A Most Wanted Man

[A] crackerjack thriller, at once brooding, claustrophobic and unbearably tense.

Every move Hoffman makes subtly rivets attention. There's the uncanny German accent, the boozing, the chain-smoking, the glances at his assistant (Nina Hoss), the secret life he keeps hidden and the betrayals even Günther can't see coming. Hoffman is simply magnificent. Face it. We won't see his like again.

Hoffman doesn't get a lot of flashy, awards-show-clip moments, but he's all the more engrossing for underplaying and revealing volumes with the slightest of reactions and inflections.

Like most of le Carré’s novel, A Most Wanted Man has a veracity most spy thrillers lack, and the suspense is of the intellectual, not visceral, kind.

Hoffman was a genius, a tremendously gifted actor who could shine in almost any role... A Most Wanted Man may not be the best example of this, but it certainly adds to the evidence.

Whether you call Anton Corbijn’s adaptation of John le Carré’s 2008 novel “deliberately paced” or “so slow I can feel my hair growing,” there’s no denying the power behind the central performance.

Disappointing plod of an espionage thriller.

Hits on all cylinders. Acting, directing, cinematography, writing. Dimensional characters, tautly acted, against a great story. You can tell there was craft in the directing and cinematography, but it doesn't call attention to itself, rather choosing to serve storytelling.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

A Most Wanted Man has some notoriety for being the final film released before Philip Seymour Hoffman's untimely death, and it is fitting that it is also recognised as one of his stand out performances. The film revolves around a simple enough premise. A contemporary set thriller, in Hamburg, Hoffman plays Günther Bachmann, the leader of an underfunded, underappreciated and beleaguered anti-terrorist squad. Things kick off when a young man is spotted on CCTV and recognised as the son of a dead Russian war criminal, who the authorities believe is a Jihadi sympathiser and therefore a direct threat. Bachmann, however, is a more pragmatic man, believing that it's better to use blackmail etc (techniques he knows the German authorities can never legally condone) to get the people at the 'bottom' of the chain, to help catch and/or blackmail those further up. Bachmann recognises that his approach is disconcerting the post 9/11 'world', especially if there's the possibility he's wrong, and the Russian is there simply to blow something up, or escape further into the West. What follows is a well conceived, two hour long, character driven thriller. As a film though, it's not brilliant. Based on the John Le Carre novel of the same name, it's strange that a complex novel seems unable to be turned into a coherent screenplay. It's too slow paced, there's no real drama, all the peripheral characters aren't fleshed out and, worst of all, the basic 'message' of the book (that of extraordinary rendition by the American government) is pretty much removed from the narrative. Bachmann only offering the possibility (and not using the term itself) when explaining what could happen to the Russian man if he doesn't co-operate. It's not brilliantly directed, the score is instantly forgettable, and the film ends without offering any rationale as to the actions of those responsible for the 'twist' at the very end. Disappointing film, but filled with some excellent acting performances.

I am convinced this movie received generally positive reviews for two reasons: Le Carre wrote the novel (and reviewers decades ago decided to love everything he produces regardless of the quality of his books; is he still coasting on The Spy Who Came in from the Cold after all this time?), and it came out shortly after the death of Philip Seymour Hoffman who stars in it. It certainly did not get positive reviews for the quality of the story, which is the single most lead footed, plodding, predictable spy story I have ever seen. I'm all for dialogue and I was glad to sit down for a spy story that would be free of the routine cliches of guns and disguises, poison pens, and so on. But I did not expect the story also to be devoid of complexity, devoid of depth of character (one of the things literary thrillers are supposed to have), devoid of surprise, and mostly devoid of suspense. After the first forty-five minutes or so I realized the movie wasn't going to go anywhere. I gave up on it half a hour before the end, but then watched the last half hour the next morning. Nothing much happened. It has about as much plot and character development in its two plus hours, as you'd expect in the first 20 minutes of any other movie. Yes the acting was very good and it was fun to hear a Tom Waits song at the end over the credits. But without a story acting's got nothing to do. And sitting through a whole movie for a two minute song at the end, isn't my idea **** time.

It was a snoozefest. Steer clear of this one. The acting was fine, but the story put me to sleep. It is a shame that PSH's last movie was this. Do not even waste your time when this goes to video. Just avoid this movie.