A Different Loyalty

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.

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.

2.5/10

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.

Weak movie. I would venture to say it reminded me of a low budget B movie. I was bored. The characters were almost lifeless, all except Sharon Stone's character. Even though it was made in 2004/2005, it resembles the production abilities of much earlier decades. Locations don't seem realistic. For example, Beirut was the Paris of the Middle East in the 1960's yet was cast as a backward location in a more backward town (not even a city). The clothes seem like they were of a decade or two earlier. I gave the movie a 5/10 and that may have been generous.

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.