miss_lady_ice-853-608700
NOTE: The spoiler is in the fourth paragraph.It's not that Restless is badly acted- just that a story about a WW2 spy should be a lot more fun than this two-parter TV movie, totalling three hours.There are two timelines: the present day, which is the seventies, and the early forties. In the 'present day', Ruth Gilmartin (Michelle Dockery) is told by her mother Sally (Charlotte Rampling) that she is not Sally but instead is Eva Delectorskaya, a former British spy during WW2. In the forties, Eva (Hayley Atwell) is recruited by charismatic spymaster Lucas Romer (Rufus Sewell) who naturally she ends up falling in love with.Whilst real life espionage is probably not like a Bond movie and is closer to the mundane work here, full of innocent code phrases and staring out of a window for hours spying on someone, it makes the pace drag. The espionage becomes more exciting in Episode 2 but it's not really worth sitting through Episode 1, which is a bit of a waste of time unless you want to see the romancing of Lucas and Eva.Were this a normal length TV movie, that would have helped considerably as there is a lot of filler here. It also means that the viewer might be more forgiving of the various clichés- it's blindingly obvious that Lucas is going to seduce Eva and that he will be a traitor. The fact that this does not occur to her at all makes Eva come across as stupid. Rather than focusing on her espionage skills, she comes across more like an ordinary woman motivated by love.There are hints in the second episode of some politically relevant parallels with WW2 in the seventies but this is not explored. Restless is too superficial to be interesting but not superficial enough to enjoy as a pulpy spy story. I am aware that it is based on a novel by William Boyd but the filmmakers needed to either make it intellectual or entertainment and they did neither.
iain-218
This was poor and left me grieving for BBC Drama - who is going to make quality television if the BBC can't? It had a lot of the right ingredients - if they were re-making The Singing Detective, then Rufus Sewell would be a perfect choice, so it was only right that Michael Gambon played Sewell's older self. But the pace was slow, the plot became nonsense (was it perhaps originally a six part that was then cut down?), and the dialogue was awful. They left the worst til last though, the ending was truly dire leaving me regretting that I had spent 3 hours getting there - God knows how the actors and crew felt when they saw it, after all it took them a lot longer.Why is this 4 and not 1, because I like the genre.
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.
Tweekums
When Ruth Gilmartin goes to visit her mother Sally she is surprised to find her acting somewhat paranoid; convinced that there are people in the woods who are watching her and intending to kill her. Sally has a bigger surprise for her daughter; she isn't really Sally Gilmartin; her name is Eva Delectorskaya. She was a Russian émigré living in France when she was recruited to British Intelligence by a man called Lucas Romer. We see the younger Eva working for him, helping plant false news stories that are intended to help the war effort. The most important of her missions takes her to the United States; here they are trying to sway opinion so that neutral America will join the war against Germany. Things don't go according to plan and Eva becomes convinced that one of the group must have betrayed them! As she learns more about her mother's past Ruth helps her track down Lucas Romer but if her mother is right they are both in more danger than ever.This two part thriller nicely balanced the events that took place during the war and those that were taking place thirty years later. Michelle Dockery and Charlotte Rampling did fine jobs as Ruth and Sally Gilmartin but it was Hayley Atwell who stole the show as the younger Sally, aka Eva. Even though we knew her character had to survive the war her scenes managed to be tense; especially those in the United States. For the most part the tension was maintained by the threat of violence but occasionally the threat became a reality. Much of the violence was fairly tame but there is a scene where somebody gets stabbed in the eye which is surprisingly graphic. I suspect most viewers will guess who the traitor was although when it is revealed the motives are not those that I'd expected
I won't say more to avoid spoiling the ending too much!
AD
