Support NeoGAF

[bob page]

Saw this last night and enjoyed it, but not as much as I would have hoped.

The acting/directing/cinematography were all fantastic, best cast of 2011 by far. The story, however, was quite simple- just told in an overly complex and convoluted way. I get that they wanted to imply things were happening rather than spoon-feeding them down the audience's throat, but I think it was a bit too excessive.

Seeing this film makes me really want a new Bond movie set in the 60's/70's with espionage over action.

 

[Peru]

How is the story simple? The plot is there's a mole. That's quite simple. But the characters and their backstories are not simple at all, and they're the point.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

I saw this a while back and really didn't enjoy it. There wasn't any sense of rising action or a climax and the characters were all so bland that it was hard to care for any of them. I think I just have a hard time sympathizing with old, bitter white guys. The only thing I really liked were some of the stylistic homages to similar films from the 70's.

 

[Biff]

All these comments about pacing come with caveats. The pacing was good... for the material. The pacing was good... compared to the 7 hour TV show.

Can anyone say the pacing was good... compared to Dragon Tattoo?

Spoiler

That's a rhetorical question by the way.

I will take many people's advice to rewatch it though. Hopefully before the Oscars.

 

[Ken Masters]

saw the movie last night, wow this movie was incredibly slow in many parts

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

All these comments about pacing come with caveats. The pacing was good... for the material. The pacing was good... compared to the 7 hour TV show.

Can anyone say the pacing was good... compared to Dragon Tattoo?

Spoiler

That's a rhetorical question by the way.

I will take many people's advice to rewatch it though. Hopefully before the Oscars.

With the huge caveat that I have not seen Dragon Tattoo, I have heard it described in different reviews as "excruciating" and "interminable". So some critics have major issues with Dragon Tattoo's pacing. Speculatively, I have no earthly idea why that movie would need to be 160 minutes long, and if it slavishly includes the bookends from the novel, I could see it having major "pacing" problems.

I know it was a rhetorical question (for some reason), but it seems like a weird choice for a slam-dunk "briskly edited" comparison.

And I had no significant problem with the rhythms of TTSS. I just sank into the atmosphere and absorbed it. It's not a caveat to say it's paced well enough for the material. Does it move like... I don't know, DIE HARD? Well, no. Does everything need to?

 

[flyover]

How is the story simple? The plot is there's a mole. That's quite simple. But the characters and their backstories are not simple at all, and they're the point.

While I agree with you, I understand why bob page (and others) would feel that way. Ever since The Usual Suspects and The Sixth Sense, we've grown accustomed to every thriller or mystery from the last 15 years having twists and double-crosses and a whole bunch of nothing-is-what-it-seems.

That's not TTSS, nor is it supposed to be. However, if that's what people go in expecting or wanting -- and it's perfectly understandable that they would, given the current trends in film storytelling -- they're likely to be disappointed.

 

[Femmeworth]

Just got back from seeing it with my sister. I can say that I've fallen asleep during a movie now. >_> That musical score. My sister said she almost fell asleep too. I'll have to wait for the home video release so I can make sense of it all, though my sister tried to fill me in. From what I saw, which was most of it, it seemed like a well made movie. Can't really have an opinion on it until I've actually seen all of it.

 

[brianjones]

Saw this last night and enjoyed it, but not as much as I would have hoped.

The acting/directing/cinematography were all fantastic, best cast of 2011 by far. The story, however, was quite simple- just told in an overly complex and convoluted way. I get that they wanted to imply things were happening rather than spoon-feeding them down the audience's throat, but I think it was a bit too excessive.

Seeing this film makes me really want a new Bond movie set in the 60's/70's with espionage over action.

yeah i agree with this.. it wasn't as great as i was hoping it would be.

well made, looked nice, great cast.. but wasn't very thrilling

the book so far fills in a lot of details that i found hard to latch onto in the movie

 

[Amir0x]

Really good movie. Not QUITE as good as I was led to believe, but was an extremely well directed movie with fairly good pacing. You just need to stick with it to get to the meat, and what a overall fantastic set of unravels.

 

[Drakken]

Just came back from Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and I don't really know what to think of the movie. The movie was extremely well-shot and the acting was seriously top-notch, but the coldness of the entire movie was too patience-draining. You don't really get to care about any character (except for maybe Tom Hardy's), and the plodding pacing didn't do the movie any favours, especially in the beginning. It gets better as you get more familiarized with the characters and when the puzzle pieces are arranged slowly, but the end of the movie fizzles out completely when they could've made it into a more captivating reveal.

Still, it's an alright movie and I can see why people like it, but I need some time to digest it. Right now, I didn't find it too appealing.

I saw this a while back and really didn't enjoy it. There wasn't any sense of rising action or a climax and the characters were all so bland that it was hard to care for any of them.

Gotta say this pretty much sums up my feelings. The performances were great across the board, no doubt, but I just didn't find the movie very satisfying. I think a second viewing would help (though I don't really feel like seeing it again), as I would be ready for the somewhat unconventional pacing and structure. I also found myself unsure of who was who (name-wise) at times; should have paid more attention to the names from the beginning.

I didn't think they fleshed a lot of the characters out amazingly well though, obviously due to the running time - perhaps annoyingly with the length of time spent on some scenes/transitions just designed to look pretty (which they were).

Colin Firth seemed a bit under-used. Mark Strong - also brilliant, continues to grow massively in my opinion every time I see him.

Agreed on both counts.

 

[Your Excellency]

No chance in hell is this getting a Best Picture oscar.

 

[Veidt]

How is this not the MOTY 2011?
Most well acted film of the last 50 years.
Mark Strong for best supporting actor.
Oldman for best actor.

I will now go back and read this thread more thoroughly. Listing the names of all of the people who disagree concerning the quality of this film, to henceforth disregard their opinion concerning anything else they could possibly have an opinion on.

No chance in hell is this getting a Best Picture oscar.

Unfortunately, this is the truth.

 

[Archer]

LOVED this movie. Very smart. Highly recommended.

 

[SpeedingUptoStop]

How is this not the MOTY 2011?
Most well acted film of the last 50 years.
Mark Strong for best supporting actor.
Oldman for best actor.

I will now go back and read this thread more thoroughly. Listing the names of all of the people who disagree concerning the quality of this film, to henceforth disregard their opinion concerning anything else they could possibly have an opinion on.

My man.

 

[paskowitz]

How is this not the MOTY 2011?
Most well acted film of the last 50 years.
Mark Strong for best supporting actor.
Oldman for best actor.

I will now go back and read this thread more thoroughly. Listing the names of all of the people who disagree concerning the quality of this film, to henceforth disregard their opinion concerning anything else they could possibly have an opinion on.




Unfortunately, this is the truth.

It was an amazing film. Well acted, written, shot, scored... etc. But despite all that it was dry. I felt like they worried about makes certain scenes "seem too intense". For example, during the scene when

Spoiler

they find out who the mole is

I never felt like the tension did built all that well. Especially compared to the book, where I was on the edge of my chair. I expected the movie to deliver the same feeling, but it just didn't.

 

[BaltimoreLarry]

I saw it last night, and felt, when watching, kind of disappointed. I had high expectations. But towards the final third, I started enjoying it. It was kind of slow and a bit confusing to start, but that all cleared up by the end. I like to judge a movie on how much I thought about the story after I left, and I thought about this one alot.

Also, Mark Strong is the fucking man in everything he's in. When is he going to get his chance to lead?

 

[big ander]

How is this not the MOTY 2011?
Most well acted film of the last 50 years.

It's hard not to love your hyperbole

 

[watershed]

Just saw this tonight and was pretty disappointed by it. I loved the book and the bbc miniseries but the movie just felt off. I didn't mind the cut material or the skimming of some stuff. I think even though the movie moves quickly it feels extremely slow because of all the slow panning shots and general mood. Unlike the book and the miniseries the movie didn't have any emotional or suspenseful peaks. Gary Oldman makes a great Smiley though, probably tied with Guinness and Mark Strong was great but no one else really left an impression. Too bad, this was one of my most anticipated movies.

 

[Zeppelin]

Just saw this tonight and was pretty disappointed by it. I loved the book and the bbc miniseries but the movie just felt off. I didn't mind the cut material or the skimming of some stuff. I think even though the movie moves quickly it feels extremely slow because of all the slow panning shots and general mood. Unlike the book and the miniseries the movie didn't have any emotional or suspenseful peaks. Gary Oldman makes a great Smiley though, probably tied with Guinness and Mark Strong was great but no one else really left an impression. Too bad, this was one of my most anticipated movies.

Reading this makes me think I'll skip it, at least for the foreseeable future. I saw the BBC miniseries (loved it) rather recently and I've had a hard time imagining why this format would suit the story better.

 

[watershed]

Reading this makes me think I'll skip it, at least for the foreseeable future. I saw the BBC miniseries (loved it) rather recently and I've had a hard time imagining why this format would suit the story better.

Well don't go on my impressions alone but to be honest with you I don't think its the format or film length that hurt the story, its more the direction and some of the choices they made. For example, the film has a very distant, unemotional feel to it. The camera is often far away and while the framing is nice its not very conducive to getting the audience into the characters or the somewhat complex story.

 

[Peru]

Here's the pamhplet handed out at certain locations which preps the audience with some background info before the movie. It's free and all so should be fine.

http://i41.************/2akae86.jpg
http://i42.************/15347bl.jpg
http://i43.************/2u9ke9i.jpg

edit: okay, that host is banned... well its a tiny pic

 

[ZoddGutts]

Liked the film. Though wish there was a ending twist. That being

Spoiler

Smiley is a mole himself, the whole plot was for him to become the top man in the agency while the other guy (Bill) was just a pawn all along. Only thing replace at the ending would be that french? song replace with the Russian song from the party as we see the close up of Smiley seated at the top chair. Would explain as to why he replace the picture of himself of that chess piece to cover himself up.

 

[Your Excellency]

Here's the pamhplet handed out at certain locations which preps the audience with some background info before the movie. It's free and all so should be fine.

http://i41.************/2akae86.jpg
http://i42.************/15347bl.jpg
http://i43.************/2u9ke9i.jpg

edit: okay, that host is banned... well its a tiny pic

Would have been very useful, but at the same time the movie should have done a better job filling in those blanks. Shows like Treme stick in many obscure references which add authenticity, but they aren't references which are critical to the plot and characters. If the scriptwriters showed more skill they would have found a way to clarify these terms and characters without compromising on the authenticity of the piece. As it is, it's something of a disaster since there's probably a really good film here which a one script rewrite away from being seen.

 

[CountAntonius]

Watched it last week. Definitely a slow burn and not a movie for everyone. I however loved it.

 

[nomis]

Saw it today. Fucking fantastic. Certainly kicks the shit out of Dragon Tattoo as far as conspiratorial (murder) mysteries go.

Unlike a lot of people though, I didn't find it cold, uninviting, confusing, slow, or any of that. I thought plenty of the characters (especially Ricky and Peter) were easy to engage with; thought the movie actually moved really quickly and was never uninteresting; and the only thing that tripped me up as far as following the story goes was that it took me a while to realize just who/what they were referring to with the name "Karla." :lol

Anyway. Loved it. Way exceeded my expectations.

Pretty much this. I thought I was paying attention, but when they start talking about Karla I'm like "Who the fuck is this other russian guy, a second mole? I've never seen him...". I didn't realize he was the head russian intelligence guy until the very end of the movie, and I didn't realize he was the "small man" in Prideaux's interrogation room until I read the book's entry on Wikipedia.

 

[brianjones]

yeah a lot of details like that are built up a lot more in the book.

ill probably like the movie more on rewatch after finishing the book

 

[TheKaeptain]

How do you guys miss who Karla was? They talk about him throughout the whole movie.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Saw this too and I enjoyed it. The acting of course was top notch, I do agree on some comments about missing emotion, but you do see that come out very well in the

Spoiler

scene with Smiley takes that guy to the airfield and talks about loyalty

Also, I can see how people who have worked in top intelligence circuits for such a long time would generally be devoid of emotion when it came to simple things.

Now, I haven't read the book or watched the BBC Series. But the pacing seemed to reflect the source material.

This is not about an utterly complex, conspiracy filled murder mystery. Quite simply, there is a mole and Smiley in his process of investigation has to find him. I like that. I like that we can get a mystery without a 100 twists associated to it. To me it was MORE about the process to finding the mole than the discovery of the mole himself. And that part for me was satisfying.

Spoiler

I half expected some BS like, oh, Smiley kills Haydon but Eureka! Smiley is the real mole, meet us for part 2. Well that would probably be the case if this was 24

 

[nomis]

How do you guys miss who Karla was? They talk about him throughout the whole movie.

I'm not exactly sure. It's all about context. If they mentioned that name in passing earlier in the movie, I might have glossed over it because it was referencing some russian entity that wasn't directly impacting the character's actions. Then when Oldman and Cumberbatch and Hardy bring him up again at the end, he's this guy who's had his fingers in the pie the entire time. I haven't read the book, so at the very end I was fully expecting more than one of the codenames to be a mole, working as a team. Maybe I thought that Karla was yet another codename for a mole in the circus.

 

[SerArthurDayne]

Saw the movie about a week ago. It really is a slow burn, but it is well filmed and acted, so I enjoyed it without loving it.
It really rings true (as much as it can for a true outsider) as an authentic and realistic "spy" caper, especially since other than Hardy they are all more administrative types than cover agents.

Karla can be confusing because there is no: "Karla is X" scene, but Karla must be figured out through context clues, at least early on, before it becomes much more explicit later.

I actually picked the book up a couple of months ago, debated to read or watch first. Problem solved now, so I will check it out later.

It actually comes out on blu-ray in a couple weeks in the UK, so those that are willing to import (assuming region free) can check it out if it doesn't come out locally.

 

[Malvolio]

Finally had a chance to see this today. Really enjoyed it, but there are some flaws. As someone that has not read the book yet I kept getting the feeling that there were details that were not apparent to most viewers that would be recognizable to someone that knew the whole story. Overall though I found the movie to be quite entertaining and am now looking forward to reading the book even if most of the suspense and mystery has been removed. Technically there was so much to love though and I can't wait to watch it again after reading the book.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

This had so much potential given the talent involved.
In the end it was just way too fucking dry for me.

 

[Dmax3901]

I'm in the same boat as a lot of people here, looked good, great cast, was confused and bored for most of it. Couldn't really attach myself to any of the characters (except perhaps Mark Strong), flashbacks weren't signposted very well and while there were a few good sequences (the christmas party song sequence at the ending), I found it quite difficult to sit through.

I'm sure people will say that I (and others) didn't 'get' it but there's a difference between an audience being too dumb and the filmmakers failing to make a good movie and with Tinker Tailor I think it's firmly the latter.

I've also read that it's meant to show how dull real-life spies and the cold war really was, as opposed to James Bond etc. If that's in any way true than the film is nothing but pretentious.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

"I don't like it" = "bad movie."

Gotcha.

 

[ghst]

movie of 2011, nothing else comes close.

they could sit tinker tailor's ensemble in a nicotine stained waiting room and have them silently eye hate each other for 180 minutes and it would still outclass the rest of 2011's output.

drive clinches second, would've been harder fought with take shelter if not for that film's particularly unsatisfying ending. i might just have to give best performance to shelter's michael shannon over tinker tailor's strong/oldman though.

honoury mention to rango for being the first cg family (sorta) movie i've cared about for over a decade.

 

[The Outsider]

Quite enjoyed this myself. It took me about 20-30 minutes to piece together who was who and what was going on, but once I familiarized myself, it was a pretty tense and well-acted ride.

I honestly think I'd enjoy it more the second time around with background knowledge to be able to follow the entire movie. I'll probably pick it up when it hits Blu-Ray.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

Quite enjoyed this myself. It took me about 20-30 minutes to piece together who was who and what was going on, but once I familiarized myself, it was a pretty tense and well-acted ride.

I honestly think I'd enjoy it more the second time around with background knowledge to be able to follow the entire movie. I'll probably pick it up when it hits Blu-Ray.

See i didnt find it all that tense personally other than Cumberbatch's archives scene.

 

[watershed]

People who enjoyed the film or were intrigued by the subject matter might want to check out the BBC miniseries adaptation of the same novel starring Alec Guinness. Its on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7PAk-f1Tzw&feature=BFa&list=ULdFmFucP1mm4&lf=mfu_in_order
Unfortunately part 1 of episode 1 is missing but if you saw the movie you'll understand what's going on. I prefer this miniseries to the movie because it fills out the characters more.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

It's not for everyone, but for those whom it is for, it's awesome.

 

[Odrion]

It's extremely well made, but also understated.

I wish I felt more connected with some of the characters. It wasn't just their delivery, but the film didn't really build upon them well enough. But the movie feels like it was carefully made, and I'm going to guess that they had to choose not to in order to avoid weighing the film down (or resorting to cheap gimmicks to get the audience to like them.)

VVV Yes. I was at the edge of the seat myself too, until I realized that this wasn't going to be that sort of film. But the beginning does sort of get you in that sort of tense mood.

 

[The Outsider]

See i didnt find it all that tense personally other than Cumberbatch's archives scene.

I think I probably created a lot of the tension for myself. I was half expecting things to just blow up with some main cast members dying, but the result was a lot more nuanced, which I really enjoyed.

 

[Good Job Bob]

Wasn't planning on seeing this but since it seems to be so divisive it's got my interest piqued.

 

[Dmax3901]

"I don't like it" = "bad movie."

Gotcha.

Was this directed at me? I gave my reasons why I didn't like it, it's not like I said "This is a bad movie because I didn't enjoy it."

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

It was what you said in effect. You gave reasons for not liking it, but that's a matter of taste. Some people (like me) like a slow burn, unmarked flashbacks, and having to work a little. Too few films do this anymore, since most people want more instant gratification.

 

[Dmax3901]

That's fair enough, I guess I just thought the payoff wasn't worth the work.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I can see that. It lacked a dramatic arc, really.

 

[CajoleJuice]

I was a bit disappointed the first time I watched it, as I thought it did fall kinda flat for me (like many people it seems), but the second around I was able to pick up on even the littlest things I missed and I empathized with the characters more -- so I absolutely loved it. The movie is just immaculate.

Oh and ghst, Michael Shannon is definitely my performance of the year.

 

[Mike Works]

Just watched it, was dry and slow as fuck. It was well acted by some (really liked Cumberbatch here), but the amount of talent was wasted in this flick. If you were to ask me what Ciaran Hinds' performance was like, I'd say "picture Ciarin Hinds looking over his shoulder a few times" and that would pretty well sum it up. And the payoff with Toby Jones' character at the end was great - you could really tell the whole thing had got to him because he was walking in the rain and looking sad.

I dunno, there are some great, great parts to this film, but it felt like a misstep to me given the potential.

 

[Leave_Scars]

Just saw this and found it to be really bland and dry. It wasn't boring per se, I was kinda interested in everything and wanted to see where it went but I guess I was disappointed with where it went, or didn't think it earned an emotional pay-off since the only plot lines that get emotional by the end are ones involving under developed characters. While I was interested I at the same time didn't actually care who the traitor was.