In guerra tutto è concesso

Nothing is perfect but sometimes we have to be grateful for large mercies. In view of the generally mindless dreck that is offered on the screen (big or small) David Hare has at least given us intelligent dialogue written for adults and spoken clearly by a cast of actors who know what they're doing. No faux dramatic, over-amplified background music and no extraneous background noise ... we're here to hear people speak not how noisy the traffic is on a London street. It goes without saying that Bill Nighy is Worricker personified and it's hard to imagine anyone else in the role ... all that world-weary patience; it was good to see him finally lose his cool in the final episode and lash out as everything seemed to be falling apart. Highly recommended.

In Part 3 of the Worricker Trilogy, Johnny (Bill Nighy) and Margot (Helena Bonham-Carter are now in Europe attempting to escape from the British Secret Service.

Through a friend in England, Worricker has gotten a story in the newspaper about the "bridge" fund handled by Prime Minister Beasley (Ralph Fiennes) but unfortunately, it goes nowhere.

It's now evident that Worricker and Margot must return to England, but this time, he seeks out an editor of The Independent and gives her the entire story, hoping that with more facts, it will make a difference.

The situation grows more complicated from there, as Worricker begins to feel used by both sides, plus it is affecting his daughter, who is pregnant. Can the situation be salvaged?

Watch for the excellent scene that occurs when Worricker finally meets Beasley the PM face to face.

This is a decent ending to the trilogy, and very suspenseful in spots.

The Johnny Worricker trilogy concludes with Salting the Battlefield. Our hero with his ex girlfriend, Margot (Helena Bonham-Carter) are criss- crossing Europe trying to stay one step ahead of the security services and a vengeful Prime Minister. However if you must go out for a coffee early in the morning then chances are you will be spotted.

Worricker is being watched, his family and friends are being watched. He is running out of cash and he needs to make a move to reach an endgame.

The film does not mention a date, the name of the governing political party but we can guess this is a New Labour administration set a few years ago and although writer/director has stated that Alec Beasley is a new type of Prime Minister and Ralph Fiennes gives him a healthy dash of Lambert La Roux (The media mogul from a previous Hare play, Pravda) we can sense there is a lot of Tony Blair imbued in the character and events.

We do reach an end game as Worricker feeds the press and confronts the Prime Minister, not without Beasley asking difficult but loaded questions in return which was a very New Labour thing to do.

The Worricker trilogies have been enjoyable, despite the location shooting they were very much glorified stage plays, almost bottle dramas. I did feel Hare the writer would had benefited from someone else directing who would had bought a more visual flair and pacy action.

What we do get are uniformly well acted dramas, sterlingly led by a very feline Bill Nighy but they required more demands from the viewers than it needed because it was stilted here and there.

Intentionally or otherwise, this review of the 3rd instalment of the series follows the actual script for the series.

In other words, just like the revelations that the central character must deal with in the story, we viewers also must cope with good news and bad news.

The bad news is that on the basis of pure entertainment, this is the weakest instalment. The fault here is that expectations were too high. The first two presented powerful and charismatic actors who popped in and out of nowhere. This sort of trope is missing here. The first two presented Nighy's character as a sort of white knight who potentially could bend an entire system to his will while he righted perceived wrongs. This final episode introduces reality into that hope.

The good news is that if you are going to narrow the focus of a film to the core stars, you could do worse than these stars. There is a scene near the close where Fiennes and Nighy finally get a face to face. It is a short scene but so powerful it could curl your hair without a curling iron. As it plays out, you realize the entire series was building to that one scene. Maybe Nighy's character is too naive for modern geo-politics. Maybe the extra eye candy is missing from this episode. Maybe the third Act is just about loose ends. But this is still spy drama at its best.

'Salting the Battelfield' is one of two new television films by playwright David Hare, following up on an earlier film of his about a renegade British spy; and having (mostly) praised the first, 'Turcs and Caicos', I now feel obliged to criticise the second, even though the two are more similar than different. The critiques are two: firstly, the story takes place in a beautiful Britain full of beautiful people, I may like Helena Bonham Carter as much as the next man, but she really doesn't make a very convincing spy, and the elegiac music gives the whole piece a "sun sets sadly on the glorious British Empire" feel at odds with the reality of the nature of modern society and its contribution to the growth of Islamic terrorism. This film is indeed supposedly about terrorism, and the threat (or opportunity) that it offers to the state; but we never get a glimpse of anything that might be a cause of it. Indeed, the second criticism is that we rarely get a glimpse of anything, much; when Bill Nighy's character has an argument with his daughter, it's nicely scripted as far as it goes, but we know nothing to allow us to judge the man, his words and his feelings; and its emblematic of an entire drama where the cast talk around the issues but the audience is never sufficiently well-briefed. Is the Prime Minister paranoid, a con-man, or does he really believe he is doing the best for his country; the film is good on the psychology here, but poorer on the political (to the extent that the PM is doing his best, then the real, unanswered question is, to what extent is he right?). The praise I had for Hare's earlier film also holds true here (though to a slightly lesser extent): the elliptical dialogue is a treat, even if it sometimes frustrates. But what frustrates most is that Hare, who personally is a very political man, seems unsure of what he wants to say here; and leaves us with a portrait of the delicate moral dilemmas of the upper middle class that seems as far away from the life most of us actually live as the Turcs and Caicos islands themselves.