Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

[RachelDawes]

I believe it is. Consider the facts: We don't really get to know Smilie. He's a guy who was forced out of the job. He tells of a story of a man who he thinks is the mole, but we don't ever see it in the flashbacks. He uses the fib that Karla stole his lighter to thwart any suspicion on him because if someone noticed the lighter at the cafe, they would just assume it was Karla's (that might be over-thinking, sorry). The man who Smilie ends up putting in the slammer was the man who screwed his wife; he had every vendetta against him

I did think it was strange that Smiley could remember every detail of his conversation with Karla except for the most crucial one: what Karla looked like.

Okay, I actually don't think George is Karla but I think I'd love him even more if it were so. :yay:

[TheVileOne]

Nope. Karla is a real person. And it's not Smiley. Smiley is actually legit.

Also, here is what you guys need to realize. Bill Haydon was the mole and was reporting directly to Karla. Karla was the one that told Haydon to **** Ann Smiley because it would cloud Smiley's judgement. Karla was the one that recruited Haydon to spy for the Soviets in the circus.

Also, remember Jim Prideaux talking about being interrogated by a smallish man that looked like a priest, THAT WAS KARLA! The man that killed Irina in front of Prideaux was Karla.

The next two books in this trilogy by Le Carre are actually about Smiley's chess match with Karla and trying to catch him.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I saw this over the weekend and didn't really like it. I'm fine with movies being deliberately paced as I do have a pretty decent attention span but I thought that the movie was just plain slow, boring and completely UN-involving. I love subtle performances but I just didn't see anything special about Oldman's performance at all. I thought he gave the least interesting performance in the whole piece. It's a mystery to me why this movie is being praised so much but everyone is entitled to their opinions.

5.5/10

[RachelDawes]

Nope. Karla is a real person. And it's not Smiley. Smiley is actually legit.

Also, here is what you guys need to realize. Bill Haydon was the mole and was reporting directly to Karla. Karla was the one that told Haydon to **** Ann Smiley because it would cloud Smiley's judgement. Karla was the one that recruited Haydon to spy for the Soviets in the circus.

Also, remember Jim Prideaux talking about being interrogated by a smallish man that looked like a priest, THAT WAS KARLA! The man that killed Irina in front of Prideaux was Karla.

The next two books in this trilogy by Le Carre are actually about Smiley's chess match with Karla and trying to catch him.

Yeah, I know all this. I read about the Karla trilogy on Wiki so I knew George couldn't be him. I was just having a little fun.

Carnotaur's point is what if everything we thought we saw isn't true? What if that priestly guy, who we're clearly supposed to think was Karla, wasn't him? What if Karla is really George, who's been working for the Soviets the whole time and used this mole scheme to get Control's job?

[Project862006]

I saw this over the weekend and didn't really like it. I'm fine with movies being deliberately paced as I do have a pretty decent attention span but I thought that the movie was just plain slow, boring and completely UN-involving. I love subtle performances but I just didn't see anything special about Oldman's performance at all. I thought he gave the least interesting performance in the whole piece. It's a mystery to me why this movie is being praised so much but everyone is entitled to their opinions.

5.5/10
it is not being hugely praised imo it is being praised on the fact that they hope its great due to director and the actors

a huge spy thriller mystery film by GWDT director with a cast of Strong,Oldman,Hardy,Hurt,Hinds,Firth,etc. not surprised why people were excited

[Pink Ranger]

I just enjoyed the novelty of Gary Oldman actually playing an Englishman for once. I've so rarely seen that.

[Doctor Jones]

Now that I think about it, the plot was pretty difficult to follow at times.

What was the significance with the man who kept Smiley's lighter? It popped up later on, and it was completely lost on me. There were times where I just did not understand what was going on, therefore made the plot unengaging.

[Doctor Jones]

I think what would have been more interesting was that Ricky Tarr was really behind the manipulation of everybody the entire time and fabricating the entire thing instead of Haydon being the mole. That one scene of Tarr sending the telegram, grinning and saying that line would have been an interesting reveal, where for a second, I actually thought this happened.

[Kane52630]

it is not being hugely praised imo it is being praised on the fact that they hope its great due to director and the actors


What's sad is that critics are passing this as a great film even though they said in their reviews that they didn't fully understand the plot... :dry:

I'm shocked the score is that high on Rottentomatoes.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/tinker_tailor_soldier_spy/

Yeah the performances are good and it's got a nice setting/music but you can't overlook the hard to follow plot.

[TheVileOne]

The significance of the lighter is that the guy who has it is Karla, the head of the Soviet Spy Network. Smiley handed it to him during a meeting and Karla kept it.

[flickchick85]

I don't get it. The plot is pretty damn straightforward. It's only hard to follow if you're only half paying attention, imo. I thought this was a brilliant movie, loved the atmosphere, performances, cinematography, all of it. And it didn't even feel slow to me, because the intrigue level was so high, and there were scenes I found so stressful I might as well have been watching an action thriller.

And btw, the praise is from people who HAVE seen it, I don't get where comments like "the praise is from people who hope it's good" come from, or even make sense. Obviously, the critics saw it. It's been out internationally for months. I've seen it twice and will definitely be seeing it again before it leaves theaters, because the 2nd time was twice as good as the first. Some people just think it's an awesome, near-perfectly-crafted movie. No need to make up flimsy excuses like for why it's receiving praise.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I know you weren't responding to me flickchick but I'll say this anyway.

I think that the majority might really love the film but I think that some are giving it a pass because they think that they will look dumb if they call a movie like it boring. I thought that it was flat out boring and hard to follow and I was not "half paying attention." It's rude to insinuate that one is dumb or has ADD just because they don't care for the film. I'm not calling anyone dumb for liking it.

[flickchick85]

I know you weren't responding to me flickchick but I'll say this anyway.

I think that the majority might really love the film but I think that some are giving it a pass because they think that they will look dumb if they call a movie like it boring. I thought that it was flat out boring and hard to follow and I was not "half paying attention." It's rude to insinuate that one is dumb or has ADD just because they don't care for the film. I'm not calling anyone dumb for liking it.
For the record, I didn't suggest anyone was "dumb" or "had ADD" for finding it hard to follow. I suggested they were only half-paying attention (which can happen for all sorts of various reasons - saw a late show, had other things on the mind, was expecting a different tone, etc), which you're right, was wrong to assume and I apologize, but is still a very different thing.

That said, I think it's equally off-putting to suggest that people are only liking it to seem smart - which insinuates that they are pretentious pseudo-intellectuals if they say they didn't find it hard to follow. Some people followed it just fine and loved it. And like you said, I was mainly responding to Project, anyway, who straight-up stated that most of the praise is from people who just love the cast/crew involved and therefore "hope it's good," which is flat-out BS. Some people were enthralled by this movie. And I'm one of them.

I have absolutely no problem with people not liking the movie - that's what makes the world go 'round - but I get annoyed when they start projecting BS reasons onto why some of us loved it, as if they can't accept different tastes.

[The Morningstar]

What is exactly hard to follow about this movie? I also thought it was pretty straight forward. As straight forward as possible anyway, considering it's SUPPOSED to be a twisty, puzzle of a story.

And I don't mean that in a smug "I got it and you didn't way". I had to watch it twice.

[Parker Wayne]

I still have to see this movie, but is this another "Inception" situation in which people make it harder to understand than it really is or is this movie legitimately confusing?

[The Morningstar]

I still have to see this movie, but is this another "Inception" situation in which people make it harder to understand than it really is or is this movie legitimately confusing?

It is confusing. But it's meant to be. It's a proper, twisty, spy thriller. It keeps the audience guessing just like it keeps the characters guessing. I can understand why some people don't like that. But then i ask, what did you expect?

It doesn't hold your hand and have exposition heavy dialogue like Inception explaining things.

[flickchick85]

I still have to see this movie, but is this another "Inception" situation in which people make it harder to understand than it really is or is this movie legitimately confusing?
It's pretty much the opposite of Inception, imo. The screenplay is quite minimalist, as opposed to super exposition-heavy like that movie.

[The Morningstar]

There is a lot of silent scenes too. Where Oldman is just sitting there, not saying a word. But you can almost see the cogs in his head turning as he is thinking. That's why Oldman is getting so much praise. He does a lot of "telling" just with his face and eyes. Pretty much all the characters are like that, really.

[chamber-music]

I saw this and liked it. Smiley is a cool spy in an unconventional way and his one weakness was very human and believable.

I have never read the books or seen any previous adaptations but found the movie easy enough to follow.
I also found Inception and Donnie Darko easy to follow. David Lynch is probably the only filmmaker whos movies I can't follow although I do like them.

This film was one where you had to pay close attention to what people say or don't say. It demands more of the audience than some other films do.

I had the moles narrowed down to 3 by half way through the movie.

First movie I have seen in which Stephen Graham doesn't play a violent thug or criminal.

I liked how the spy world wasn't all flash or good vs evil. Its more two sides in a chess match constantly trying to outwit one another and recruit people to there side.

[Matt Mortem]

Just got through seeing this. I liked it a lot. It was a decent film. I do have the same criticism I'm seeing from a great many reviews that say the plot was somewhat hard to follow. I was fine up until they started revealing the mole; from there it just seemed to take a hard turn I had difficulty keeping up with. It was a matter of something confusing would happen in the plot and I'd just have to take a minute and piece it together (or hope the film would do that for me). I did enjoy the film very much though. The setting was great, the music really did it for me too. I'd give it a solid 8/10

[echostation]

excellent film... really liked it... Gary Oldman man what a tour de force Allah praise to be him and his performance

[Rowsdower!]

excellent film... really liked it... Gary Oldman man what a tour de force Allah praise to be him and his performance

But... don't you think that people will confuse this film with The Dark Knight Rises since Gary Oldman is wearing glasses and a trenchcoat and Tom Hardy is there too, large biceps and all? People probably aren't going to enjoy this movie because they'll be sitting there anxiously waiting for Batman to show up and when he doesn't show up they'll be angry and wondering why everyone in Gotham has a British accent and what are Sinestro and Sherlock Holmes doing there and Bane never puts on his mask but at least he's easy to understand and didn't that other guy win an Oscar for playing the King of England in a Bridget Jones movie or something?

[Thebumwhowalks]

What is exactly hard to follow about this movie? I also thought it was pretty straight forward. As straight forward as possible anyway, considering it's SUPPOSED to be a twisty, puzzle of a story.

And I don't mean that in a smug "I got it and you didn't way". I had to watch it twice.

:lmao:

I'm sorry man, but I just thought that was really funny, it's like, can't you answer your own question?

[Doctor Jones]

edit.

[The Morningstar]

:lmao:

I'm sorry man, but I just thought that was really funny, it's like, can't you answer your own question?

:D Well no I did follow it the first time. But it's one of those movies that gets better with repeat viewings because you pick up on the smaller things.

[Thebumwhowalks]

:D Well no I did follow it the first time. But it's one of those movies that gets better with repeat viewings because you pick up on the smaller things.

Ok, I believe you, thousands wouldn't. haha

[Thebumwhowalks]

I don't get it. The plot is pretty damn straightforward. It's only hard to follow if you're only half paying attention, imo. I thought this was a brilliant movie, loved the atmosphere, performances, cinematography, all of it. And it didn't even feel slow to me, because the intrigue level was so high, and there were scenes I found so stressful I might as well have been watching an action thriller.

And btw, the praise is from people who HAVE seen it, I don't get where comments like "the praise is from people who hope it's good" come from, or even make sense. Obviously, the critics saw it. It's been out internationally for months. I've seen it twice and will definitely be seeing it again before it leaves theaters, because the 2nd time was twice as good as the first. Some people just think it's an awesome, near-perfectly-crafted movie. No need to make up flimsy excuses like for why it's receiving praise.


"I've seen it twice..." "The 2nd time was twice as good as the first.."

Now, I haven't seen the film, but going by all the comments regarding the 'hard-to-follow' plot, and taking onboard what you just said, it does suggest to me that you may have enjoyed it 'twice as much' the second time you saw it, because you didn't have to work as hard to follow the plot second time round.
Because, that is a rare thing for someone to say about a movie, usually they get the most enjoyment out of the first showing, obviously due to the uncertainty of following the twist-y plot lines.
Usually someone says they enjoyed the film more second time round, because they didn't appreciate it properly first time round.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I still have to see this movie, but is this another "Inception" situation in which people make it harder to understand than it really is or is this movie legitimately confusing?Oh I just think that it's an overrated piece of self important boring tripe. I'm not comparing it to any other film.

It was legitimately confusing to me and that is all that matters.

[Destructus86]

Why do people always bring up Inception as "overly complicated"? It's really not....I thought it was a straight forward film.

[The Morningstar]

I don't know how anyone can say Inception is overly complicated. Considering the amount of expositionary dialogue explaining everything.

[bullets]

All you had to do for Inception was pay attention. Still a good movie.

I just found out Tinker, Tailor , Soldier , Spy is playing at a local theater :awesome:

[Parker Wayne]

Why do people always bring up Inception as "overly complicated"? It's really not....I thought it was a straight forward film.

It is. People tend to make Inception look way more confusing than it is and I was like "It wasn't confusing at all" :huh:

As JP once said "Incpetion is an example how stupid some filmgoers are."

[Doctor Jones]

Disagree. The fact that Inception grossed a lot of money said that the audience actually likes these types of films. The GA isn't stupid either. It just depends on what's appealing. Inception happened to be one of those films that as smart and the GA liked.

I hate throwing the GA into a category because they happen to love action films that aren't deemed "good" by people on the internet.

[RKO]

I didn't find anything overly complicated about this film. It is a very subtle film though, there's a lot of fill in the blanks and up to the viewers imagination type story-telling. It's all about following the story and paying attention.

[flickchick85]

"I've seen it twice..." "The 2nd time was twice as good as the first.."

Now, I haven't seen the film, but going by all the comments regarding the 'hard-to-follow' plot, and taking onboard what you just said, it does suggest to me that you may have enjoyed it 'twice as much' the second time you saw it, because you didn't have to work as hard to follow the plot second time round.
Because, that is a rare thing for someone to say about a movie, usually they get the most enjoyment out of the first showing, obviously due to the uncertainty of following the twist-y plot lines.
Usually someone says they enjoyed the film more second time round, because they didn't appreciate it properly first time round.
I can see where you're coming from, but for me it wasn't about understanding it better, it was about the little details that are better appreciated once you know what's what. I had no trouble following it the first time, but all sorts of little glances and shots that you pay no mind to the first time are given so much meaning the 2nd time. Noticing all the little touches are what made it better the 2nd time around.

There are certain movies where I find new things to appreciate on even the 4th or 5th viewings. It's not about needing that many viewings to understand them fully, just about appreciating the attention to detail and care that the filmmakers put in to bring the story to life. Also, I posted my love for the movie in this thread after the first time I saw it, too, so it obviously didn't require two viewings for me to follow or enjoy. I just loved it so much I wanted to see it again. Just like Drive, which I saw 5 times and also loved a little more each time.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I didn't find anything overly complicated about this film. It is a very subtle film though, there's a lot of fill in the blanks and up to the viewers imagination type story-telling. It's all about following the story and paying attention.And once again I'm a dumb ass.:whatever:

[SuperSoldier985]

the movie itself isn't complicated---it just had a really jumbled narrative structure and editing style.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Well time for me to exit stage left. I didn't care for the film so it's silly to continue to argue about it much longer.

[SuperSoldier985]

I hope you're not talking to me because I didn't love the movie either...and it's because of the reasons I just mentioned--It looked great, I liked the acting, I liked the score, but I really didn't like how it was structure and I didn't like how it was organized and how they edited scenes together...that is, aside from the scene in the library.

[kane9321]

loved the movie...actually saw it twice

[Parker Wayne]

Disagree. The fact that Inception grossed a lot of money said that the audience actually likes these types of films. The GA isn't stupid either. It just depends on what's appealing. Inception happened to be one of those films that as smart and the GA liked.

I hate throwing the GA into a category because they happen to love action films that aren't deemed "good" by people on the internet.

Not downing them for loving action movies. Inception I found to be pretty simple. I'm just ribbing on people who didn't understand it.

[craigdbfan]

Finally got around to watch this movie and I thought it was absolutely terrific.

First of all I found it to be very much engaging and while a lot of spy movies tend to be relatively cold this movie wasn't. I don't even know how people perceived it that way. There was a ton of emotion and humanity to these characters who were involved in a profession and field that requires one to leave such feelings at home.

I found that aspect of the movie quite subtlety delivered. I was hooked from the minute the movie started and I enjoyed that it took its time in giving us the information behind the mole and the leaked information through a non linear narrative. Thought that worked quite nicely.

There were a couple things in which you had to be paying a bit close attention and that had nothing to do with the mole plot as that was fairly easy to follow but rather the relationship between a couple of the men. Specifically between Haydon and Prideaux. That was very subtlety conveyed but also not impossible in anyway to catch as to what was going on between them if one had been paying attention to the markers that are dropped throughout the film.

George Smiley was a very subdued and mellow fellow on the front but was teeming with feelings in the inside which were filtered to good act as an increasingly apt metal (mole) detector. Ricki Tarrs little sub plot was pretty great as well and Hardy did the most that he could with the small role but certainly proved to be quite the valuable asset to Smiley. Although I was sad that he never really found out about Irina, they were a cute couple but stuck in the midst of a bloody covert battle which made for a normal relationship practically impossible.

There's a bunch of other stuff I liked about the movie but I really thought it was very well made and the performances were really quite incredible. It's sort of a shame that this movie isn't getting more recognition this award season but that hardly matters I suppose. The movie definitely isn't for everybody but personally I can't relate to those who found it "difficult" in following the main mole plot and more importantly the relationship between the men in the Circus.

Great movie. 10/10

[hopefuldreamer]

Just tried to watch it last night...

Now granted, I was tired... But I thought it was incredibly boring and I also found it very difficult to figure out what was going on because of the way it flipped between timelines and also because it was difficult to connect 'who's who' when a character was talking about someone...

So I fell asleep, and when I woke up I saw an ending that made no sense to me because I thought the beginning showed Firths character alive when Strong's character was killed...

And who was the kid in the glasses who kept going to Strong's caravan? Was that supposed to be Oldman's character as a kid?

Pfft, I dunno... I might try and watch it again, but TBH I just wasn't a fan of the incredibly slow pacing and dialogue that was totally unengaging.

The only thing I felt was good, was that it had this clear style and atmosphere that was certainly different from any film I'd seen before. Especially all the lingering shots and people's eerie stares.

[craigdbfan]

The chubby kid wasn't Smiley as boy . :funny:

Don't over think it to much when you're watching the movie. It's fairly straight forward.

The only thing that I can see throwing people off is the non linear narrative but just try paying attention to that aspect. As long as you know what and when these scenes are taking place the plot itself is very easy to understand.

[hopefuldreamer]

Yes but how can you know what and when the scenes are taking place. Everyone looks the same age at each timeline (sometimes there are slight differences, but not clear), there is nothing within the scene that indicates where we are in time...

I don't usually get thrown off by a non linear narrative, but then there are usually more indicators available for your brain to latch on to.

Plus, it's hard to follow where you are in the films timeline, when you have no idea what's actually going on.

I mean, I don't even get what happened to Strong's character. Why was he shot? And was Oldman then called in to investigate his death, or is he looking for something else?

And what the hell did Hardy's character have to do with it? He just came out of no where and I couldn't tell who he was or how he was connected.

And what's with the chubby kid then? :hehe:

But hey, maybe all that would have been answered if I hadn't slept through half of it :p

[moviedoors]

It was dense, but I didn't think it was impossible to understand the first time through. It's not Primer. I was able to follow along through to the end. I went in with my game face on. You've got to go in ready to immediately remember what name went with which face. It also takes about half an hour to really acclimatize to how the movie doles out information, but that's fine. I like having to work for it a little bit.

I can't wait to see it again. Any great movie, mystery or not, will play differently once your brain is free not to worry about the plot as much. Having "what happens" out of the way automatically opens you up to focus on other aspects more intently.

[hopefuldreamer]

:hehe:

Ironically, I loved Primer and yeah it's timelines are confusing, but I at least knew the basic plot of the film and the character relationships.

I think your right though, about approaching it with focus and trying to commit characters and facts to memory.

Screw it, I'm gonna try again. It did have a cool eerie tone and I was over tired!

[flickchick85]

See, I found Primer to be a hell of a lot more confusing (and slower) than this.

hopefulsuicide, if you do see it again, a couple of tips for keeping the timeline straight: 1.) First, let's get the obvious outta the way: Control (John Hurt) dies in the beginning, so any later scenes involving him are flashbacks. 2.) Smiley gets new glasses in the opening sequence. Therefore, any later scenes involving the old (ugly orange) glasses are flashbacks.

And some of the lingo:

-The Circus: MI6
-KARLA: Top Soviet intelligence officer. The one they're all kind of obsessed with, and they don't even know what he looks like.
-Gold or Treasure: Extremely valuable intel. The kind of intel that can make a career.
-Chicken Feed: crap intel
-Witchcraft: Percy Allaline's (Toby Jones) top secret source in the Kremlin. They never meet directly with him, but with a messenger.

[Doctor Jones]

Not downing them for loving action movies. Inception I found to be pretty simple. I'm just ribbing on people who didn't understand it.

With Leo strut included? :awesome:

[hopefuldreamer]

See, I found Primer to be a hell of a lot more confusing (and slower) than this.

hopefulsuicide, if you do see it again, a couple of tips for keeping the timeline straight: 1.) First, let's get the obvious outta the way: Control (John Hurt) dies in the beginning, so any later scenes involving him are flashbacks. 2.) Smiley gets new glasses in the opening sequence. Therefore, any later scenes involving the old (ugly orange) glasses are flashbacks.

And some of the lingo:

-The Circus: MI6
-KARLA: Top Soviet intelligence officer. The one they're all kind of obsessed with, and they don't even know what he looks like.
-Gold or Treasure: Extremely valuable intel. The kind of intel that can make a career.
-Chicken Feed: crap intel
-Witchcraft: Percy Allaline's (Toby Jones) top secret source in the Kremlin. They never meet directly with him, but with a messenger.

:hehe:

Cheers, that'll actually be really helpful. For one thing, I thought Karla was a girl :p

And I did not pick up that John Hurt's character died at the beginning. That at least explains some things I was confused about!

[Compi716]

Saw it this weekend. I thought the movie was just good...UNTIL THAT ENDING MONTAGE. Damn, that is how you end a movie! Fantastic ending, and really made me walk out of the theater loving it.

[CapedCrusader14]

FINALLY get to see this tomorrow after waiting for so long.

[Rowsdower!]

Finally saw this last night. What a stellar movie. Definitely one of the best films of the year. Why the hell did the Globes ignore it? Did it snag any noms at all? It damn well should have.


One thing is still eating away at me though. Why could Smiley remember seemingly everything about Karla except what he looked like?

I know someone here suggested that Smiley actually WAS Karla the whole time and had someone else posing as him when Prideaux was captured. That is possible, but if the movie is following the book, then we know that's not the case because as I understand it, the books make it clear that they are two separate characters (though I haven't read them).

For those that have read the book... did the meeting between Smiley and Karla actually go as he described it? Was he actually unable to remember what the man looked like and was there a reason given, other than a lot of time had passed?

[CapedCrusader14]

Saw it. An absolutely excellent spy thriller. Gary Oldman deserves more praise and awards for his role in this. Benedict, Tom, Colin and everyone else puts in a fantastic performance. The plot is easily engaging.

The film does have some pacing issues such as some scenes going too long, or too short. But it doesn't detract the film enough to make it immediately bad.

The cinematography was top notch as well.

[flickchick85]

One thing is still eating away at me though. Why could Smiley remember seemingly everything about Karla except what he looked like?
Memory can be a fickle thing. There are people who were hugely important in my life when I was younger that I've lost contact with - I vividly remember certain things about them, and can recall many memorable times we had as clear as day, but their faces? Total blur these days. Besides, Smiley didn't know at the time that it was Karla (not sure how he eventually found out). He was just another faceless mark Smiley was supposed to try and turn. He probably only remembers the meeting at all because of the silent treatment and the fact that he kept his lighter. So in his mind, before he later found out who he was, he was just "that guy who kept my lighter." Not exactly "face etched in my memory" type of stuff..

I also think story-wise, it was meant to represent just how long and taxing the spy life had been for Smiley. They'd been chasing "Karla" - and what Karla represents - for so long, no matter the cost and countless sacrifices, that he can barely remember what they were even after to begin with.

[Rowsdower!]

Memory can be a fickle thing. There are people who were hugely important in my life when I was younger that I've lost contact with - I vividly remember certain things about them, and can recall many memorable times we had as clear as day, but their faces? Total blur these days. Besides, Smiley didn't know at the time that it was Karla (not sure how he eventually found out). He was just another faceless mark Smiley was supposed to try and turn. He probably only remembers the meeting at all because of the silent treatment and the fact that he kept his lighter. So in his mind, before he later found out who he was, he was just "that guy who kept my lighter." Not exactly "face etched in my memory" type of stuff..

I also think story-wise, it was meant to represent just how long and taxing the spy life had been for Smiley. They'd been chasing "Karla" - and what Karla represents - for so long, no matter the cost and countless sacrifices, that he can barely remember what they were even after to begin with.

Ah, yeah, that makes sense. I forgot that he didn't initially know it was him. And yeah, that also does work as an indication of how long these guys have been in the game and tracking this person.

I think I figured out who Karla is, though.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v142/that-guy/3098sam_carla2.jpg

:awesome:

[Blue Sugar]

Good movie, though with the expectations I had with the amazing cast, the fantastic trailer and my love for Tomas Alfredson I can't help but feel disappointed.

I thought it lacked rhythm and I thought they tried to pack it with too much information and plot-points, taking away from the visual experience and the acting. And some of the visual narrative is a bit clumsy. The movie never worked up any tension for me, despite it's great atmosphere.

Though still it got some amazing performances and the visuals are amazing, the DP shines here. Love the detailing of it all too. But the story never grabbed me.

6/10

[Drz]

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - Blu-ray Review (http://drzblog.tumblr.com/post/16880170655/tinker-tailor-soldier-spy-blu-ray-review)

It’s funny but the Blu-ray became available for purchase on Play.com faster than its hitting theaters in my home country hah. So instead of seeing this in a cinema experience it came down to watching this on my room and watching all the special features & commentary.


The movie is based off the 1974 novel of the same name by John Le Carré. Set in London 1973-1974 the story flows of the British Intelligence known as the Circus (MI6), as a Soviet Union mole is suspected among their amidst.


The movie is a very slow and silent espionage spy thriller. It’s pretty much a battle of wits and human emotion between 7 people and it’s filled with paranoia. Is there a mole? Who is the mole? How long has he or she been working? Who can you truly trust?


The protagonist of the movie is George Smiley played by Gary Oldman. He’s old, experienced, calm, thoughtful and the ultimately planner here, but quite frankly also the ultimate paranoid more or less in the story. The whole movie is played by a variety of talent with Benedict Cumberbatch playing Peter Guillman. Colin Firth as Bill Haydon, Tom Hardy as Ricki Tarr, David Dencik as Toby Esterhase, Toby Jones as Percy Alleline. You also have Mark Strong & John Hurt playing minor supporting characters. Incredibly well casted assembly with Tomas Alfredson as the director.
I won’t speak more of the plot as that would go more into detail, but the basic premise is that this is 1974 British intelligence trying to figure out who truly could be the Soviet Union mole and what is the big game picture here. It’s a silent, slow burned movie that deals with Agents having to go to against each other despite having been loyal partners for around 2 decades and more. It’s very subtle and emotional. I’d like to add that the setting is incredible well done, from clothing, atmosphere, to the hardware people used back then to their mannerism. The production value was incredibly detailed to say the very least. Cinematography was a bit overdone however, like I mentioned the movie is slow, I do feel it had some rather pointless scenes that truly didn’t add anything to the movie.


Blu-ray Extras:


The Blu-ray is filled with extras. However a lot of it is simple interviews of the writer, director and actors giving their insight on the movie, the book it’s adapting, how familiar we’re they with the Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy and so forth. There are some good thoughts shared there, but at the end of the day this isn’t anything new and comes off as a rather norm feature in dvd/blu-ray.


Deleted scenes are also included and I’m thankful they’re deleted, because they add nothing to the overall story and movie already has scenes that show the exact same portrayal of these characters, so yeah good thing these didn’t drag the movie along, even though it’s just 5 minutes of deleted scenes.


There are also audio book samples, which I think is rather nice as each chapter is like one hour long, but at the end of the day who wants to leave their television open and listen to someone talk for an hour? The point of a television is to see moving picture. I guess they couldn’t get any episodes of the old television series for copyright reasons or other reasoning, but I would have found that more suitable then this.


I think the coolest special feature was a 30 minute interview with John Le Carré who wrote the novel, getting his insight and how his real life inspired the novel and he gets really deep into how his life effected this book, really getting down to the mannerism of the MI6 agents of the 70s. He even talks about how he felt Smiley was a character he felt was the father he never had and his own social awkwardness. Really its incredible how much he talks about his own life and even how World War 2 effected and molded him as a person. It’s too much to simply summarize.
Now for the biggest treat (for me at least) is re-watching this movie with the commentary of Gary Oldman & Tomas Alfredson! I’m a big fan of commentaries so there is obvious bias here, but re-watching the movie, knowing how the story unfolds but with the added emotional drama between the agents at each other’s throats with Tomas and Gary giving insight, debating, pondering and joking about the context just makes it much more fun to watch. They talk about how they adapted the scenes, what we’re cut, point out important little details that my eye didn’t notice the 1st time I viewed and so forth. Very pleasant to watch and listen.


Conclusion:


Pretty decent movie, I’d say what makes it unique amongst other spy thrillers is the slow, silent, paranoid filled run it had, with decent extras and a digital copy + DvD included, I felt the it was a well worth purchase. Recommending this movie for fans of: spy genres, cold wars. and the actor Gary Oldman.

[Boom]

I'm assuming the Blu-Ray available on Play.com is region locked.

Universal Studios has announced the British spy film Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy for Blu-Ray in March. The film was adapted from the popular best-selling novel of the same name written by John le Carré*and directed by Tomas Alfredson.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is currently up for 3 Academy Awards, including best actor, best adapted screenplay and best original score. Gary Oldman leads an all-star cast that also consists of Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, John Hurt, Benedict Cumberbatch, Toby Jones, Mark Strong and Ciarán Hinds.

The film made a bigger splash overseas, but is still one of the more talked about films of 2011 in America. I liked a lot of aspects of the film, but found some of it a little too hard to follow.

It’s*definitely*a*thinking*man’s film, but it still can enjoyed by those looking for Oscar caliber performances, in which they won’t be disappointed thanks to Gary Oldman. It’s an intricate chess game of a film that rewards the audience for their patience.

Our very own Will gave the film a perfect score in his review. Here’s what he had to say.

To sum it up,*Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy*is one of the best and most elegantly crafted films of the past five years. Rarely, if ever, does it take a step in the wrong direction. In a word it is pretty much perfect.

The Blu-Ray disc will be presented in a Blu-Ray/UltraViolet Digital Copy combo pack and it will feature a 1080p video transfer and a 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio track. Here’s a confirmed list of special features.

Feature Commentary with Tomas Alfredson and Gary Oldman
Behind-the-scenes featurette
Interviews with Tomas Alfredson, Peter Straughan, Gary Oldman, Colin Firth and Tom Hardy
Interview with author John le Carré
Deleted Scenes

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is expected to be released on March 20th, 2012.

http://wegotthiscovered.com/news/tinker-tailor-soldier-spy-coming-bluray-march/

[Rez]

I'll give this movie a second watch, but on my first I was entirely underwhelmed. The first scene hooked me and then nearly everything after tried to undo that. Complete lack of any tension and a needlessly complex narrative for what is ultimately a pretty simple story overshadows fantastic acting and individual moments of greatness.

[Whiskey Tango]

Finally got to see this and thought it was excellent. Didn't have too hard a time following it, I still have a few questions but I think I'll watch it again before I send it back. It's impossible to watch a movie around here without distractions.

le Carré has been on my to-read list for some time, maybe I'll get around to it now. I think I'd like to read this.