see him in a meaty starring role again. In addition, there is an abundance of well known names including Colin Firth and John Hurt, and some relative newcomers; specifically Tom Hardy and Benedict Cumberbatch. All play their roles to perfection; it is hard to think of even a single weak link.

Thus, the film in theory should be a good one; a great cast, combined with some excellent scenes, and an intriguing plot that demands multiple viewing. However, in practice, the overall package is a real let down. As previously mentioned, the film is very hard to follow for someone who has no prior knowledge of the source material. The complex plot is not helped by multiple flashbacks, and a huge cast of characters. I found it exhausting to keep track of the plot, and judging from the audience response in my screening (a handful of people walked out), I am not alone in thinking this. Thus, on first viewing, for a person in my position, this film is very much a disappointing one. The film is not quite what one would call a 'mess', but it is certainly all over the place.

But, that does not mean it should not be seen; the complexity of the plot demands multiple viewings, and I can imagine it would be incredibly rewarding to watch the film over and over again, slowly piecing it together. Therefore, I would recommend that people in my position give the film a miss in the cinema, and instead get it as soon as possible on DVD; watch it once, then immediately watch it again.

However, this will not affect everyone. I want to reassure all fans of the source material who have not seen the film, that they will more than likely enjoy this film, which I understand is a faithful adaptation. A fan will have no trouble following the film, and thus will be able to overcome my main problem with it.

In summary, it is hard to recommend someone with no knowledge of the plot go and watch this film in the cinema; they will more than likely be, at the very least, slightly overwhelmed. However, I have no fears about recommending this film to those already comfortable with the plot; do not let my slightly sow review score put you off; this is merely my opinion (an outsiders opinion). It is more than likely that overtime, with repeat viewings, this film with gain a star or two, but, for now, I must give it only an above average rating of six stars.