Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Verity Robins Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

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.

Robert J. Maxwell This is a serious movie about spying and the American takeover of Panama in 1989. According to this film, it was all a big mistake based on data fabricated by Geoffrey Rush, a tailor in Panama who is mistakenly singled out as an information source of importance. He and his fellow conspirator, Peirce Brosnan, feed a lot of fake humintel to Britain and America while asking for lots of money for their secret "investigations." It's a bit complicated. A Marine Corps general practically drools on the table when he describes God as finally giving them another crack at Panama. "There's a missing star on the American flag." It has its comedic moments but they're embedded in a narrative with sober overtones. People commit suicide. And invasion takes place for no justifiable reason. Historically, of course, there was plenty of good reason to overthrow Noriega -- we didn't like him. That's enough of a reason.Brosnan is quite good as the rather slimy British visitor, and Geoffrey Rush is fine as the poor tailor who is driven half mad by unexpected developments in what at first seemed like a simple scam. Perhaps the best performance, somewhat surprisingly, is from Jamie Lee Curtis as Rush's suspicious wife. She puts a lot into the role and delivers.I think I prefer Carol Reed's earlier version of Le Carré's story. It wasn't as splashy and it was in black and white, but Guiness as the harried vacuum cleaner shop owner is funnier. The notion of describing a secret weapon that occupies an entire mountain and looks like it's made of vacuum cleaner parts is funnier. Maureen O'Hara as the assistant sent down from Britain is much prettier than Brosnan. And Noel Coward as the espionage overseer -- constantly followed by a parade of young boys playing the same cheerful Latin song -- is a delight.But this version isn't to be dismissed. If it's less amusing, it's also more tense, and the tension hold up all the way through the complexities of the plot.

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

LeonLouisRicci Successful in some Respects, Not so much in others, this Dark Satire on the Genre has Pierce Brosnan Showcasing a James Bond like British Spy who has Lost His Grace. The Name isn't "Bond", it's Osnard.Nothing about this MI6 Reject is Suave, Cool, or Charming in Any Way. He Bullies His way around Panama like a Rabid Dog that has No More Instincts. The Movie has Varying Tones of Violence and Sex, most are Lurid and Repulsive.The Script was Written by Acclaimed Spy Novelist John Le Carre from His Book. The Director is the Inconsistent John Boorman. The Film is Interesting and can Intrigue and Amuse if You let it, but some May Find it "in your face" and Anything but Subtle. It Works and then, it Doesn't. So the Overall Effectis Wanting but those Looking for something a bit Different in the Spy Genre will most Likely Enjoy its Edge and Forgive some Clumsiness. Worth a Watch to See Brosnan Riff On His James Bond Persona and there are Enough "out there" Scenes to Capture the Anti-Hollywood Cultists. But Mainstream Moviegoers and those Looking for more of the Same will Probably Not Appreciate the Messy Message in this Very Darkly Humored Display.