Secrets d'état

Sharon Stone turned in a very strong performance as the wife of Kim Philby the British double agent. Why the producers chose not to use real names nor to do some basic research about the Soviet Union in the 1960s is a mystery.

One viewer already has made the point that many technical mistakes in the film were made. Least of which is the view of Christ the Savior Cathedral that was rebuilt in the 1990s and did not exist in Moscow in the 1960s. Additional mistakes include Aerorus instead of Aeroflot and probably the encounter that Sharon Stone had with the CIA in the USA. It would have been the FBI and any meeting would have taken place at the local Federal Building to protect the FBI agents from any accusations. The biggest error was the continual use of the word Russia or Russian for Soviet Union. When I lived in Leningrad as a student in 1974 one rarely heard the word Russia. It was only used in the context of language or culture but never in terms of governance like the Russian Embassy, Russian government etc.. in the USSR. There was great emphasis on the use of the word Soviet Union.

In general, the movie was a bit slow, there was some effort at moral equivalence between the West and the USSR but the acting was good and most viewers will draw the conclusion that a great drama was played out not only between the Philby character and his country but also with his wife and family.

The DVD packaging describes this movies as a thriller, and as if to underline that, shows a picture of helicopters circling an exploding van while a guy with a gun runs away.

This movie is not a thriller, and there are no explosions or helicopters. (What was that on the packaging? Clip art?) When I'm in the mood for explosions and helicopters, it's a disappointment to bring home a movie that instead has as its big moments someone breaking down a door or fingerprinting someone.

This movie is a rambling, disjointed drama. It wasn't completely awful, but was like real life in that the story doesn't completely make sense and doesn't work artistically. (And if they'd shown one more Casablanca-esquire foggy airfield, I'd have screamed.) It's just a bunch of confusing stuff that happens, and then other stuff happens, and who cares about any of those people? And we spent the first 45 minutes trying to tell the various dark-haired women apart. Or maybe they were all the same woman. Still don't know.

This movie has very good acting. The core story line is a good one. The primary reason I gave it only 5 stars like many other people is because the story moves very slowly and is totally repetitious, again and again.

The whole story could have been told in 45 minutes and it could have been a little exciting which the plot calls for but fails to achieve. If you want a nice quiet story to fall asleep to this one fits the bill.

I just saw A different loyalty on DVD, and was very pleasantly surprised (especially after seeing the trailer). The story was extremely interesting and powerful. Sharon Stone and Rupert Everett were both fine in their parts, though their love story wasn't made completely believable (the second half of the movie was by far better than the beginning, and Sharon Stone actually did a great job portraying this woman). It took me a while to get used to the looks of the movie, though (I'm still not sure why the flashbacks looked so much like an erotic movie from the 70ies). But what an incredible story and a great and subtle script.

In 1951, two British diplomats who are actually Soviet spies escape to Moscow indicating British intelligence has been infiltrated at the highest level. Then it's 1961 Beriut. Leo Cauffield (Rupert Everett) and Sally (Sharon Stone) fall in love, and she would leave her husband for him. Four years later, Leo disappears and he's accused of being a Soviet spy. Then she is told that he has gone to Moscow freely.

It's a small thing but the movie opening and subsequent text has this computer font. It indicates a 70s motif which clashes with the era of the movie. Then the movie takes too long to get going. This is based on a true story, and the story moves at a pedestrian pace. The dialog is uninspired. As for Sharon Stone, she is miscast in this role. Even thought she has dyed her hair dark, she can't hide her flashy Hollywood persona. The material is there for the taking, but this is not movie for it. The lack of style, ill-fitting acting, and weak dialog all add up to a weak production.