La Vie aux aguets

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!

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.

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..?

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. :)

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