MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Twilightfa Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

Josephina Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

A_Different_Drummer The other ratings much too low.It is ironic that the country which gave us the James Bond character (with saucy characters like Pussy Galore) also gives us the 64 year old Nighy, so thin he could slip under a door, so civilized his harshest weapon is his language, and, if you wondering if this works, BY GEORGE it does.A cast to die for including both Helena Carter and Winona Ryder, but it is once again Nighy who steals the show. I confess I have not seen as much of his work as I should have. But I remember his knack for comedy in Love Actually and his knack for horror in the Underworld series and I will never forget this dapper spy who, it seems, could stop a bullet with a stern stare if he had to.And the bullet would have to apologize.My only regret is that there are only three entries in the series.Great acting, great writing, and great entertainment. What more do you want?

begob One spy spots another spy on a Caribbean beach and, through a series of further coincidences, they take on a bunch of corrupt business types.I realised at the end this was a sequel to another contrived spy outing for the hero - not so memorable. Big problems with the story, relying so much on coincidence, and the central plot point is hardly earth shattering. Wordy script with its emphasis on the nasty security state that we've slipped into over the past ten years, and yet it lacks a killer speech to reveal the essence of this cruel and treacherous world, and shows no violence at all to convince us of the threat posed.The intro scene looks completely amateur, as if they weren't sure where to start, and the camera direction ain't great, with so many close ups botched as the characters light endless cigarettes. There was one theatrical scene with unnatural dialogue, and the ickyness of the beach scene at the end revealed the simplistic approach to a terribly complex intersection between the power of the state and the power of money. So I'm not a fan of this writer/director.I do like the actors, but ... Nighy seems to flip between assured calm and self-consciousness. Walken has his old man pants on, and Carter was a bit at sea with her reaction in the shake down scene. Ryder is very good in close up - big eyes and facial ticks that suggest a deep pit of pain.The music was OK, nothing special - and what was with that song over the end credits? Overall - underpowered story that doesn't even look interesting.

ochichornye The first instalment of what has now turned out to be a trilogy, Page Eight, made me long for more and David Hare has certainly delivered. The second episode, Turks & Caicos, is perhaps a bit slower paced and less spellbinding than Page Eight, but it has all the ingredients that made its predecessor such a breath of fresh air: a carefully crafted plot line, believable dialogue, excellent acting, a total absence of fist fights and explosions and a willingness to question the path the Western world has walked in the post-9/11 world.After his escape from England, Johny Worricker is lying low in the Turks and Caicos islands, a British overseas territory with an American currency. Big men with big money are thick on the ground and Johnny soon gets drawn into a mental chess game with them that threatens to expose some unsavoury secrets about the business aspects of the 'war on terror'. He soon has to fear for his safety again and re-engages some old friends in England to get to the heart of the matter.'Turks & Caicois' grew on me after repeated viewing. Because of its slower pace and the fact that most of it take place on a small Caribbean island, it feels more like a good stage play than the other two parts of the Worricker trilogy. I relished the well-crafted dialog and subtle gestures and expressions of the actors so much that I actually watched the DVD twice on successive nights.

adrianwilson2002 I was looking forward to watching Turks and Caicos, with its enviable cast list and intriguing plot. However, it turned out to be one of the WORST films I have ever seen (probably top 3). It was completely devoid of interest, depth or character. I spent the whole hour and a half waiting for something to happen and by the time something seemed to be happening at the end I found I was utterly uninterested. I hadn't engaged with any of the characters, perhaps because they were all one-dimensional. The whole film felt like it was rushed; written in an afternoon with some political references shoe-horned in and none of it fitting together at all. Everything felt contrived. Perhaps it was just badly edited, so that it jerked along with no real direction. At no point did I feel any empathy for the characters or care what was happening, let alone feel any sense of tension. Winona Ryder's character and performance would have been described as hammy and lacking in depth in a daytime soap. This 'Frank and Gary' that we barely met at the start suddenly turn into central characters from nowhere. Rupert Graves' character also turns out to be important yet he hardly has any lines and carries nothing of the powerful man he is supposed to be. Christopher Walken appeared to be doing a caricature of himself. It would have been disappointing and underwhelming as a low-budget, obscure-channel, daytime production. It should have been good but it instead it was truly truly awful. It has no redeeming qualities. Everyone involved should feel embarrassed.