jrbarrows I can only guess (ha!) that LeCarre' had nothing to do with this film. It's a cartoon. Funny, but horribly directed. LeCarre' should sue, or at least remove his name from anywhere in the "credits". The overacting is a stitch! Especially the U.S. general in charge of the invasion. Yeah, I have to admit it's a great job of turning a serious book into a farce, if that was the intention. But it it wasn't intentional, then it's just a farcical piece of film drivel. Making fun of LeCarre' is just plane rude, insensitive, and insulting. Even though I rated a 1 out of 10, I do have to admit it made me laugh. I just have to pretend that I never read a LeCarre' novel, and don't admire him for being the best (serious) spy genre novelist of all time.

KineticSeoul This is a semi-light spy movie that revolves around manipulation and getting the upper hand on one another. In another words, the actions sums up to be like a game of poker. Except I personally didn't find this movie to be all that thrilling or exciting. In fact I don't think this is a cup of tea for most mainstream audiences. It's a film that I appreciate though because of the thinking elements, cause you really need to pay attention to what is going on. And the way it comes together was well crafted. But this movie just wasn't in my taste. So the plot is about a British spy named Osnard (played by Pierce Brosnan) that gets kicked out of the company he works for, because he had an affair with the ambassador's mistress. And thus thinks of ways to scheme big by manipulating, using his charm, blackmailing and womanizing in order to get what he wants. In another words he is the type of guy that women just cannot resist. And one of his main cards is a tailor that is in debt, but has many political connections. Also when it comes to the ending, some may like it but I think most audiences won't. Since it strays from the typical ending of the scheming manipulator getting put behind bars. So the outcome might not sit right with a lot of audiences. I give this movie a 6/10 because I thought the movie was sly in a few areas, clever and the interactions is smooth and even sort of memorable.6/10

Rodrigo Amaro The world of espionage got a little less thrilling with the end of Cold War. It survives with different complications than just two economical and political poles fighting each other and quoting a great character from a memorable film: in this war the winner isn't the one with the most bullets but the one who controls the information. And it is this still chaotic world post Cold War that an apparent simple tailor might cause a significant turbulence on a country that still crawls as being a democratic nation.In "The Tailor of Panama" Geoffrey Rush plays Harry Pendel, a British tailor highly requested for his services by the powerful authorities of Panama, a man who seems to know anyone and everything, and he's recruited by Andy Osnard (Pierce Brosnan), a Brit secret agent at one step to finally get retired who needs good informations about what's going on in the country with the awaited return of Canal of Panama's control by the country's officers and no longer controlled by the U.S. Reluctant but wanting to save himself from his debts, Pendel accepts this "mission" and the money that comes with it but since there isn't much going on he decides to spice things a bit by inventing that the Canal is being sold to the Chinese, and that there's a silent resistance group, led by the drunk Mickey Abraxas (Brendan Gleeson), that wants to take over the power and stop the deal. Pendel's plans get to a lower level when he's forced to spy his own wife (Jamie Lee Curtis), who works for the government. Trouble is set when Osnard shares the amazing information with his bosses, that'll share it with their American cousins, then...chaos again! John Boorman's film loses itself as being a comedy with two or three laughs, with not much depth but staying close to the original work written by John Le Carré, who paid a tribute to Graham Greene's "Our Man in Havana". When it gets serious towards the ending the plot gets some credibility. It can be said that the film followed the book's quality and intentions since it's not one of Carré's greatest works, it's quite plain, with plenty of humor but not much interesting. Same thing the movie, that on a first view will confuse its viewers with many plots that aren't so great to follow. A good film, yes, but not on the same level as other Carré's film adaptations such as "The Constant Gardener", "The Russia House" and "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy", all intriguing, attractive, seductive and interesting to follow despite the enormous spider-webs formed by the plots. Through here, we're able to see that small, ordinary people can create huge problems that might affect a country's national security for the most stupid of reasons. Also there's a sharp criticism to agencies of intelligence, so concerned about their reputation and immersed in believing in everything they hear that they forget about their liabilities, check the facts instead of following rumors. It's all about who controls the information to win the war, even if this war is just a personal cause like getting retired in style or pay all your debts, but always remembering that many will suffer with those lies even yourself, like Pendel realizes later that things got out of control.Mr. Rush shines as the title character, certainly the great pleasure of watching the film; Gleeson steals the show in his brief appearances; Curtis is almost purposeless as the tailor's wife, there isn't much she can do here; Brosnan plays this irresponsible agent as a James Bond with plenty of women but without the action and the fast cars, an irony since Bond is hated by Carré, who considers 007 as being a prostitute. Completing the casting there's Catherine McCormack, Harold Pinter, Gerard McSorley, Jon Polito, Martin Ferrero, Dylan Baker, Jonathan Hyde and Daniel Radcliffe, way before of his Harry Potter fame, playing Pendel's son.Here's an amusing and intelligent work from the same director of "Deliverance" and "Hope and Glory" that deserves a view. 7/10

Kiers (Kiers77) I just saw this again after SO many years.Man it's entertaining! Rogue spy goes in search of adventure and CREATES it...whilst enriching himself. Analogy: What Jerome Kerviel did to his bank, a rogue spy does to geopolitics. Gives new meaning to term "mucking around" in your "backyard" if you are a prominent superpower (u know which one!).The character motivation and plausible scene-play are just top notch. It all starts with Brosnan's character throwing money at a new "recruit" and then using carrot stick routine to get something useful (information). Well, as in waterboarding, if you pressure someone to "come up with info" THEY WILL! How many careers have been made at MI 5/6 this way? How many countries have been "played with"? I can't think of any other movie which dealt with such heavy subjects so delightfully. everyone can be made to harbor secret feelings of being a spy. how seductive. how profitable. I must read the book because I'm sure it is richer than the movie.