Leo Cauffield, chief of British counterespionage, fails by a whisker to arrest two fellow Cambridge-graduated spies who just manage to defect to Moscow, resigns and becomes a journalist. In...
See full summary »
Leo Cauffield, chief of British counterespionage, fails by a whisker to arrest two fellow Cambridge-graduated spies who just manage to defect to Moscow, resigns and becomes a journalist. In Beirut, home of his Islam-converted father, Leo seduces Sally Tyler to divorce her husband for him. Their happiness with children from both marriages is cut short a few years later, when Leo suddenly disappears; Sally learns soon he's suspected of having defected to Moscow too, which she refuses to believe, but will be forced to while Western secret services want Leo back or dead.Written by
Rupert Everett has previously played the lead in another film based on the story of the Cambridge Spies, Another Country (1984), in which his character was based on real life spy Guy Burgess. See more »
One of the shots of Moscow in the 1960s shows The Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. It was destroyed by Stalin in the 1930s, and rebuilt during the 1990s. In the 1960s an outdoor pool would have been in its place. See more »
There's evidence of someone they call agent Virgin, maybe a convert.The main source of the leak is someone who works inside the foreign office in London and his code name is Homer.
See more »
The opening credits appear on the screen in the fashion of text typed and displayed on a very early computer, during scenes showing events taking place a decade before the time the film is set in. See more »
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.
3 of 3 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this