TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Kamila Bell This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Allissa .Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Greg Helton Scary bad acting by Diane Keaton. Her part is awfully cheesy too. The European and Arab actors are very good. Spoiler - Do they ever reveal why it had to be Diane Keaton who drove the red car to Munich? And how did Keaton go from being slapped around by interrogators to walking out of the London subway?The movie contains nice video of Europe and the Mediterranean countries and the depiction of intelligence techniques is very good.

wrightiswright To coin a phrase, a true 'hidden gem'.Diane Keaton, who's one of those famous actresses where you can hardly remember any of their films, plays a thespian hired to be the girlfriend of a dead terrorist, in a slick, uncompromising thriller which starts off slow but gets progressively more exciting as it goes on.The acting is top notch, the unlikely plot advances in such a well delivered way to make even the most implausible of events believable and the bittersweet ending is one I'll remember for a long time. It's two hours of riveting suspense and action, and worth far more than it's current status as a unknown treasure. 7/10

chaucer-1 Apart from a few curious departures from Le Carre's book of the same name the main thing wrong with this film is the casting of Diane Keaton as Charlie. Why the producers saw fit to use a relatively minor American actress to play the key role in this very strong story is something of a mystery, particularly when so many fine European actors were available at the time. Keaton strives to do her best but remains unconvincing throughout the play and her inadequacies are, unfortunately, highlighted by the superb performances from the rest of the stellar cast. Notwithstanding, the film is still well worth watching if only for the performances of Klaus Kinski and the rest of the cast. Plus the strong story line tends to over-ride some of the casting flaws. Moreover, since the film was made in the 1980's it is grittily realistic and doesn't suffer from the mawkish revisionism of recent films about international terrorism. Note: the earlier commentator who wondered why the character of Charlie would have been selected as a intelligence agent, seems to have missed the main point of the story. Charlie wasn't an agent - she was bait.

rwd4evr Oh, God, this movie was wretched. I saw it once when it first came out, 20 years ago, and still remember how awful it was.Don't worry about spoilers; I have no idea what the storyline was. All I remember is Diane Keaton just whining and wailing her way through the whole 5 hrs (oh, it was only an hour or two? coulda fooled me...). I don't think the writers, director or cast had any inkling of what they were doing or where they were going, and that's probably why Keaton's performance seemed so pointless.Who else was in it? Darned if I know.../r