RyothChatty ridiculous rating

GazerRise Fantastic!

ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

miss_lady_ice-853-608700 NOTE: The spoiler is in the fourth paragraph.It's not that Restless is badly acted- just that a story about a WW2 spy should be a lot more fun than this two-parter TV movie, totalling three hours.There are two timelines: the present day, which is the seventies, and the early forties. In the 'present day', Ruth Gilmartin (Michelle Dockery) is told by her mother Sally (Charlotte Rampling) that she is not Sally but instead is Eva Delectorskaya, a former British spy during WW2. In the forties, Eva (Hayley Atwell) is recruited by charismatic spymaster Lucas Romer (Rufus Sewell) who naturally she ends up falling in love with.Whilst real life espionage is probably not like a Bond movie and is closer to the mundane work here, full of innocent code phrases and staring out of a window for hours spying on someone, it makes the pace drag. The espionage becomes more exciting in Episode 2 but it's not really worth sitting through Episode 1, which is a bit of a waste of time unless you want to see the romancing of Lucas and Eva.Were this a normal length TV movie, that would have helped considerably as there is a lot of filler here. It also means that the viewer might be more forgiving of the various clichés- it's blindingly obvious that Lucas is going to seduce Eva and that he will be a traitor. The fact that this does not occur to her at all makes Eva come across as stupid. Rather than focusing on her espionage skills, she comes across more like an ordinary woman motivated by love.There are hints in the second episode of some politically relevant parallels with WW2 in the seventies but this is not explored. Restless is too superficial to be interesting but not superficial enough to enjoy as a pulpy spy story. I am aware that it is based on a novel by William Boyd but the filmmakers needed to either make it intellectual or entertainment and they did neither.

richwgriffin-227-176635 This made for British television movie has astonishing performances. Michael Gambon, Michelle Dockery (of Downton Abbey), Hayley Atwell, and especially Charlotte Rampling. The film is well directed and keeps up the suspense all the way to the end.Some of the reviews of this have been quite astonishing. I have no idea (other than Michelle Dockery is in both) a reviewer would compare it (unfavorably!) with Downton Abbey - the best British television series EVER. Also people saying there are all these alleged "plot holes". Actually, it all makes sense and is brilliantly done and very entertaining.But I want to give my greatest praise for the brilliant actress Charlotte Rampling as the older Eva. I suspect she will win a well deserved Emmy as Best Supporting Actress next September. She has a steely determination and a feeling of paranoia after years of stress over being found out.My only complaint has to do with the commercial interruptions on Sundance - once it comes out on DVD the maddening commercials will be gone.Grade: A

aciddropkid Was "Restless" worth using up 3 hours of my life on? The answer is (probably) 'Yes', but only just... The plot was interesting, the performances adequate, and I had to think a number of times as to who, when, and where the characters were when settings changed. The casting was a bit iffy for me. I found it hard to accept the actors as the same people at varying stages of their lives. (I accept there must be difficulties involved in productions that need to show characters at different points in their lives, but the casting here wasn't the best. I suppose it's a toss-up between using different actors, or ageing characters by make-up. Both must have their problems.) On top of that, and without even trying, I noticed some anomalies. Among others, the wrong version of the Stars and Stripes was used, and wrong telephone ring tones too. The mother and daughter left the shop without taking all of their purchases with them. The college tutor finished his drink twice. All in all, it passed the time, but my 'suspension-of-disbelief' was suspended. I'm only a customer - what do I know..?

robert-temple-1 This gripping film was brilliantly directed by Edward Hall, who has previously directed six episodes of the TV series SPOOKS but is otherwise little known. I cannot imagine that now he will be little known for much longer. The film is from a screenplay by William Boyd, an adaptation of whose novel (by himself), ANY HUMAN HEART (2010, see my review) was truly spectacular. I would say that William Boyd is now one of the hottest things British television has got to offer to the world. Hayley Atwell does a truly brilliant job of playing the lead in this new film, just as she excelled in Boyd's earlier series. This film is a new variation of the British traitor theme, and concerns a devilishly cunning double agent. Atwell plays the young Eva Delectorskaya, a Russian émigré fluent in English and other languages, who is recruited as a British spy in 1939. The film begins in the current day, when Eva is played with steely conviction by the indomitable Charlotte Rampling, who was for so long every thinking man's choice of the ideal tea partner, if crumpet was to be served. Really, I do think Charlotte Rampling could convince anyone of anything. If she had not been an actress she could have made a fortune as a salesman. Even now that the film is over, I still believe she is out there with her sawn-off shotgun ready to protect herself from the people who want her dead because she knows too much. The screenplay, as is to be expected, coming as it does from Boyd, is sensationally well crafted. All the cast are excellent. Rufus Sewell has matured into a most interesting actor who has gone beyond youth into becoming a real man at last. For too long he was the thrusting young man. Now he can get all those good solid grown-up parts which suit him so much better. He does a wonderful job here as the spy master Lucas Romer, who in the present day scenes is played with his usual powerful presence by Michael Gambon. Young Michelle Dockery plays the daughter of Rampling. We can see her character visibly maturing on the screen, as the action brings out that rare thing in a movie, true character development. At the beginning of the film, when Rampling announces to her daughter that her name is Eva Delectorskaya, Dockery thinks she must be getting Aldzheimers or something, and says: 'Nonsense, you're my mother. Your name is Sally Gilmartin', as if she were a nurse calming a patient. But gradually the truth begins to dawn, and it is not long before they enter into a double game as a team to flush out the threat to Rampling's life. There are many heart-stopping moments. But the central glowing presence on the screen which makes everything work so convincingly is Hayley Atwell. She was named by her parents after Hayley Mills, as so many thousands of British girls were. (Hayley was only a surname until Hayley Mills was given it as a first name, her mother being Mary Hayley-Bell. William Hayley, 1745-1820, their ancestor, was a distinguished minor English poet of the 19th century and a close friend of William Blake.) So maybe talent is hereditary, passing down through anyone named Hayley. Just a thought! The seamless interweaving between past and present in this film (well, I say film, it was shown in two episodes on the BBC and is thus technically a mini-series, I suppose, though with a running time altogether of only 3 hours) is done with considerable finesse. Everything seems to have come together to make RECKLESS a total success, and that splendid achievement was anything but reckless. More, please!