Dame, König, As, Spion

If you like intricate plots, this is a good flick to watch. To catch all the details, though, I recommend watching it twice. Surprising how much more sense the story makes the second time around. The details fit together like a find Swiss watch. To catch all the heavy British accent dialog, consider enabling subtitles.

I have not read the book nor seen the 1979 landmark series that garnered so much acclaim for the BBC and Sir Alec Guinness, but such contextualisation is not needed to recognise that this version of 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy' is a masterful re-telling of John le Carré's seminal work about British espionage during the Cold War. An early scene really encapsulates the whole tone and mood of the film. A retired George Smiley (played majestically by Gary Oldman) is sitting at home and enjoying a documentary about Winston Churchill (which seems suitably apt for a man of his former position) when his doorbell suddenly and unexpectedly rings. His head turns slowly to the left in the direction of the impudent sound and the instantaneous look of sheer effrontery and disdain on Oldman's face will leave you chuckling as his peaceful reverie is rudely disturbed. Such scenes like this leaven the film with humour but ultimately this is a chamber piece; expertly played by the cream of British acting talent headed by Goldman and Hurt (who incidentally could also have been a great George Smiley) and told with a languid verve that unravels the complex plotting in a series of tableaux vivants laden with mystery and suspense, but which also acts as important plot points and clues.

The film is about the hunt for a Soviet 'mole' in the highest echelons of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6 but fictitiously known as 'The Circus') by George Smiley, an intelligence officer who has been brought out of forced retirement by Oliver Lacon, the Civil Service overseer of the Circus. Through a love affair with the wife of a Russian intelligence officer, a British agent, Ricki Tarr (Tom Hardy) discovers that there may be a high ranking Soviet mole within the Circus. Aided by Peter Guillam (Bendedict Cumberbatch) who is Tarr's handler, Smiley sets about uncovering the mole without the knowledge of Circus leadership, anyone of whom might be the mole, headed by Percy Alleline (Toby Jones) and his deputies Bill Haydon (Colin Firth), Roy Bland (Ciarán Hinds) and Toby Esterhase (David Dencik) – the 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy' of the book (codenames assigned by Control, Head of British Secret Service).

The director, Tomas Alfredson, established his reputation with 'Let the Right One In', an icy Swedish romantic horror that dealt with relationships and this too, is a film about human nature, moral dilemmas and relationships – friendship, loyalty and betrayal on intimate and grand scales with personal and national implications. Like 'Let the Right One In' Alfredson imbues 'Tinker, Tailor', Soldier, Spy' (his first English language feature) with somnambulistic pacing and mood that requires the audience to be patient, but this is richly rewarded with scenes, shot after shot, that ravish the eye and heavy with period atmosphere and drama. James Bond this is not and George Smiley has more in common with Harry Palmer than Ian Fleming's vigorous secret agent. Indeed, Robert De Niro's admirable treatment of the early history of the Criminal Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 'The Good Shepherd' (2006) has a similar cipher in Edward Wilson – a 'grey man' whose very ordinariness renders him invisible to counter espionage and thus makes him the perfect intelligence operative. A raised voice towards the end of 'Tinker, Tailor' is as excited as Smiley gets but for those not familiar with the story the ending will leave you with a broad smile of satisfaction as the 'grey man' (note Smiley's grey hair, grey countenance and grey suit replete with over-sized glasses and shambling gait) of the secret intelligence service wins the day.

The screenwriters, Peter Straughan and the late Bridget O'Connor, have done an exceptional job in condensing down what is clearly a labyrinthine Cold War thriller into a classic two hour potboiler without losing any of its exposition, characters, and plotting. John le Carré and his fans will be proud. This is a thinking man's film about a period of recent history that is as murky as it is exciting and relevant today with its eternal themes of friendship, loyalty and national security. There must be many more stories of espionage to mine from both sides of the Iron Curtain and I do hope this film kick starts a renewed interest in telling the stories of the Cold War warriors who shaped the modern world. If the film does 'King's Speech' levels of business I think it just might and Hollywood would be the richer for it.

It really is interesting to read the above reviews. I've just come back from seeing it and thoroughly enjoyed it, but I wondered if for people who hadn't read the book or seen the TV series it would make sense, and obviously it doesn't. It also doesn't fit the change in perception that the current generation have needing an edit at least every 5 seconds and a linear storyline, that's not ageist, just what we in a much older generation have left as our inheritance, sadly. I really enjoyed the film references whether they are intentional or not, they range from Rear Window to La Nuit Americaine to Mr Bean's Holiday to Godard. Gary Oldman as Smiley is very good, much colder that AG and as in the book a bit younger. It is also less of the feel of a group of Oxbridge Dons in charge rather ex servicemen as MI5 was in those days. I was in my 20's in the early 1970's and the general dullness of everything during that time comes through very well. I would think that after they edited it they wished they hadn't had some rather crass graffiti so prominent, but I remember it was all over London at that time. Good film with a plot that makes you concentrate and you have to use your brain, well worth seeing, but don't go if you want thrills and spills.

There is a certain snobbery with films that require more than a small amount of attention – an opinion that if you even ask about a small detail that you missed that you should then go watch Transformers and leave real films to the grownups. It is unpleasant superiority and it is mostly undeserved because to be honest this is a hard film to follow and it does demand attention. Those wishing to insult me via private message can do so, but I did struggle several times to understand how things fitted together and what relevance certain scenes had. This didn't limit my enjoyment of the film though and mostly I still followed the broad stroke of the plot, even if some bits of it did lose me.

I've not read the tome of a book or seen the BBC mini-series, so I can't comment how well it compresses down to this two-hour film, but for me it did at times seem to be cramming a lot into a small time and occasionally it felt like it was unnecessarily convoluted or confusing. If you stay with it as best you can, it is intriguing and rather dramatic considering that much of the film is people talking to one another as opposed to chases and gun fights. The success of this is mostly down to the atmosphere and tone created by director Alfredson, because there is a constant tension to the film – cold perhaps, but very tense at times, certainly not bored even if it can look that way from a distance.

This is not what he does best though, because to there was an aspect to the film that was excellent and this was the feeling of outdatedness, of an unnecessary function and a pointless "war". This feeling is in the characters, in the set-decoration and in every shot. The men we follow had the height of their import many years ago – now it appears they are mainly fighting their equal numbers on the other side simply because they exist. I really liked this overarching sense of smallness that sat across the film and I enjoyed finding it being employed in even the smallest detail – in the attitude of a minor character through to the cheap "do not unplug" text scrawled on the wall (those that work in older offices will know this feeling). Alfredson is bang on the money with this feeling, it is part of the story and it is brilliantly delivered throughout.

Speaking of brilliant delivery, the cast is deep in British talent and unsurprisingly they deliver. Oldman may not have won the Oscar but he is great here – working with restraint and doing so much. He does so much with minor reactions and movements and he is a great character. He is the lead here but alongside him is a cast that is hard not to just list – Cumberbach, Hurt, Jones, Firth, Burke, Graham, Hardy and so on; British all perhaps but it says a lot that almost all of the supporting players here will be recognised internationally. Everyone gives strong performances and everyone seems to understand what Alfredson is doing.

Overall, this is a great film albeit one that is not as easy to follow as those impatient snobs would have you believe. It is OK to struggle with some aspects and it is still easy to enjoy the film. The plot engaged me but what stayed with me more than anything else was how it all seemed so unimportant, how those involved were all working to ignore the irrelevance of their work and how very tired this world seemed – this aspect was very well done and made the film as much as Oldman's strong central performance.

Atmosphere: superb. Acting: outstanding. Cinematography: wonderful. Soundtrack: very nice.

Still, I didn't like this film. And that's because of its only weak point: the storyline. I have never read the book it is based on, nor seen the television series, and I completely lost track of the intricacies of the plot. I had only a vague idea of what was going on, where the story was headed and what the time perspective was (indications of the years in the flashbacks would be helpful).

I watched this movie late on a Friday night after a busy working week, so maybe I wasn't as sharp as I should be. You have to be absolutely concentrated every single second to understand everything that happens in this film.

Perhaps the movie was not meant to be crystal clear, and perhaps the director wants the viewer to discover all the subtleties after a second or third viewing. But then you are left with lots of scenes in which middle-aged men with stiff upper lips exchange what seems to be incomprehensible inside information. The lack of much real action might be a plus for viewers who like serious films, but it's a disadvantage when you lose track of what is actually happening.