SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Catangro After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

classicalsteve In 1963, 75 km (46 miles) north of London, about 17 blokes pinched a train with a coach containing millions of pounds of cash being transported via Her Majesty's Royal Mail. It was the biggest heist in British history in which the perpetrators lifted about £2.6 million (about £50 million in today's money or $80 million). Because of the amount of money which was taken from the British government instead of a private party, an all-out investigation ensued. Eventually, about 2/3rds of the members were arrested and sent to prison. Since the heist many films and references to the heist have appeared in popular culture, including a line in the Beatles' film "Help" in which Lennon asks a Scotland Yard detective how the heist investigation is coming.The current film, a made-for-television miniseries in 2013, is probably the best screen adaption of the heist, presenting the events in two parts. The first is from the point-of-view of the criminals, called "A Robber's Tale", and the second from the view of the investigators called "A Copper's Tale". Both segments are equally compelling with outstanding actors showing us how the crime is viewed from different sides of the railroad tracks, so to speak. Two sets of casts are used for each segment, until the very end of the second segment in which characters from both segments begin interacting.Bruce Reynolds (Luke Evans) is the mastermind and leader of the heist. Their first large job, an airport heist in 1962, yields not nearly as much in cash as they had hoped, around £65,000 (about £1.25 million or $2 million today, which seems like a lot of money!). They were hoping for a bigger payoff. Through a tip, they discover a train bound for London from Glasgow, Scotland, contains a coach designated as Her Majesty's Royal Mail. In addition to the typical mail, the car also contains sacks of cash, pound notes probably being taken out of circulation. Reynolds resolves to pilfer the sacks of cash and puts together a team to engage the heist, including someone who claims he can stop trains. They find an old abandoned farm as a temporary hideout. As events play out, the teams hits unexpected twists in their plan, including the amount of money which turns out, like the airport heist, not to be what was expected...The second part then chronicles the investigation and eventual arrests of members of the heist gang. Tommy Butler (Jim Broadbent) leads the Scotland Yard investigation. Butler is not only shrewd but uncompromising. He decides the best means for a successful apprehension of the criminals is to keep information close to his chest as his second-in-command Frank Williams (Robert Glenister) points out. He also forces his team to work long hours with little rest. Then the upper echelons of Scotland Yard, probably due to pressure from members of Parliament, decide to release the names and photos of the known perpetrators to the public, much to the objections of Butler and Williams. The releasing of information, as Butler and Williams predicts, leads to disastrous results, further compromising the investigation.A very enjoyable and well-acted series. Evans makes a good Reynolds, who is not exactly a ruthless criminal but definitely uses rationalization to justify the heist. Broadbent makes a fine Butler, whose aloofness may compromise the success of the investigation. He's tempered by Robert Glenister as Frank Williams who seems the primary voice of reason during the investigation. If you like heist films, this is a real one, and it demonstrates these crimes as not nearly as easy to pull off as you would imagine if you've seen "Ocean's 11".

jc-osms At the time, the Great Train Robbery was the biggest theft in British criminal history and was as much a part of 1963 here as the Profumo Scandal and the emergence of the Beatles. With the fiftieth anniversary of significant events in that year being commemorated right left and centre (the making of the first Beatles album, the first Dr Who TV show, of course the Kennedy assassination), I guess this notorious occurrence was also too big to miss.With a large cast consisting of some of the best of British male acting talent (female characters hardly get a look-in), painstakingly accurate set design not to mention the actual train itself, the component parts were all there and waiting to be assembled into place. The imaginative decision to break it into two films, the first part concerning the planning and execution of the crime itself and focusing on the criminal gangs which came together to do the misdeed, the second, the aftermath, concentrating on the police investigation run by Jim Broadbent's tough-as-old-boots D.I Tommy Butler, was, on paper, a good one and for the first half certainly successful.In part one, we see the scheme being formulated by Luke Fisher's bespectacled (obviously marking him out as the brains) Bruce Reynolds the coordinator of the operation, including the recruitment of the necessary personnel, implementation of the crime and the plan on how to escape the law after the robbery. Pacily directed and well-acted by the whole group, the viewer is completely taken into the criminal world and despite myself, caught up in the anticipation and even excitement as they set about their dirty work. I must admit my distaste at the scene where they realise the enormity of what they've done and celebrate with abandon, even though I knew they didn't get away with it for long.Which leads onto part two, which I felt was altogether less successful. The narrative changes tack and now follows the police investigation into the crime with Broadbent and his weary men one by one picking off the assembled pictures of the perpetrators on their incident-room notice board. Unfortunately at this point the director decides that Broadbent and his team are the UK equivalent of The Untouchables so that we get endless shots of Broadbent grimly gazing at the camera and when they walk, it's in De Palma-esque slow-motion. All the artifice that was stripped away in the impressive first 90 minutes is overloaded into the second one and while there's still drama in watching all the villains get their come-uppance, you completely lose the sense of authenticity built up thus far. The soundtrack was confusing too, quite why 50's Frank Sinatra songs proliferate, I can't tell and for some reason the great Spencer Davis Group song "I'm A Man", cut in 1966 gets played as the background to events from three years before. The use of Nina Simone songs, especially "Sinner Man" did work better but again, like the overall production, they only got this part half-right too.I almost thought that the two parts must have been directed by two different directors but no, it was just poor execution of a good plan, sort of like how the robbers handled their getaway.

l_rawjalaurence Broadcast in two parts - "The Robber's Tale" and "The Copper's Tale" - THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY retells the famous events of August 1963 when over £2m. was stolen from a mail train traveling from Glasgow to London. The events have been extensively retold elsewhere, notably in Peter Yates' fictionalized version ROBBERY (1967) with Stanley Baker, or BUSTER (1988) a comedy-drama with Phil Collins as robber Buster Edwards. "The Robber's Tale" (dir. Julian Jarrold) focuses specifically on Bruce Reynolds (Luke Evans) as the brains behind the whole operation; the more celebrated crook Ronald Biggs (Jack Gordon) - who passed away the night the program received its first broadcast - receives scant attention. "The Copper's Tale" looks at the painstaking ways in which Tommy Butler (Jim Broadbent) went about investigating the case and bringing the criminals to justice. Stylistically speaking the production is very much in keeping with current British television costume dramas, with low-key, almost washed-out lighting, lots of period detail (for example, the obligatory London bus from the mid-Sixties) passing across the back of the frame, or a couple of young mothers pushing their prams round the park) and plenty of focus on character through shot/reverse shot sequences. The style is diffuse, with the emphasis placed on ambiance as much as plot. "The Robber's Tale" actually proves something of a disappointment; not a lot happens in terms of action, while some of the (predominantly youthful) cast simply do not seem convincing as mid- Sixties London hoodlums. Perhaps they might have done more research into the behavior, mannerisms and (most significantly) the argot of that period. "The Copper's Tale" is a lot better, not least because of the interplay - or should that be rivalry - between Butler and his immediate subordinate Frank Williams (Robert Glenister). Although ostensibly on the same side, they seem unable to form a united front, at least professionally. Butler might be a good cop, but he certainly lacks any management abilities.

Paul Grant Firstly I will state that I enjoyed both parts of this and thought it was a good way of covering a story that has become somewhat of a folk legend. It didn't make heroes out of either the robbers or the cops, which makes a pleasant change. It did show the violence they used against driver Jack Mills and why Butler of the Yard hung doggedly on till he got his men. So after all that good stuff why do they still make silly errors that distract the viewer? One that really jarred with me (OK I'm a geeky engineer) was the UHF TV aerial on the farmhouse. UHF didn't start in UK till 1964/5. The frame less glass doors in the police station are also horribly out of era for 1963! The wrong series Land Rover (wing mounted lights came in 1969). The white Jaguar police car with a sunroof! And the railway scenes were very poor, wrong loco, wrong location, wrong track(s) (Did anyone else notice how the West Coast mainline was variously single and double track with no overhead electrification? And also with extremely sharp bends!) Obviously it had to be filmed on a preserved railway line, but it would have helped if they had used CGI and/or some scenic realism. That bridge location is an iconic 20th century image and to use a bridge that was so different is poor, perhaps the BBC should pay more attention to detail and less to senior execs!