User reviews

I notice that Netflix has this film listed under "Thrillers." It's not a thriller, but rather a fairly complex drama about what happens when people who are schooled not to trust anyone have almost unlimited power with no accountability. There's never a "stupid moment" in this film that reveals to us, the audience, or to Michael Caine as the protagonist, who the bad guys are or what they've done. We have to peel the layers off the onion along with Michael Caine. There is no James Bond ending in which the bad guys' island explodes and collapses into the sea. Instead, there is a real world ending tailored for adults. I liked the film.

Michael Caine has been involved in some stinkers in his career (let's face it every actor has to pay the bills); he has also made plenty of very good films and also plenty of films like 'The Whistle-Blower': an above average and very watchable drama of the second-rank. In fact it's Caine's solid acting (mostly low-key though he does get to fly off the handle in his own inimitable style a couple of times) which invests the film with believable emotion and elevates it above it's many clichés. The supporting cast is strong too; a cynical, amoral, self-serving and oft sinister intelligence industry is portrayed ably by Gordon Jackson, James Fox and John Gielgud.

It's a shame that the demands of marketing mean that a film is often plugged as something it isn't. In this case 'The Whistle-Blower' is not a thriller (in fact the one and only 'action' scene - a car crash -is pretty rubbish and looks a bit tacked on), and it is only superficially a story about cold-war espionage (there are plenty of references to Anthony Blunt et al, but it's no 'Smiley's People'). Essentially it's a drama about loss; a man's loss of faith (in this case in his country) and, of his son. I'd point any harsh detractors of this film to the scene where, soon after learning of his sons death, Jones (Caine) attempts to discuss what happened with his son's neighbour and colleague, Rose (Dinah Stabb), and I challenge them not to be moved and at the same time chilled by the exchange.

Yes, this film does have plenty of flaws. Cinematically it is pretty dull and dated; it has a bit of that naff 1970's/80's home-counties feel to it (though in some ways one could argue I suppose that this style aids in the depiction of the stolid, grey, snobby, repressed British establishment of the story... an establishment trying to cope with it's diminished, subservient place in the world while keeping up the public pretence that Britannia still rules the waves). It's full of clichés and undeveloped characters, and the screen-play has plenty of downs as well as ups; but credit where credit is due, it is at times thought provoking and engaging. It shouldn't be put down for trying to cram a lot of things in and so appearing sometimes a bit unsubtle as a result (as I said previously it's no 'Smileys People').

I felt compelled to follow Jones' journey through a cynical, venal and uncaring world, and in that fundamental manner, for me, the film is a success.

Michael Caine plays Frank Jones, a war veteran and patriotic British citizen who is shocked to learn about the mysterious death of his son, who had worked as a Russian translator for British Intelligence. Frank reluctantly becomes convinced that his own government had his son killed because he was going to "blow the whistle" on illegal and unethical behavior by his employers. Not deterred by the usual "national security" defense of the killers, Frank is determined to bring his son's killers to justice, whether it be by legal or illegal means...

First-rate conspiracy drama has fine acting by all, and Caine quite believable as the grieving and outraged father. Film makes thoughtful observations about government secrets, and the "who watches the watchers?" debate. Worth seeking out.

It was nice to see a film about cold war paranoia that was about the U.K. and not the U.S. Caine is very good, and the script is above average. A good thriller that doesn't resort to inane/unrealistic violence to keep interest.

"I still believe the man in the white hat always wins," Bob Jones (Nigel Havers) tells his father (Michael Caine). They'll both have reason to doubt that later on.

Caine plays Frank Jones, a man whose son works as a linguist at GCHQ. A mole for the Russians has been discovered, and since then, Bob Jones has become suspicious that something strange is going on, especially after there are a couple of "suicides." He confides in his father, who is concerned that Bob keep his job in a difficult economy, especially since he wants to marry a young woman with a child. She's in the process of getting a divorce.

When something happens to Bob, Frank tries to get to the bottom of it and learns some ugly truths, particularly when a journalist he is on his way to see meets with an unhappy end.

Michael Caine gives an excellent, touching performance as a man trying to make things right, and Nigel Havers is wonderful as his son. There are spot-on performances by James Fox, John Gielgud, Barry Foster, and Gordon Jackson in his final film.

Very good film, perhaps a bit dated now, with the British trying to keep the Americans as happy allies, and it doesn't give any final or easy answers. The novel was written in 1984, and this film was released in 1987.

A Brit on this board referred to this as a "Michael Caine filler" - I guess he has made a ton of films, but he's always worth seeing.

I'm surprised that this movie has not got more attention on the IMDb, of course it's dated which might be the problem. Another problem is that the film print comes across as dreary and dull, I don't know if it was a deliberate attempt by the film makers to do this but it just makes it harder to watch. It's not a young cast, on the contrary it's an old looking cast, although a fine collection of British character actors (some who are no longer with us) of a bygone age. In addition unless you are interested in British political culture, history and the antics of the cold war you will find this hard going even if you are a Michael Caine fan .There is a lot of dialog and the story line is a little confusing at times.

However, in the light of recent events, Britain always going along with the USA, the Butler report on Britains reason for war in Iraq and the apparent suicide of UN weapons inspector David Kelly a critic and skeptic of the US and Britains claim of Iraqi WMD programs, as well as recent accusations that Harold Wilsons Govt in the 1970's was to be overthrown in favor of a military government either at the bequest of the US or at least with their blessing;I thought that it might have aroused more interest.

This movie was released in 1986 ironically at the time when the cold war was winding down but the fictional events depicted in this film were surly inspired by the Anthony Blunt scandal, the Jeffrey Prime case at GCHQ ( a British intelligence listening post), as well as the Thatcher government banning trade union activity at GCHQ on the grounds of national security. The film depicts skepticism about Britains so called independent nuclear deterrent which totally relied on US authorization, the inequities in the so called "special relationship" and CIA/MI6 meddling in British politics. Also, bugging, internal spying on British citizens, lack of intelligence service oversight, secrecy and lastly hypocrisy or double standard when dealing with moles and traitors. All in all a Guardian readers 'wet dream'.

The conventional thinking was that all Soviet sympathizers and potential traitors were from the working class. Well the problem was they were not. Many top members of the British establishment working in the civil service and the intelligence services who had access to sensitive information loathed the USA and that the Suez fiasco back in 1956 was a turning point for many of them. Although It has to be said that many British double agents and soviet moles were not just motivated by that but were recruited as far back as the 1930's. Many students from in the "Oxbridge" University systems who were Britains best and brightest destined for great things were motivated by their hatred of the Nazi/fascism passed secrets onto the USSR during WWW II and well into the cold war. Suez may have vindicated their beliefs.

The movie implies that the if you were from the respected establishment or of a certain class of person the 'official secrets act' did not apply to you. You would be spared the indignity of a public trial and the humiliation of exposure, however it was a two edged sword because it cut both ways. It would also cause too many red faces at the top as well as creating difficulties in the 'special relationship'. They would leave you alone to continue with all the perks provided you kept quiet and cooperated with the powers that be. On the other hand lower down the food chain you were not so fortunate. Not only were you likely to be prosecuted through the normal channels but if you were really unlucky you might end up being a victim of a CIA death squad who quietly knock off suspected whistle blowers and possible troublemakers rather than go through a costly and public trial.

As for the film itself there is good cast all round and many of the characters are very believable in their respective roles. Frank Jones (Michael Caine) is not fobbed off by an sweetheart investigation into his sons death which concludes suicide. While conducting his own investigation, he discovers irregularities and soon suspects a cover up, but worse that his own countries security services might be involved in his sons death after all. Jones a lifetime committed patriot and former navy man he is shocked to learn of the lengths that the British establishment go to protect one of their own despite their treachery at the expense of less mortals! I highly recommend this movie, check it out!

This movie is among the last espionage and spy thrillers to be made during the decades of the Soviet Union and Cold War. "The Whistle Blower" won't be remembered far into the future, but some very great movies made in that time will be. Before finishing up on this film, a little review of the period and its subject settings might be of interest.

It's hard to imagine that anyone alive by 2020 would rue the demise of the U.S.S.R. But, since 1990 Hollywood has mostly lost a milieu that hosted a substantial sub-genre of films. The Cold War was the arena for action, mystery spy films. The world was its stage because the tentacles of the Soviet Union reached around the globe, just as Western trade, military security and humanitarian alliances did.

For the first couple of decades after World War II, many stories and movies came out about escapes through the Berlin Wall and other areas along the Iron Curtain. Then there were many films about espionage. Ian Fleming's stories about agent 007, James Bond, were started before the war, but continued until near the end of the century. Many of the James Bond films added another dimension of the fictional life of espionage with the Soviets. "From Russia With Love" of 1963, "You Only Live Twice" of 1967, and "Never Say Never Again" of 1983 starred Sean Connery. Others of half a dozen actors to play Bond included spy thrillers with the Russians - "The Spy Who Loved Me" of 1977 and "Moonraker" of 1979, with Roger Moore.

There were many other dramatic and action stories of espionage based on novels, some historical, others just fiction. Richard Burton starred in the 1965 classic, "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold." Michael Caine starred in two successive spy flicks in 1966 and 1967, "Funeral in Berlin" and "Billion Dollar Brain." Burt Lancaster made "Scorpio" in 1973, and Charles Bronson starred in the spy action thriller, "Telefon" of 1977.

Even comedies cashed in - so to speak, on Soviet Union relations and the Cold War. Four films remain among the best satires of all time. Two are before the U.S. got into WW II. "Ninotchka" of 1939 starred Greta Garbo and Melvyn Douglas, and "Comrade X" of 1940 starred Clark Gable and Hedy Lamarr. Then, well into the Cold War just before the Berlin Wall went up, James Cagney and Horst Buchholz starred in "One, Two, Three" in 1961. And three years later, the blockbuster satire, "Dr. Strangelove" came out. It starred Peter Sellers, George C. Scott and a host of other top actors.

Even mystery master filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock got into the making Soviet-era espionage thrillers. Another one of the great films of all time was "North by Northwest" of 1959 that starred Cary Grant, James Mason and Eva Marie Saint. In 1966, Hitchcock made "Torn Curtain" that starred Paul Newman and Julie Andrews; and in 1969, he made "Topaz" that starred Frederick Stafford and Dany Robin.

Some real-life stories of espionage were being uncovered or revealed during that time, but the movies on such spies as Kim Philby and the Cambridge Five wouldn't come out until the 21st century. And, of course there were TV movies and mini-series about Cold War espionage. But when the Soviet Union collapsed, the Cold War ended, and with it, the Iron Curtain fell. That was the barrier - on paper at first, and then in walls and high security fences that shut off Eastern Europe from the rest of the world. Winston Churchill had coined the name for it while riding a train at night in the U.S. to give a speech. On March 5, 1946, in his speech at Westminster College in Fulton, MO, Churchill used the term, "iron curtain."

"The Whistle Blower" is a British spy thriller in which Michael Caine's character, Frank Jones, shakes up England's intelligence hierarchy. Jones is a Royal Navy career retiree and veteran of the Korean War who starts digging after his son turns up dead. It was supposedly a suicide. But Jones had met with his son recently, and Bob (played by Nigel Havers) had told him that there was a mole in British intelligence.

Bob worked for GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters), and said he was going to quit because of the overly suspicious policies being imposed. He says it was so that MI6 would look trustworthy to the American CIA for handling the mole matter. But he says he's worried with what he's heard. He knows the Russian language and listens in on Soviet communications. While Frank thought he was overreacting, when Bob is reported dead from suicide, he decides to investigate himself.

There's plenty of action and intrigue as Frank uncovers the truth. It has a somewhat surprising ending, but one that most viewers may appreciate. This isn't anything along the lines of the best spy films, but those who enjoy this type of film should find it entertaining.

This 1986 spy thriller is a realistic thriller. Michael Caine gives a great performance as Frank, the father of a son that has died during mysterious circumstances. Frank embarks on his own investigation into his son´s death only to discover a British society that not is what it seems to be, under the surface. His investigation leads to the government and what they would do to protect it´s secret activities. The whistle blower is told in a slow yet thrilling pace. The plot is good, even though it is hard to follow from time to time, and the acting great. The production is very simple which makes the film realistic. The whistle blower is one of Caine´s better spy thrillers and is recommended for anyone into the spy genre. 7/10

The Whistle Blower tells a story which is likely to be obsolete nowadays. The end of the cold war rendered stories of this nature difficult to perceive but was written at a time when relations between the US and USSR were strained and scandals were rife in British Intelligence and at GCHQ.

The film tells the story of a jittery secret service heavily reliant on American information to help keep the soviets at bay. It demonstrates how the service would have reacted to the allegation that there were soviet agents within organisations such as GCHQ and how they may have been dealt with. The eventual reasoning is cruel and cold and leaves the watcher wondering if events like this really did take place at the time.

The Whistle Blower tells a good story which is easy to follow and comprehend. It is bolstered by a good cast but let down by poor direction making it staid in places.

The dreary plot in this film is made overly complicated by bad directing and poor editing. Caine, Fox, Gielgud and Havers have all been in much better films. Don't do as I did and watch this on the strength of the cast - they don't deliver, and if even they had it would not have rescued the trudging script of this thrill-less thriller. 3/10

"The Whistle Blower" is one of Michael Caine's more obscure movies. I was delighted, then, to find it on Amazon Prime and enjoyed it...though I must admit the film is somewhat low on energy and does improve as you watch...so stick with it!

In this story, Frank (Caine) is a Korean War vet and rather normal sort of guy. He loves his family, his country and has no complaints. However, his son comes to him and tells him that his top secret branch in the government is really a mess and he is planning on resigning. What, exactly, this means is unclear...but soon the son is found dead and it's ruled a suicide or an accident. Now considering what the son told Frank, he begins to wonder if his own government had a part in the young man's death. What's next? Watch and see.

As you'd expect, Caine is terrific. As for the story, it's also good but probably works better with older audiences as it has a lot to do with the Cold War. Still, regardless of your age, the script is quite good....just slow in building.

(1986) The Whistle Blower POLITICAL THRILLER

Based on a novel written by John Hale which doesn't showcase Michael Caine as Frank Jones right away, because the set up of Caine's character's importance wasn't required yet. At the start, a breach has been violated regarding the UK's national security, announced by the media that one of GCHQ's own employees, by the name of Ramsey 'Charles' Dodgson (Bill Wallis) had been caught trading secrets with the Russians. GCHQ is the initials of the branch who's objective is to secure all of the UK's confidential secrets, and that after this one guy's been caught, one of it's managers are requesting that if theirs any suspicion within it's co-workers that it would be their duty to report it. Anyway, the GCHQ also happens to be the facility Frank's(Michael Caine) son, Bob (Nigel Havers) works in too. Bob then asks his dad, Frank to come and see him, for the intention of being the first to hear that he has intentions to resign from working at there. And because Bob is also an idealist, he also suspects that theirs much more to the possibility that the arrest of Ramsey is much more complicated than what the public is lead to believe. Later, Ramsey Charles Dodge's friends by the name of Stephen Berry Kedge (Peter Miles) had been pushed to his death while waiting for a subway train, who was later pronounced as an unfortunate accident. But because Bob suspects something since he believes that the so-called accident is too much of a coincidence, he then suspects that theirs a possible cover-up. And it was then Frank finds out that his son had been found dead, with suspicions that it had something to do with his son's involvement about exposing the possibilities that there's probably more to the story than Ramsey Charles Dodgson getting caught. Whenever there's a movie about people of authority or in this case, gov't it's always fascinating stuff since you're always wondering about the possibilities involving governments handling the peoples money.

This is a great classic film for those Michael Caine fans. A former military man (Caine) is notified his son has tied. Originally clarified as an accident or suicide, he believes he was murdered. His son had worked for British intelligence service, so his father presumes there is a connection as some things didn't add up. Michael Caine's character self-proclaims he is just a normal dude but is really skilled at cleverly extracting information from people to help lead him to uncovering the truth. Will he uncover the truth or die trying? This is a straight-shooting film carried by Michael Cane. Enjoyable and entertaining yet a tad plain.

Since most of the previous reviews have done a good job of addressing the plot I will refrain from repeating that here. The performances are top notch and the basic premise is very good, but the lackluster direction coupled with an almost laughable musical scoring by John Scott pull the film down. Michael Caine and the supporting cast do a wonderful job with the screen play and are very believable in their roles. I found the pacing and very "British" dialog to be minor issues. The music is another matter. I found it very distracting and to my ears, misplaced and unimaginative. The score brought the film down by several points for me.

Some time ago I bought this movie for just 3 euro's. This low price was probably already a secret sign saying: 'Don't buy this one boy...!!' But still, Michael Caine starred in it..a respectable actor...I gave it a try.

I put it in the DVD player and pushed the play button.

What followed was a period of 100 minutes. In that period I underwent various moments of just nothing...

This movie has no story, no goal, no suspense , no action, just nothing. Just meaningless dialogues and strange people.

Now I am a nice and positive guy but this film really has to be one of the lousiest movies EVER made.

My suggestion: don't watch

it's always a joy to watch michael caine . He makes acting seem effortless as he becomes his character. As for this wonderful and very thought provoking film,

read Roger Ebert's review on this site. He expresses everything I felt about this film perfectly.. with writing that I could never hope to equal.. I 'll only add that the scene of all of the old veterans marching and wearing their medals moved me to tears. Every role. every scene. is perfect. A film you will remember for a long time.