Who payed the critics

An Exercise In Nonsense

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

One spy spots another spy on a Caribbean beach and, through a series of further coincidences, they take on a bunch of corrupt business types.I realised at the end this was a sequel to another contrived spy outing for the hero - not so memorable. Big problems with the story, relying so much on coincidence, and the central plot point is hardly earth shattering. Wordy script with its emphasis on the nasty security state that we've slipped into over the past ten years, and yet it lacks a killer speech to reveal the essence of this cruel and treacherous world, and shows no violence at all to convince us of the threat posed.The intro scene looks completely amateur, as if they weren't sure where to start, and the camera direction ain't great, with so many close ups botched as the characters light endless cigarettes. There was one theatrical scene with unnatural dialogue, and the ickyness of the beach scene at the end revealed the simplistic approach to a terribly complex intersection between the power of the state and the power of money. So I'm not a fan of this writer/director.I do like the actors, but ... Nighy seems to flip between assured calm and self-consciousness. Walken has his old man pants on, and Carter was a bit at sea with her reaction in the shake down scene. Ryder is very good in close up - big eyes and facial ticks that suggest a deep pit of pain.The music was OK, nothing special - and what was with that song over the end credits? Overall - underpowered story that doesn't even look interesting.

This film had me at David Hare. Throw in the wonderful cast with Winona Ryder, Judy Davis, Christopher Walken, Ralph Fiennes ... and my very favorite actor Bill Nighy, and I was actually gang had. What an entertaining job they all did in confirming what we already knew about the corruption and constant lying during the indecency that was the Bush Administration and its War of Errors in the War on Terror. This trilogy is a masterpiece. Many thanks to everyone who made this movie so wonderful and who restores my hope for a better world. I was astounded that the last two parts of the trilogy actually did come up to my hopes for it, even though I was not confident that this was even possible. 'Page 8' was a life changing experience for me - I've watched it a dozen times! - mainly because of the mesmerizing dialog of David Hare and the incomparable performance from Bill Nighy. More! More!

The great cast is wasted on this poorly written, poorly directed movie. The background of the writer/director as a playwright is all too obvious in the amateurish direction and wordy way of telling the story.The bad guys are no more than cartoon types, and the plot doesn't bear examination. I lost count of the times the plot made no sense or was plain unbelievable.I don't want to get into spoiler territory so I can't elaborate. Suffice to say, at each plot point in the move, ask yourself what is the motivation of the actor to do this or that and does it make sense?The methods used to achieve their ends by the various players are also woefully unsophisticated and reveal the writer's ignorance of current technology. It also adds to the lack of credibility of the story. If you are going to write about spies and skulduggery among the very rich, at least learn about the tools they would have at their disposal.

David Hare's 'Turcs and Caicos' is a low key drama about international intelligence, dodgy businessmen and corrupt politicians. Bill Nighy plays a renegade gentleman spy who is strangely irresistible to women half his age; Helena Bonham Cater, meanwhile, is simply too glamorous to be serious in her role. Almost all of the key plot developments occur off-screen, and, as with most of Hare's work, there's a lot of talking around the subject that never quite gets to the point. What saves it is the quality of that talk: it's theatrical, but there's a beautiful rhythm to it. To compare it to the work of another playwright named David, namely David Mamet, the dialogue is a lot less stylised, but easier on the ear, almost poetic in places. And this is enough to make the piece stand out from the vast majority of contemporary drama.