Wordiezett So much average

Loui Blair It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

samkan TWB exploits modern and contemporary British history. A viewer would do well to first have some understanding of the Suez Incident, Kim Pheby and Company, and the increasing surveillance of the English public. But the film's attempt to indoctrinate are so mawkish and heavy handed that the viewer is left feeling like he/she has just read a middle school social studies text. There's a scene when Caine's character is walking with his son and the latter, under the pretense of dialog, spills out a liberal's editorial column on the problem with national security run amuck. We're asked to accept that Caine's character, an ordinary merchant, would be treated to an audience of aristocratic higher-ups who take the time and risk of explaining their motives and logic. We're also asked to accept that Caine can simply walk into the home of knighted dignitary, cause the death of Sir Whatshisname, then - cut to the next scene - attend's Sir's funeral in state. All this while British national security is murdering its populace for being just looking too suspicious; i.e., just in case. For all the ruckus, there's not an ounce of suspense or tension in this movie.PS/ This is an older film though I regularly get "Not helpful" clicks, obviously from a someone who had something to do with the making of the movie or a die hard fan. I dare you to identify yourself.

travis_iii Michael Caine has been involved in some stinkers in his career (let's face it every actor has to pay the bills); he has also made plenty of very good films and also plenty of films like 'The Whistle-Blower': an above average and very watchable drama of the second-rank. In fact it's Caine's solid acting (mostly low-key though he does get to fly off the handle in his own inimitable style a couple of times) which invests the film with believable emotion and elevates it above it's many clichés. The supporting cast is strong too; a cynical, amoral, self-serving and oft sinister intelligence industry is portrayed ably by Gordon Jackson, James Fox and John Gielgud.It's a shame that the demands of marketing mean that a film is often plugged as something it isn't. In this case 'The Whistle-Blower' is not a thriller (in fact the one and only 'action' scene - a car crash -is pretty rubbish and looks a bit tacked on), and it is only superficially a story about cold-war espionage (there are plenty of references to Anthony Blunt et al, but it's no 'Smiley's People'). Essentially it's a drama about loss; a man's loss of faith (in this case in his country) and, of his son. I'd point any harsh detractors of this film to the scene where, soon after learning of his sons death, Jones (Caine) attempts to discuss what happened with his son's neighbour and colleague, Rose (Dinah Stabb), and I challenge them not to be moved and at the same time chilled by the exchange.Yes, this film does have plenty of flaws. Cinematically it is pretty dull and dated; it has a bit of that naff 1970's/80's home-counties feel to it (though in some ways one could argue I suppose that this style aids in the depiction of the stolid, grey, snobby, repressed British establishment of the story... an establishment trying to cope with it's diminished, subservient place in the world while keeping up the public pretence that Britannia still rules the waves). It's full of clichés and undeveloped characters, and the screen-play has plenty of downs as well as ups; but credit where credit is due, it is at times thought provoking and engaging. It shouldn't be put down for trying to cram a lot of things in and so appearing sometimes a bit unsubtle as a result (as I said previously it's no 'Smileys People'). I felt compelled to follow Jones' journey through a cynical, venal and uncaring world, and in that fundamental manner, for me, the film is a success.

TheJiveMaster The Whistle Blower tells a story which is likely to be obsolete nowadays. The end of the cold war rendered stories of this nature difficult to perceive but was written at a time when relations between the US and USSR were strained and scandals were rife in British Intelligence and at GCHQ.The film tells the story of a jittery secret service heavily reliant on American information to help keep the soviets at bay. It demonstrates how the service would have reacted to the allegation that there were soviet agents within organisations such as GCHQ and how they may have been dealt with. The eventual reasoning is cruel and cold and leaves the watcher wondering if events like this really did take place at the time.The Whistle Blower tells a good story which is easy to follow and comprehend. It is bolstered by a good cast but let down by poor direction making it staid in places.

jakflo ...but this movie was saved by Michael Caine (who can make a bad movie watchable) and Nigel Havers as his son... Caine was great as the father trying to find out why his son Robert (Havers) died... His son was an analyst for Britian's GCHQ (the equivalent of the NSA in the U.S)... Through flashbacks, we learn that Robert has stumbled on some activities that British Intelligence would just as soon not have made public, but Robert has a conscience...Good premise and well done... BUT, what really griped me was the ending sequence when Sir John Gielgud was given some lines to say that were lifted almost verbatim from Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (both the book and the Alec Guinness mini-series)... I felt ripped off... This spoiled what was otherwise a reasonably entertaining cloak-and-dagger, paranoia flick...