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.

What a disappointment! After watching the film, there is a very good reason that actual names were not used - other than general similarities to circumstance, this is entirely a work of fiction.

Even a fictionalized account (inspired by the McClean story) could have been entertaining if had successfully delivered an historically accurate context (forget accuracy). There could have been a story of complex emotions, motivations and consequences but instead, you get a superficial drama that misses its mark or worse, doesn't even aim at the interesting targets.

This is a true waste of talent for such a great cast.

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.

Watching this movie was a very disappointing experience. The premise was good (like with most movies out there), but the execution was just atrocious, and the story was unrealistic at best. For example, the movie shows us that a westerner was allowed to go in and out of Soviet Union, as well as go though streets of Moscow without any surveillance in the midst of cold war!!

Moreover, the actors seemed like they were made out of wood in terms of expressiveness. The story was painfully slow and was heading nowhere, really: nothing changed nor happened though the entire movie...

Funny how our protagonists had a view at the Basilica of Christ the Saviour in early 70s (Destroyed in early 20th century, restored in late 90s by the mayor of Moscow)... This and many other anachronisms give out the fact that the production team didn't even research the subject of their work before filming...

2/10

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.