Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (2011)

it's a shame, I don't think they have any plans on adapting the others.

Just judging from the trailer, I think it's possible that they'll include elements of Schoolboy and People into this adaptation. According to The Other Wiki, there's filming done on location in Istanbul, and no part of the original Tinker novel was set there.

I'm going to wait and see what Spill has to say about this film. So far I'm mediocre with it.

unless they altered the location of "Operation Testify" to Istanbul

edited 9th Jul '11 11:55:42 PM by faradayangel

Entirely possible, yes.

It's also possible that they modified some of the characters' ages. For instance, if that guy at :59 in the trailer is Michael Haydon, he seems significantly younger than the rest of the cast—but it'd be perfect for the seducer role that he plays.

don't you mean Bill Haydon, who is played by Colin Firth, the guy at :59 is Ricky Tarr played by Tom Hardy

edited 11th Jul '11 1:10:41 AM by faradayangel

If that indeed is Ricki Tarr, then that makes a lot of sense—the woman he's later seen with would be Irina, not Anne...

The changes seem to be the simple moving of Ricki Tarr's mission from Hong Kong to Istanbul. This was done in the 1979 series due to budget, here for the same reason and perhaps easier to make Instanbul look it did in the 70's.

NEW TRAILER!

Can't wait for September!

I like the older one better, as it was more understated. This one does benefit from being longer, and thereby not giving the impression that the makers are going, "Quick, quick, we need to show all these great actors within a minute!"

The character posters for this are hilarious, for the wrong reasons. For some reason, Gary Oldman is shown playing Colin Firth and Tom Hardy.

First reviews from the Venice Film Festival are out, and they say the film is good. Really quite good. I'm very excited for this.

The only le Carré I've read was The Spy That Came In From The Cold, but it was rather excellent. I'm sold on this going by the trailers and the rock-solid cast. Gary Oldman, John Hurt, Ciarán Hinds, Benedict Cumberbatch, Simon McBurney and Mark Strong? Hell yes.

edited 10th Sep '11 10:51:10 AM by pagad

[hurriedly finishing the book] >_<

I just watched it and it seems to me they cut down on time by removing the character backgrounds of practically everyone.You never find out for example that Percy is a middle East expert.Also Ciarain Hinds has 2 to 3 lines max in the film so they realy cut his time down

Not read the book but I'm seeing this film on Sunday and the trailer and cast has got me more enough excited for it and the reviews I've heard have been positive. So I'm looking forward to it

(notices that the North American release date has been pushed back to December)

An adult-aimed spy thriller would have died against sparkly vampires and dancing penguins.

Bland, boring, dull, nothing much happens, utterly lifeless.

If I see a more over-hyped film that delivers so little in the next year, I'll be very much surprised. "Best film of the year" my arse.

It wasn't horrible, as such. It was just so...stale. Colourless in every way really, with nothing much to hook us into the characters as they were all much of a muchness for the most part. Ricky Tarr was interesting enough, and Gary Oldman did his job well, but beyond that, I really wasn't impressed. I didn't get any feel of tension, a taut atmosphere, drama, mystery or intrigue. Even if the actual spy wasn't immediately obvious, the direction in which his identity lay certainly was and the film didn't seem to do anything worthwhile with the potential a molehunting plot offers. Possibly a fault of the original book, I don't really read so wouldn't know.

The Constant Gardener was a far superior Le Carre adaptation, and if this were done in a similar style I suspect it would have held my interest far more.

edited 23rd Sep '11 6:39:19 PM by CaissasDeathAngel

I thought it was pretty damn good. By chance, I happened to see it at midnight - and even though the movie was slow, it always held my attention. The plot was quite enthralling, and there were a lot of memorable acting beats.

There's one vote for one and another vote for another.

I'm still checking it out as soon as I can. Reviewers' opinions are divided but mostly positive.

I just saw this, I enjoyed it and I thought it was good.

(Also, I weep for my analytical faculties, because I struggle to compose more articulate opinions than that. But it isn't about me.)

For the opinion that it was stale and colourless, you say "Well, that's what Britain was like back then; no wonder we were so impressed with the bright colors of American culture", but that's facetious. I'd say it's more muted than bland. Everyone holds back, keeping their secrets and maintaining a front. Most of the time.

I thought it well worth seeing.

It's possible to have people being guarded, holding back and muted in a way that retains interest though, and I thought this film completely failed to do that. Perhaps it was too effective, by means of not showing anyone actually doing anything for the most part, which is what I thought The Shining did in its failure to efficiently use Nothing Is Scarier.

Still, the world needs a few more good insomnia cures, and this film certainly qualifies on that front!

I think the person a few seats away found it worked for that.

I read the book shortly before I went to see this film, so maybe I'm unqualified to give my opinion on this, but am I the only one who thinks people have exaggerated how "confusing and inpenetrable" this film was? After hearing so much about the film being impossible to understand, I found it surprisingly easy. For the record, my friend who went with me hadn't read the book and he didn't seem all that lost either.