|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|Index||13 reviews in total|
Sharon Stone turned in a very strong performance as the wife of Kim
Philby the British double agent. Why the producers chose not to use
real names nor to do some basic research about the Soviet Union in the
1960s is a mystery.
One viewer already has made the point that many technical mistakes in the film were made. Least of which is the view of Christ the Savior Cathedral that was rebuilt in the 1990s and did not exist in Moscow in the 1960s. Additional mistakes include Aerorus instead of Aeroflot and probably the encounter that Sharon Stone had with the CIA in the USA. It would have been the FBI and any meeting would have taken place at the local Federal Building to protect the FBI agents from any accusations. The biggest error was the continual use of the word Russia or Russian for Soviet Union. When I lived in Leningrad as a student in 1974 one rarely heard the word Russia. It was only used in the context of language or culture but never in terms of governance like the Russian Embassy, Russian government etc.. in the USSR. There was great emphasis on the use of the word Soviet Union.
In general, the movie was a bit slow, there was some effort at moral equivalence between the West and the USSR but the acting was good and most viewers will draw the conclusion that a great drama was played out not only between the Philby character and his country but also with his wife and family.
Watching this movie was a very disappointing experience. The premise
was good (like with most movies out there), but the execution was just
atrocious, and the story was unrealistic at best. For example, the
movie shows us that a westerner was allowed to go in and out of Soviet
Union, as well as go though streets of Moscow without any surveillance
in the midst of cold war!!
Moreover, the actors seemed like they were made out of wood in terms of expressiveness. The story was painfully slow and was heading nowhere, really: nothing changed nor happened though the entire movie...
Funny how our protagonists had a view at the Basilica of Christ the Saviour in early 70s (Destroyed in early 20th century, restored in late 90s by the mayor of Moscow)... This and many other anachronisms give out the fact that the production team didn't even research the subject of their work before filming...
For me, the biggest thing that can make or break a movie is it's
characters. The characters in this film, however, had about as much
depth as a Kleenex. For the first half hour or so of the film, I found
myself thinking "Who cares?". Basically, we're introduced to two people
who meet and fall madly in love....in the first 5 minutes of the movie.
No character development to speak of, and they certainly didn't change
or grow during the course of the movie. Everett and Stone had zero
chemistry, so the love scenes just looked forced and awkward. On top of
all this, the film had no flow to it what-so-ever; it cut back and
forth so quick and so often it was hard to keep track. Somehow it did
manage to keep my attention throughout, so I guess that buys it a few
points....but in general, this is a very poor film. Don't bother
wasting 100 minutes of your life, watch something else.
I just saw A different loyalty on DVD, and was very pleasantly surprised (especially after seeing the trailer). The story was extremely interesting and powerful. Sharon Stone and Rupert Everett were both fine in their parts, though their love story wasn't made completely believable (the second half of the movie was by far better than the beginning, and Sharon Stone actually did a great job portraying this woman). It took me a while to get used to the looks of the movie, though (I'm still not sure why the flashbacks looked so much like an erotic movie from the 70ies). But what an incredible story and a great and subtle script.
What a disappointment! After watching the film, there is a very good
reason that actual names were not used - other than general
similarities to circumstance, this is entirely a work of fiction.
Even a fictionalized account (inspired by the McClean story) could have been entertaining if had successfully delivered an historically accurate context (forget accuracy). There could have been a story of complex emotions, motivations and consequences but instead, you get a superficial drama that misses its mark or worse, doesn't even aim at the interesting targets.
This is a true waste of talent for such a great cast.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Someone -- director, writer, producer, perhaps all -- are caught with
their dialectics down. But where did Sharon Stone fit into this turkey?
That black wig was simply awful. The Sharon we love and admire is
blonde, blonde, blonde. I got a huge laugh out of the critic who
thought those black wigged shots were of different women. I think the
wig must have slipped around here and there because she sure looked
different from time to time. Sharon may be tired of her Basic Instict
fame -- although for the life of me I can't figure out why -- but why
on earth did she sign on for this one?
And the propaganda! The kindly Soviet officials, the cold and calloused Brits, and the brutal Americans -- that beefy brute with his leather armpit holstered .45 reminded me of a "settler" the US Attorney in San Francisco used to terrify both lawyer and defendant into copping a plea. The guy looked like King Kong, and roared just about as loudly. My poor client visibly quailed. But I just marveled at his performance and said, "No deal. We're going to trial." So the guy went back into his cage.
Sharon gets rescued from the CIA/FBI's Kong by his good-cop companion who was waiting just outside the room. Which was just about the only action in this boring mishmash of flash backs and forwards, with only the scantiest of love scenes to remind us that Sharon was once America's premier seductress. Alas.
You have to be real old and know a little history to be able to figure out what this one is about but it really isn't worthwhile the struggle. The script was a mishmash, the actors' voices largely unintelligible, the camera work murky, the drama slight, and the entertainment value nil. One can only conclude that someone important in this production was in love with the subject matter.
Well, as they say, love is blind.
The DVD packaging describes this movies as a thriller, and as if to
underline that, shows a picture of helicopters circling an exploding
van while a guy with a gun runs away.
This movie is not a thriller, and there are no explosions or helicopters. (What was that on the packaging? Clip art?) When I'm in the mood for explosions and helicopters, it's a disappointment to bring home a movie that instead has as its big moments someone breaking down a door or fingerprinting someone.
This movie is a rambling, disjointed drama. It wasn't completely awful, but was like real life in that the story doesn't completely make sense and doesn't work artistically. (And if they'd shown one more Casablanca-esquire foggy airfield, I'd have screamed.) It's just a bunch of confusing stuff that happens, and then other stuff happens, and who cares about any of those people? And we spent the first 45 minutes trying to tell the various dark-haired women apart. Or maybe they were all the same woman. Still don't know.
In 1951, two British diplomats who are actually Soviet spies escape to
Moscow indicating British intelligence has been infiltrated at the
highest level. Then it's 1961 Beriut. Leo Cauffield (Rupert Everett)
and Sally (Sharon Stone) fall in love, and she would leave her husband
for him. Four years later, Leo disappears and he's accused of being a
Soviet spy. Then she is told that he has gone to Moscow freely.
It's a small thing but the movie opening and subsequent text has this computer font. It indicates a 70s motif which clashes with the era of the movie. Then the movie takes too long to get going. This is based on a true story, and the story moves at a pedestrian pace. The dialog is uninspired. As for Sharon Stone, she is miscast in this role. Even thought she has dyed her hair dark, she can't hide her flashy Hollywood persona. The material is there for the taking, but this is not movie for it. The lack of style, ill-fitting acting, and weak dialog all add up to a weak production.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Who knew Sharon Stone would look so great as a brunette? She is
incredibly beautiful in this film about a true story that took place in
the 1960s. I don't know too much about the cold war, during which this
story takes place, so I won't mention too much about the politics of
Sharon Stone plays this woman who falls deeply in love with a handsome British gentleman, played by Rupert Everett. She leaves her husband to be with this mysterious gentleman and they get married and lived quite happily for about four years until one day, her husband walks out the door and never comes back home. Sally (character played by Sharon Stone) searches for her husband and finds out her husband has defected to Russia. Thus begins her earnest quest to bring her husband out of the Soviet Union and back to Britain.
Sharon Stone was so good in this film! She made me admire her character's strength. The love story between Sharon Stone's character and Rupert Everett's character was very convincing. I was startled by the eroticism of the lovemaking scenes between these two actors. That's what made the ending of the film so heartbreaking to me, that these two people who loved each other so much, had vastly different loyalties.
The story is a true story, and it's very sad. This film is good to watch because of the actors. Sharon Stone is such a stand out in this film. Rupert Everett was extremely sympathetic in this film in spite of the fact that he defected to Russia. I really liked the characters very much and I was moved by the pain these two people went through. I'll remember this film for a long time.
Not a bad rental at all.
Sharon Stone is the product of the Hollywood marketing machine but sadly again displays the fact that she just can't act. As always she's always too intense and comes across with first year drama school responses. This movie is a bore and it's understandable that it never got a theatre release. Messy and boring. Supposedly based on Kim Philby, so why the silly name changes? Rupert Everett must have needed the money or been obliged to take part through contractual obligations. He's a fine actor and tried hard in this dog but simply couldn't make any headway with his co-"star" and a lousy shallow script. At least they could have done some basic research and got some of the planes, buildings and cars right!
|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Official site|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|