User reviews

In Part 3 of the Worricker Trilogy, Johnny (Bill Nighy) and Margot (Helena Bonham-Carter are now in Europe attempting to escape from the British Secret Service.

Through a friend in England, Worricker has gotten a story in the newspaper about the "bridge" fund handled by Prime Minister Beasley (Ralph Fiennes) but unfortunately, it goes nowhere.

It's now evident that Worricker and Margot must return to England, but this time, he seeks out an editor of The Independent and gives her the entire story, hoping that with more facts, it will make a difference.

The situation grows more complicated from there, as Worricker begins to feel used by both sides, plus it is affecting his daughter, who is pregnant. Can the situation be salvaged?

Watch for the excellent scene that occurs when Worricker finally meets Beasley the PM face to face.

This is a decent ending to the trilogy, and very suspenseful in spots.

Intentionally or otherwise, this review of the 3rd instalment of the series follows the actual script for the series.

In other words, just like the revelations that the central character must deal with in the story, we viewers also must cope with good news and bad news.

The bad news is that on the basis of pure entertainment, this is the weakest instalment. The fault here is that expectations were too high. The first two presented powerful and charismatic actors who popped in and out of nowhere. This sort of trope is missing here. The first two presented Nighy's character as a sort of white knight who potentially could bend an entire system to his will while he righted perceived wrongs. This final episode introduces reality into that hope.

The good news is that if you are going to narrow the focus of a film to the core stars, you could do worse than these stars. There is a scene near the close where Fiennes and Nighy finally get a face to face. It is a short scene but so powerful it could curl your hair without a curling iron. As it plays out, you realize the entire series was building to that one scene. Maybe Nighy's character is too naive for modern geo-politics. Maybe the extra eye candy is missing from this episode. Maybe the third Act is just about loose ends. But this is still spy drama at its best.

And while there are far better endings of trilogies, remember this was made for TV. And yes I do know there is quite a lot of great TV work out there (particular in the TV show/series area), but I still think this warrants a 7 rather than a 6. The acting alone is really superb and while the story may be predictable (especially if you've seen the previous two entries), it still works.

Do you have to have seen the other two movies? I reckon not, but you do get the relationships between certain characters a lot quicker if you do. And they are fun to watch or at least entertaining and suspenseful enough to warrant that.

This three-part series of TV movies started in 2011 with "Page 8", a reference to the location of some sensitive information in a report. Veteran MI5 agent Johnny Worricker ends up having to go on the run and ends up in Turks and Caicos, thus the title of the second movie.

In this final one Worricker gradually makes his way back to London via stops in several European locations, to bring all this to a head. The movie is good because of Nighy, plus Fiennes who is the tough, decisive Prime Minister.

My wife and I enjoyed it at home on DVD from our public library. The focus is on characters and a good, plausible story without the need for gunfights or fancy chase scenes. Low on action, deep on story and characters.

The Johnny Worricker trilogy concludes with Salting the Battlefield. Our hero with his ex girlfriend, Margot (Helena Bonham-Carter) are criss- crossing Europe trying to stay one step ahead of the security services and a vengeful Prime Minister. However if you must go out for a coffee early in the morning then chances are you will be spotted.

Worricker is being watched, his family and friends are being watched. He is running out of cash and he needs to make a move to reach an endgame.

The film does not mention a date, the name of the governing political party but we can guess this is a New Labour administration set a few years ago and although writer/director has stated that Alec Beasley is a new type of Prime Minister and Ralph Fiennes gives him a healthy dash of Lambert La Roux (The media mogul from a previous Hare play, Pravda) we can sense there is a lot of Tony Blair imbued in the character and events.

We do reach an end game as Worricker feeds the press and confronts the Prime Minister, not without Beasley asking difficult but loaded questions in return which was a very New Labour thing to do.

The Worricker trilogies have been enjoyable, despite the location shooting they were very much glorified stage plays, almost bottle dramas. I did feel Hare the writer would had benefited from someone else directing who would had bought a more visual flair and pacy action.

What we do get are uniformly well acted dramas, sterlingly led by a very feline Bill Nighy but they required more demands from the viewers than it needed because it was stilted here and there.

'Salting the Battelfield' is one of two new television films by playwright David Hare, following up on an earlier film of his about a renegade British spy; and having (mostly) praised the first, 'Turcs and Caicos', I now feel obliged to criticise the second, even though the two are more similar than different. The critiques are two: firstly, the story takes place in a beautiful Britain full of beautiful people, I may like Helena Bonham Carter as much as the next man, but she really doesn't make a very convincing spy, and the elegiac music gives the whole piece a "sun sets sadly on the glorious British Empire" feel at odds with the reality of the nature of modern society and its contribution to the growth of Islamic terrorism. This film is indeed supposedly about terrorism, and the threat (or opportunity) that it offers to the state; but we never get a glimpse of anything that might be a cause of it. Indeed, the second criticism is that we rarely get a glimpse of anything, much; when Bill Nighy's character has an argument with his daughter, it's nicely scripted as far as it goes, but we know nothing to allow us to judge the man, his words and his feelings; and its emblematic of an entire drama where the cast talk around the issues but the audience is never sufficiently well-briefed. Is the Prime Minister paranoid, a con-man, or does he really believe he is doing the best for his country; the film is good on the psychology here, but poorer on the political (to the extent that the PM is doing his best, then the real, unanswered question is, to what extent is he right?). The praise I had for Hare's earlier film also holds true here (though to a slightly lesser extent): the elliptical dialogue is a treat, even if it sometimes frustrates. But what frustrates most is that Hare, who personally is a very political man, seems unsure of what he wants to say here; and leaves us with a portrait of the delicate moral dilemmas of the upper middle class that seems as far away from the life most of us actually live as the Turcs and Caicos islands themselves.

Of the trilogy, it was better than the sequel (TURKS & CAICOS) but not as good as the primary (PAGE EIGHT). The acting was good, the story was tighter and, of the three in the trilogy, it was more a thriller than a drama. It still lacked the intimacy of the first. And, to be honest, It seems to me that the very stand Johnny Worricker took, at the beginning, ended up being a waste of time - it brought about no discernable good. I think I prefer PAGE EIGHT as a stand alone spy drama. The other two movies just eroded the original. I give this movie a 6 (fair) out of 10 {Spy Thriller}

The problem may be that we've had too many Bourne and Bond movies of late. Or perhaps it's also a younger audience (most probably men) who prefer easily telegraphed plot points alongside the beautifully (and expensively) choreographed action scenes. Maybe they've never checked out Alec Guinness in his portrayal of George Smiley, or better yet, the Le Carré novels to understand how actual tradecraft operates.

I'm not saying that this whole series works flawlessly; there are plot loopholes and legitimate complaints about not fleshing out Worricker character sufficiently. One could argue that Johnny is so terribly flawed (and the films do make that perfectly clear that he is flawed) that he remains a cypher to even those closest to him. And would that not serve him well as a spy? However, we don't see a backstory of him operating in the field, only as an office-bound intelligence analyst. I understand other quibbles that reviewers cite. But overall, this series bears repeated viewings to fully grasp the nuances and the ulterior motives of the main protagonists. It is in these readjustments of thought and action where the films excel, along with brilliant (if sometimes too elliptical) dialogue and fine acting.

And speaking of acting, this series provides several substantive roles for women, and not just young, attractive women. No review I've read calls attention to that.

Having said that, I find it disappointing that ratings on the IMDB are so low, since this series deserves to be seen. But you will have to pay close attention, and by doing so you will fully appreciate the issues raised, most of which are still with us years later.

Oh, and I do like the best of the Bond and Bourne films; but they are a different animal all together and thus should not be the subject of comparisons.

3rd part of the Worricker trilogy sees Nighy and Bonham-Carter on the run in Europe being sought by nasty Prime Minister Fiennes. Worricker realises that he must get the Prime Minister's indiscretions out into the public domain.

Whilst not as much fun as the first 2 parts and the last 30 minutes are a tad underwhelming all the writing is still very impressive and Nighy is as cool as ever. We can only pray they'll make more in years to come.

A stellar cast, but just no interesting enough. Very wordy and the plot(?) just got too convoluted and complicated. My wife gave up after half an hour. The opening credits at over six minutes nearly ran into the closing credits. At the end of it all I am left with the image of Bill Nighy carrying two boxes each containing 12 bottles of wine ... with one arm!! He must be incredibly strong!

Nothing is perfect but sometimes we have to be grateful for large mercies. In view of the generally mindless dreck that is offered on the screen (big or small) David Hare has at least given us intelligent dialogue written for adults and spoken clearly by a cast of actors who know what they're doing. No faux dramatic, over-amplified background music and no extraneous background noise ... we're here to hear people speak not how noisy the traffic is on a London street. It goes without saying that Bill Nighy is Worricker personified and it's hard to imagine anyone else in the role ... all that world-weary patience; it was good to see him finally lose his cool in the final episode and lash out as everything seemed to be falling apart. Highly recommended.

I usually lose the thread of political thrillers pretty early on, but not so with this one. It had just enough intrigue to keep it interesting, but it wasn't loaded with unnecessary distractions. I thought it was the best in the Trilogy, keeping a good pace, and providing a surprising, and thought provoking ending to the series.

Towards the end of this episode Ralph Fiennes and Bill Nighy shine in a superbly scripted confrontation that brings to the fore all the tensions which were slowly developed throughout the series. If this movie has any thread of truth about life in the political and espionage world then this last scene is a real eye opener.

Highly recommended.

A remarkable cast was assembled for this: Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham-Carter, Bill Nighy, Olivia Wilde, a who's who of British acting. There are spies and politics, a prestigious writer, so why did this end up being so dull? It is hard to fault the acting, but the script somehow manages to plod along with barely any tension. It seems more like a talking shop from an Islington dinner party than an action packed spy thriller. I enjoyed Fiennes' suspiciously Blair-like prime minister, and indeed the performances all round are fine, with Mr Nighy portraying a silken if disgruntled ex-spook. Yet the action, such as it is,, trundles along at a funereal pace.

Perhaps Mr Hare's undoubted talents are better suited to the stage than to the moving picture. I can't see this leading him to being asked to write.a Jason Bourne screenplay any time soon.

I really like 'Page Eight', the first movie in this trilogy. 'Turks & Caicos', the second movie, wasn't as good, but it was OK. This last movie was as good as the first one! All in all, a very good set. I really enjoyed them. If you enjoyed 'Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy' (1979) and 'Smiley's People' (1982) both by the BBC then you will enjoy this series too. It's the same style of movies/mini-series about the world of spies. The old BBC mini-series are classics, both of them, and 10 out of 10. This trilogy is 8/10. Bill Nighy (as Johnny Worricker) is the lead character in all three movies and he does a great job. Ralph Fiennes is also very good as the Prime Minister. The only actor I didn't like was Helena Bonham Carter: like someone else has already stated she didn't make a very convincing spy.

So the right hand man to the head of MI5, a super spy of spies is on the run with another former MI5 spy and... they do absolutely nothing to disguise themselves? In fact they dress exactly the same down to his blazer? Couldn't get past that and switched it off. Page 8 was actually pretty good. The rest of the "trilogy" I can do without.

British drama at its best. Great characters, well written and directed, witty and biting. Top class actors all through the cast. The series of three were all excellent.

international cast, exotic locales, big production values can never hide a poor story hiding behind this 3 parter. I was extremely disappointed by the moody staring between protagonists that never moved the story forward. Over and over again, I kept thinking, 'okay sociopaths run governments, but I've seen this over and over again ---and sociopaths employing psychopaths still run governments.

There was never an edge with this series; never a wake-up call. Was the point most people are whores and sellouts at the end? Or was it to give up and take what you get from public officialdom? The UK puts out superior drama to America, but the money spent on cast, locations, production values, I've come to expect more than this lame half baked story. I wasn't prepared for the Bourne Conspiracy extra-lite, but I guess that is what I got, despite expectations. BBC should send all writers, the director and producers into exile to the Sudan for two years making documentaries, such they can learn not to waste so much public money on inferior television

Probably the weakest of the trilogy as the plot is a bit convoluted and trite, but the dialogue is great and acting outstanding. Fiennes is delicious, Nighy continues his strong sensitive understated sensible full body performance. .

What a movie! I was a bit apprehensive, because of the review above, but it turned out to be a wonderfully, fine, actors-movie! A star studded cast, a great story. Nothing flashy à la James Bond, mind you, but that is what makes the plot so believable and real. A treat!

Horrible opening score that music did not elevate a boring effort

The cast were great for the whole trilogy as well as their characters and backstories but they were completely let down by the unnecessary need to employ over-dramatic screenwriting far more befitting a stage play. I see this a common thread in David Hare's writing, it just doesn't translate well to screen performances where there could be a lot more subtlety instead of hammering home some overly emotional dilemma, which if you look at the character situation logically often makes very little sense.

Just like Page 8 and Turks & Caicos this film has a good plot but suffers from terrible writing. David Hare just can't write dialogue and that makes the actors look wooden. With better writing this could have been an 8* rating.

I did enjoy the story and the ending was interesting. If it's James Bond you are looking for then look elsewhere, but if it is an intelligent drama you want, then you might enjoy this.