La ruse

I was really looking forward to this film because it's based on the book of the same name by Ben Macintyre, which was brilliant.

It starts off very strong, setting the scene, as in wartime Britain and at what point of the war it is, and highlighting the importance of the mission that the main characters will do.

Unfortunately as other reviewers have said the main plot of the movie is not the focus at times and instead it focuses on, frankly, irritating sub-plots. The strength of the film is the intelligence work that the characters do and that should have been the focus.

The acting was great. I particularly liked, Jason Isaacs as John Godfrey a naval commander and Simon Russel Beale as Winston Churchill.

Overall, worth watching, especially if you normally like World War Two dramas or spy stories, but potentially could have been better I think.

The production team clearly had one too many during the making of this. Why anyone would add fiction to spoil a fascinating historical tale is beyond me.

Lets recap -- the Brits decieved Hitler through brilliant trickery into diverting his troops, thereby losing ground to the allies, and ultimately losing the war. If this was pure fiction it would be unbelievable or better told with Marvel characters or Tarantino. However, it wasnt fiction!! So why litter the core story with contrived subplots? The relationship between Montague and Jean was nonsense. Unrealistic. Irrelevant. Was it perhaps because someone promised Colin it was a love story to get him involved? Add to this, whilst the script and dialogue was largely good, at times it was awful. These were brainfreeze moments. Casting and performances were generally good, especially Matthew M and Penelope Wilton.

I did enjoy the movie but mainly because of the sheer fascination with the story, rather than the execution of this version of the story.

A likeable film however I can't help but feel for the potential that it missed out on. The actors fulfilled their roles and we were able to get to know the characters.

The film often digressed from the main theme and and focused on far less relevant sub plots. Contrasting this some more interesting scenes felt to be cut short.

The film is overall above par, however I feel this could have been so much more.

The idea for the film is good and solid. However, it is diluted to the absurd with some weird menage a trois love plat that, if removed, would shorten the movie with a much needed half an hour.

Just watched Operation Mincemeat. Having recently read Ben McIntyre's book of Operation Mincemeat.

I hope the filmmakers read all the reviews, which basically say the same thing about ridiculous subplots If I want to watch a romantic movie, I will follow Bridget Jones. I prefer war movies.

Will filmmakers STOP mixing the two together, it does NOT appeal to a larger audience Equally, STOP trying to re invent the wheel, first we had the Jerky camera period, which no one liked, now we have the fad for showing the almost ending, then going back to...6 months earlier..etc The man who never was is a better film because of not including romantic fictional subplots I suggest filmmakers watch movies from the 1950s to see well crafted film making, Eg The Cockleshell Heroes or One of our planes is missing, both told in chronological time order.

On another note, if you want a massive box office hit, read The Black Ship, by Dudley Pope. A meticulously researched book about the "Bloodiest" Mutiny in the history of the Royal Navy But please make sure you observe correct military protocols, you do not salute improperly dressed officers, ie when not wearing their hat !