ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

SnoopyStyle 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.

Nicole C 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

siderite 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. :)

Leofwine_draca 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.