Recensioni degli utenti

Hayley Atwell made this for me - she was excellent throughout. The story was exciting, although I still don't know who was watching from the forest and why they would suddenly start to do so, long after the original events. Charlotte Rampling is also very good indeed in her part.

The credits show that quite a lot of it was filmed in South Africa, which seems to have done duty for the USA. This sometimes looked cheap (the little street corner that stands in again and again for New York City) and some of the local actors had dodgy American accents. "Turn left hyah" doesn't strike me as authentic for New Mexico.

It was enjoyable and I recommend it.

I thought the first half or so was marvelous. I felt the ending was a let down and flat somehow. There felt like so much build up for the present day resolution and then it went out with a whimper. Still good overall. (One thing that may have thrown me is that i thought I was watching a movie. Prime then said episode 1 of season 1 so I thought it was going to be more lengthy.)

It's the 70's England. Ruth Gilmartin (Michelle Dockery) visits her mother Sally (Charlotte Rampling) with her son. She is shocked when her mother reveals her secret past. In 1939, she is Russian exile Eva Delectorskaya (Hayley Atwell) in Paris. Her brother is murdered and then she's recruited into British Intelligence. She starts working for Lucas Romer (Rufus Sewell) in AAS Ltd disseminating false information. She's almost killed during an attempted defection by a Nazi in Belgium. As the war advances, her group works in America but the spy world gets murkier.

There are two different sides to this two-part miniseries. In the 70's story, Dockery is functionally shocked by Rampling who at times seem to be a mad woman. It has a paranoid feel but they don't have the same thrills. In the WWII story, the spy story has a good build-up and then plenty of solid spy thrills. All of it combines to be a compelling story weaving in old war rumors. The three female leads are terrific and this is a nice espionage movie.

The description of the three hour, two episode drama is misleading. The daughter doesn't find out her mother is not who she thought she was. Instead she is given a manuscript containing the complete story of her mother's life. Most of the film is what Hayley Atwell's character did in the 40's, with little that makes any sense in the 1970's "present".

Now, the story is interesting, a sort of cloak and dagger British Intelligence outfit that is tasked with convincing the Americans to join the war effort in favour of Europe. Sexy Eva is recruited, trained and unleashed upon unsuspecting foreign agents. However, as many have noticed, the execution of the plot survives only to the most superficial scrutiny. But it is damn ridiculous to complain about the inconsistencies, though, if we liked the movie. It's not like we don't know it's a film.

What does strike as slightly annoying is the length of the feature. Certainly this could have been more concise in the length of a normal film or more detailed and watchable in a three or four episode miniseries. As such, you can't wait for it to be over, waiting for the climactic ending that, alas, doesn't really come. Everything is explained in the end, but with a fizzling finale that holds no power and creates no emotion.

Beautiful Hayley Atwell and Rufus Seawell both made the film bearable due to their performance. Perhaps it would have been better to just discard the 1970's story and just tell the 1940 one from beginning to end. The Americans would have done so, ended the story with her escaping and quickly preparing a sequel. :)

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!

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..?

However, the actors chosen to depict the characters as they had aged was a real stretch. It was very difficult trying to image the Rufus Sewell turned into Michael Gambone over a 30 years span. Charlotte Rampling wasn't quite as difficult, but it would have been easier to watch and understand had they simply used aging make up. We're only trying to go from actors in the 30's into their 60's. The plot was great and intriguing and fun to follow, but those different faces that didn't really fit interfered.

RESTLESS is a two-part BBC drama, based on a story by ANY HUMAN HEART author William Boyd. It's set in two different time periods, the 1940s and the 1970s, and follows the fate of characters working as spies during WW2.

For starters, this is no ANY HUMAN HEART. The calibre of the script just isn't up there with that production's, and the whole cross-cutting between two time periods doesn't work that well. The wartime espionage stuff is fine, but the '70s era plotting is dull and features luvvies Charlotte Rampling and Michael Gambon giving typically lethargic performances.

Thankfully, we have at least half of a good show, because the spy stuff is where RESTLESS hits its stride. Hayley Atwell (PILLARS OF THE EARTH) once again proves her worth as a tough, sexy, heroine, trained to be a spy by the British and engaging in all manner of dangerous plots thereafter. Rufus Sewell more than matches her as the suave spymaster she falls for.

Clocking in at three hours, the production is a little slow and the ending more than a little obvious; the identity of a key villain is also way too obvious. Still, the espionage scenes are handled well and it's a pleasure to watch drama that doesn't pander to its audience.

I just stumbled across this film on iTunes on a lazy Sunday, and have been jumping for joy! I love "thinking" spy thrillers--films like The Ipcress Files, Funeral In Berlin, The Night Manager, Homeland, and even Turn: Washington's Spies--and Restless ranks right up there with the best. The plot is intelligent without being too complex, the directing was spot-on (I particularly liked the cutting back-and-forth between time periods at the end of the first part of this two-part mini), and the period clothes, cars and interiors are right up there with The Man in the High Castle. Oh and the acting by this cast of Brits, should make U.S. actors want to go back to school. And I can't say enough about Hayley Atwell's performance: incredible! Plus, with her generous curves, she was made for 1940s films. All around excellent film. Find it on DVD or iTunes and watch it--and then watch it again. You won't be disappointed.

Having been introduced to Atwell in the Captain America movies, I have become quite a fan. I loved her in Agent Carter and hope for the series to continue regularly; so was very interested to find that she was in a movie - a TV movie but still a movie nonetheless. I have also become a fan of Dockery's, whom I first saw in Downton Abbey, and I think these two are my favourite British actresses, in historical dramas anyway. So the acting is great, though Atwell can not really pass as Russian, plus her 'Russian' accent changed too fast to be believable.

Also, I like the atmosphere of the past better than the present. It feels more authentic, and there was more action there I guess. I was not as interested in the present than I was of the past and the events that happened. But the juxtaposition of the two times was done really well. Action scenes were executed impressively as well with some very thrilling sequences.

I'm not really sure what the significance of Ruth's son was, and her relationship with Karl-Heinz (Alexander Fehling) because maybe it added some depth to her character but the characters seem kind of pointless. Also, it added some confusion to the story as I was wondering what he was involved in when it didn't really affect the main story anyway.

I did not much like the ending as well. The music makes me think something bad happens but it just ends. So yea, I was hoping for a better ending. I like how the story concluded, but the ending scenes just felt like something was missing.

Read more movie reviews at: championangels.wordpress.com

We enjoyed this miniseries SO much, for hours...until the choppy ending, leaving lose ends and confusing, unaddressed storyline! Great actors we love, an interesting plot, and then..."flop" it ends, and not smoothly. I felt as though it was decided that the ending needed to change. Then they just pieced it together. It was so sad to be deeply into the story, only to watch it unsatisfyingly sputter and fizzle out.

***may contain spoilers for some sensitive folks***

RESTLESS, the television adaptation of William Boyd's novel of the same name, was shown on UK BBC One and US Sundance Channel television in two parts in December 2012. The teleplay was nominated for two Primetime Emmy awards the following spring. Part one, the story of Eva's early life as a spy in the days leading to World War II, is beautifully filmed on spectacular locations in Europe. The cars used in the production are European vintage in beautiful condition. The costumes are interesting and appear authentic. The cast is superlative: Sally Gilmartin...Charlotte Rampling ("Swimming Pool") Eva Delectorskaya...Hayley Atwell ("Any Human Heart") Ruth Gilmartin....Michelle Dockery ("Downton Abbey") Lucas Romer....Rufus Sewell ("Zen")(Part 1)....Michael Gambon ("Dancing at Lughnasa")(Part 2)

The story begins in 1976 in a remote part of England when Ruth (a long red-haired hippie working on her doctorate) and her son visit her mother Sally Gilmartin. Ruth finds her mother in great fear thinking someone is in the woods behind the house trying to kill her. Sally has purchased a rifle, binoculars, and a telescope. She tells her daughter she was a Russian girl named Eva that was a spy for the British in a clandestine group that offered refuge for German informants and recruited Roosevelt's help for British causes in WW II. Sally implores Ruth to find and visit Lucas Romer, the only one she trusts in the group, to stop the present-day killers; she gives her daughter her journal of her days as a spy.

Eva's journal begins in 1939 German-occupied France when she is recruited by spy-master Lucas Romer after her brother is killed by Nazis. She is trained at a safe house in a remote part of England. The film emphasizes that Eva receives no weapons training, so it is clearer that she is training to be a seductress. (At least, clearer to me in the teleplay than in the novel.)

The restaurant scene, one of Eva's first capers, takes place in Amsterdam when she and Romer, but primarily Eva, are to rescue a Dutch informant. The man gives Eva the wrong "double password" and Eva escapes through a bathroom window and witnesses the informant's death by several Nazi diners. The scene is vivid and well done...and shows Romer's early dominance over Eva's activities. (He's across the street in a hotel with a pair of binoculars!)

Romer, played by a handsome Rufus Sewell with a thin mustache, is not nicer than in the book...still an arrogant, rude man! He stays in the shadows at Eva's brother's funeral and during her spy training. The several times they meet, he is discourteous and does not treat her as a lady (although one of her fake passports is for a Baroness). Both Eva and Romer smoke continuously. Other men light her cigarettes...just not Romer. There is a strange scene where one of the group, an older man, calls Eva to witness a murder posed as a suicide at a crime scene before the police are summoned. Eva recognizes the victim as one of the directors of the group.

One can still wonder in the film, as in the book, why Eva and Romer became lovers. It happens suddenly with a kiss and then a seduction in a hotel room. If I recall, it's right after the restaurant caper. (As someone mentioned in my book club discussion...love happens fast in tense times.) Although RESTLESS is an adult drama, there is no profanity nor any bodily function or display in bad taste. Romer's sexual practice (coitus interruptus) is hinted at in the hotel room scene...but you would miss it if you have not read the novel.

The first part ends when Eva is assigned to go to Washington, D. C. to persuade America to come to Britain's aid in its war with Germany. Her specific assignment is to seduce the aide of Roosevelt's personal assistant Harry Hopkins. Previews of the conclusion show her as a blowzy blonde.....

Stay tuned...

I enjoyed these for a lot of reasons. Suspenseful story. I find that Charlotte Rampling is always in reat stuff

This was poor and left me grieving for BBC Drama - who is going to make quality television if the BBC can't? It had a lot of the right ingredients - if they were re-making The Singing Detective, then Rufus Sewell would be a perfect choice, so it was only right that Michael Gambon played Sewell's older self. But the pace was slow, the plot became nonsense (was it perhaps originally a six part that was then cut down?), and the dialogue was awful. They left the worst til last though, the ending was truly dire leaving me regretting that I had spent 3 hours getting there - God knows how the actors and crew felt when they saw it, after all it took them a lot longer.

Why is this 4 and not 1, because I like the genre.

1970s groovy and cavalier turns into careful and compelling. It was 1939, too. A loyal daughter discovers her mother isn't who shi claimed. A mother discovers a dependable daughter. They both revisit the criminal past and discover something devastating for Britain. I am chuffed to introduce Restless, a faintly riveting flick with superb acting, of course!

We have the paranoid yet decisive Sally (Charlotte Rampling). We have the shocking talent in Michelle Dockery, as Ruth (would like to see her on stage). We have the strangely attractive, mysterious, and frustrating Lucas (Rufus Sewell). You wanted to believe him; he guided our protagonist with professionalism, mostly. The nexus is the axis is the protagonist, Eva; shi was brilliantly portrayed by Hayley Atwell (would love to see her on stage, as well). The music matched the tease of the plot. We were offered odds and sods of Eva's story moving into the past and returning to the present. Eva was bright, focused, mature, and dedicated. Shi did what was needed but someone threw a spanner in the works. We don't learn who until the end. How intriguing is the training of the British secret service. How frightful working for them, no one to trust. It seemed everyone was faffing around; how clever.

The older Eva seemed paranoid for most of the film; then, shi buys a rifle. Her daughter, Ruth, learned spy craft during her xplratory journey. Adrian Scarborough, who played the kind and unassuming Morris Devereux, was like a calming cuppa. Lord Romer was frustrating; Michael Gambon's portrayal of him was quietly well-done (think, The Good Shepherd). The cinematography was expansive yet somber. Something became balls-up; someone became a mark; someone became the hardman; someone turns into a corker; and this film intrigued me!

If you just want entertainment and don't feel the need for picking nits, this is an excellent 2 part series. Granted the 1970's weren't quite as exciting as the 1940's but the transition back and forth is certainly more seamless and smooth than many series. There's numerous recognizable faces in here but HayleyAtwell and Rufous Sewell certainly have the best bits and respond appropriately. Great characters and well acted depictions of those characters. Michelle Dockery and Charlotte Rampling are adequate as is the rest of the supporting cast. I have read many of the worst reviews here and my response is balderdash! This is definitely 3 hours well spent and I just wish all short series were this good!! Fun series!

If not for Hayley alone. It's amazing how much she suits this era. Her beauty is timeless. She is a great actress and seems to embody all of her characters. Watching this reminded me of her role as Agent Carter. That role was made for her. Of course she is great in other roles as well.

I'm not the biggest fan of war/spy movies as they are rather confusing at times. It was still fun to watch. It also had some romance thrown in with the espionage.

It would have been nice to see more of Ruth's father. I realize it wasn't really important to the story though.

Great acting all around. The ending was a bit strange but the story as a whole was interesting.

All the actors in this movie were quite good, keeping me watching until the very end. Rufus Sewell and Haley Atwell, especially, pulled me into their adventurous spy story and love life. But at the end I was left quite unsatisfied. As the credits rolled, on retrospect, there were just so many plot holes that the whole story was unbelievable. I felt like there should be an Episode 3 to somehow resolve everything.

I went to Amazon.com to read the book summary and user reviews, thinking that perhaps much had been simply lost or warped when translating the work to the screen. But no. At least one reviewer had the same problem with the book that I had with the movie.

Other reviewers on Amazon have spelled out the plot holes. I won't do so here so as to avoid a spoiler alert.