zardoz-13 Gillian Armstrong's World War II melodrama "Charlotte Gray" casts Oscar winning actress Cate Blanchett as a Scottish lady who volunteers to serve as an undercover agent for British Intelligence in Vichy dominated France. The French scenery and settings are colorful, but this adaptation of Sebastian Faulks' novel generates few thrills despite its strong cast, controversial subject matter (French collaboration with the Nazis), and authentic period recreation of manpower and materials, such as enemy tanks. The action unfolds in 1942 as Charlotte (Cate Blachett) has left Scotland traveling by train to take a job in London. During the train ride, she encounters an individual, Richard Cannerley (James Fleet of "Sense and Sensibility"), hands her a business card with an invitation to visit him. Charlotte attends the party and meets RAF Flight Lieutenant Peter Gregory (Rupert Penry-Jones of "Match Point"), but Connerly interrupts them and takes her aside. Eventually, Charlotte goes to work for SOE and she bails out over France and joins the resistance. Not long afterward, she learns that Peter has been shot down over Paris. No sooner has our heroine landed in France than she runs afoul of the authorities. She slips a package of radio valves to a lady and the Vichy police take her into custody. Later, Charlotte meets Julien Levade and she helps him blow up a munitions train. Again, "Charlotte Gray" is an above-average movie that sheds more light on the corrupt Vichy government. Eventually, after the war ends, our heroine runs into Gregory, but she no longer feels romantically inclined to him. The Vichy officials are corrupt bastards. The action is held to a minimum and the violence is negligible.

tesab-1 Charlotte Gray is beautifully filmed, but I found the story somewhat disjointed. She is asked to go to France before her boyfriend is shot down, so her first reason for going is not because she is looking for him. They fall "in love" after a one-night stand? So typical of Hollywood. The man heading the cell in France says he is a Communist; he never says the group is communist. Even so, another incident of Hollywood making the communists look like the good guys, when in fact, Communism is even more harsh than Nazism or Fascism (count the number of people killed by each regime). The dialogue was hard to hear in parts of the movie, as it was too softly spoken (audio editor problem). There are some heart-wrenching scenes and one does get the feel of occupied France. I didn't understand why she had to dye her hair---undercover men do not do so, and it was probably hard to obtain hair color during the war. Then at the end of the movie, her hair is an in-between color: not her normal blonde as in the beginning, nor the dark brunette of her resistance days.

writers_reign Okay, you know going in that it's yet another film about a female agent liaising with the Resistance in Occupied France during World War Two, some viewers may even have read the (undeservedly) best-selling novel on which it was based, but you go anyway, maybe you admire Cate Blanchett and I've no quarrel with that, she's a fine actress, maybe you like 'period' movies, again you won't hear a squawk out of me, in fact those two reasons were what prompted me. It's a good movie - well, it's not a BAD movie, but perhaps in this case the opposite of bad is NOT good. An indifferent movie is nearer the truth. Within the last couple of years an English newspaper gave away a series of dvds set in WWII one of which was Carve Her Name With Pride which covers much of the same ground except that it was about a REAL Resistance worker, Violette Szabo, who failed to survive the war unlike the fictional Gray; Carve Her Name, made in black and white is light years better than the Technicolored Charlotte Gray, Blanchett's fine performance notwithstanding. As long as we're making comparisons I also disagree with the person who unaccountably rated this movie higher than Claude Berri's Lucie Aubrac but then difference of opinion is what makes horse races.

melp1981 I know this is a serious board devoted to the merits of the movie... but I would like to just mention the fact that rarely does an actor have the effect on me that Billy Crudup did in this film. Oh my god what a beauty! Perfect in every way... And obviously extremely talented, made more perfect by his professional choices!So, the film. Well, as a (some time ago) graduate of military history, with a particular interest in the sociological effects of war I have a special fondness for stories like this. I sought out the book and devoured it. I loved it, absolutely, as I do pretty much everything else by Sebastian Faulks. I also enjoyed this film immensely, but as a separate entity. A film is generally incapable of reaching the depths your imagination can take you to through reading a truly great book, maybe people should spend more time reading! I don't agree with the mauling this film was given by the critics, it kept me engaged from beginning to end and the happy ending, although a little trite, is a smile worthy event!Sod the dodgy Scottish, Kate Blanchet was believable as far as I'm concerned. Billy was perfect, as I think I might have mentioned! Michael Gambon - always worth watching and the chap that played the teacher was sufficiently creepy from first sight. The boys were sympathetic without being irritating child actors and the atmosphere was intimidating.It was emotional without being over the top, the relationship between the leads was wonderfully portrayed and I feel it was a valuable description of the horrific situation of collaboration.Not the best film I've ever seen but I definitely enjoyed it. And I'm not sure if you've noticed, and I don't like to bring it up, but Billy Crudup is a god among men.Watch it with an open mind.