Myriam Nys The movie disappoints because it lacks the subtlety, intelligence and penetration of the source novel. With Le Carré on board as executive producer one could have hoped for a better adaptation, but this is not the case. Ah, well, Le Carré is a man of considerable wit - hopefully he laughed all the way to the bank...On the other hand the movie is not without merits. It does reflect some of the black wit and verve of the source novel, what with a variety of greedy, dissolute or misguided characters who evolve against the background of a Panama pulsing with threat and temptation. Also present is the profound warning against certain kinds of "politics" or "diplomacy" : treat other nations as stone-age hellholes, banana republics or pirate nests and they may very well turn into one of these things, which may be great fun in the short term but produces nothing but deepest tragedy in the long term. The cast is stellar and the performances are quite good, although the movie, as I've said before, would have benefited from greater subtlety and nuance. As it is, the characters (and with them, the actors) do not get enough room to breathe and grow naturally. This results in a number of missed opportunities : Mickie Abraxas, for instance, is just an annoying drunkard instead of a once promising and interesting person broken by mistreatment, and his egregiously unnecessary death does not feel all that sad. By the same token, our tailor does not seem all that devastated by his friend's death, nor by the knowledge that he caused that selfsame death by spreading around equal parts of lies and nonsense. Still, the depiction of Panama - or, in this case, "Panama" - is very well done : a sweltering, volatile, intrigue-riddled place where everything and anything can be sold or bartered, from firm young female flesh to the Virgin's blessings.

joepmailbox-imdb I liked Tailor when it came out and I liked it at home in 2016. For those who find it problematic, please note that it's "based" on a John Le Carre novel. His novels are cynical. But why write more than this? I guess that's why I don't submit simple like-or-dislike reviews to IMDb. Back in 2002 several reviewers, probably seeing the 10-line requirement, got rolling and over and over again told readers what the plot was, who the main characters were, how the characters filled out the plot, how wonderfully ironic the movie was, and finally how much they either liked or disliked the movie. I read about a half dozen of those reviews and now know what the reviewers saw and thought of the movie. Voila. I also know now why the reviews are so like one another except in the fine points of liking or disliking. Why in heaven's name does IMDb insist on reviews stuffed with plot lines and character descriptions in one review after another after another? Also, some review readers and movie viewers may very well find such long-winded reviews to be spoilers because of all the detail reviewers have inserted. Oh yes, and Tailor was very atmospheric.

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.

leplatypus Of all the fours great spook writers i know, Le Carré (LC) with Robert Littell are the two who have the best writing skills while the two others (Clancy and Forsyth) are more into stuff and intelligence. In other words, LC's work focuses about people and the way the human condition can twist the true and real facts. It was already the case with the « Russia House » in which « falcons » were unable to understand reality as it didn't fit their conviction. Here, it's about the opposite effect: some expensive lies made by an cupid asset become hot stuff as they help the « falcons». At the end, LC depicts a acid, paranoid world when human intelligence is a chess-game played by sharks and arbitrated by incompetent but dangerous authorities ! The production here is really top-quality : having Borman as director was giving the keys to a real adventurer who proved his skills in locations. Brosnan was the perfect choice to play this cynical agent. Rush stunned me by his ability to act like a tailor and thus the opening focusing on his skills was a good change from the ultra flashy ones of today. In addition, you have also got a glamorous Jamie Lee, a convincing Leonor and the famous Harry Potter (recognized him at his first scene but needed also the credits to be sure !). Like LC's novels, the pace is a bit slow sometimes but this movie is telling more truth about lies than other propaganda productions that tells lies about truth !