La ruse

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.

It was enjoyable enough but I really wanted to enjoy this more than I did.

It seemed to unnecessarily labour several male characters fancying Kelly Macdonald's character. All the time taken up on this tiresome sub-plot would have been better spent on some of the main story. Also, a triple-agent character giving a hand job to someone just seemed unlikely and out of place.

One of several nods to James Bond was an unfeasibly high-powered buzzsaw watch as a throwaway gag (because of Ian Fleming being a character) was corny and distracting.

I somehow expected it would be more engaging, gritty and revealing than the 1956 film, but it seemed pretty typical and formulaic like many modern British WWII themed films with foiled wartime romances crow-barred in.

There are some great actors in the film but some of them seem to be overused in other similar roles the same era. It even seemed a little like a mini "Death of Stalin" reunion for Jason Isaacs and Simon Russell Beale.

Perhaps I'm being too unkind to the film, but I was looking forward to it and fell a little short of expectations.

There is a better film here but some unnecessary side plots - oh well, that romantic thing took the focus so many times - are really distracting.

Some very good moments, great acting, very tense on its third act, but the first was confusing and full of exposition. Good enough but I was expecting better.

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.

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 !