User reviews

If you think you know all there is to know about the spy history since 1945, you will find this film pretty interesting and revealing. i have not heard about the ''granny spy'' until now and its a good melodramatic, historic flick, made for the newest generations.

judi dench does a remarkable appearance in this drama that jumps back and forth in history, the present is spun around police interrogation, and dialouges with her gobsmacked lawyer son, and the past where we follow the main from studies at cambridge into advancing into assistant at the nuclear research institute.

its has some romantic interludes here and there, the way they are made weakens the production, because its not profound enough . the score is classic style british drama series style of music, and gives a nice float to the motion.

its worth a glance thinks the grumpy old man if youre into the war and cold war history, and the keywords are like in many other features to forgive , bow and forget. recommended

This is what I call a false biopic. These are usually extremely well made movies with good production values, well acted and directed but they also play fast and loose with the actual facts as to make them more "interesting" to the audience. This genre is very popular, especially in the UK, as they are good award bait and popular with the audiences. These are usually never bad movies and I can't really give them a bad rating, but they also almost always leave me a bit flat and, to be honest, I am getting a bit tired of them. So, Red Joan falls in this category and I have nothing more to add about it, except that at least the creators, having changed almost everything regarding the true story, gave us the courtesy of changing the name of the titular character, a move which I think is at least a bit more honest.

Judi was very good of course, but doesn't feature hugely. Film was ok but felt like a missed opportunity. Could have been better. Meandered through an interesting story in a pedestrian manner. Last 10 mins it picked up. 6/10.

Critics blast this film as a missed opportunity. I heartily disagree, spy films do not all have to be fast paced intrigue. This film is a slow burn and thoughtful character study on the motivations of a woman in extraordinary positions.

This could have easily be a big + spy story. One of those stories that survive the times because the writers dig behind the veils of historic facts, and make essential values of human existance see the light of day. That value here is that one human can break through the simplicfied truths of time-bound consciousness, the illusions of wrong and right, dares to think his own moral mind and make a decision that serves humanity on a deeper level of evolution. It shows as a premise that is strongly tied to the story but not convincingly develloped.

What is left is a skilled and entertaining movie, not a timeless one.

With all the superhero big budget claptrap around , it's good to see a proper well made British movie.

Everything works perfect here. From the script to the direction including costume and design it all becomes jigsaw pieces of a fantastic tale.

For me , each and everyone gives a marvellous performance to make this an early contender for hit of the year. Of course it won't win anything come award time but neither did The Guernsey Literary and Potato Pie movie....and this is just as good. Just a brilliant story...with a dollop of history thrown in.

The young Judi Dench gives a brilliant performance .

Forget all the blockbusters and settle down for this...I gave 8 because I would have liked an extra 20 minutes or so to delve into KGB or MI5...but alas no, FANTASTIC

The film as mentioned was extremely interesting but failed to ever really leave 2nd gear the performances was fine and I wasn't bored but it just felt like it could have had another level to it and could really have exploded into action towards the end but continued to plod on at a mediocre pace. Reasonable but nothing special.

Red Joan is a cosy bland film inspired by the true story of granny spy Melita Norwood. She was unmasked as a KGB agent late in her life.

Judi Dench plays the elderly Joan Stanley who is taken in for questioning by the police as a suspected Soviet spy.

Her son Nick (Ben Miles) is a barrister who helps her as she is questioned. Nick learns that his mother was a scientist who worked in the laboratory that developed the atom bomb.

The flashbacks scenes had young Joan (Sophie Cookson) as an idealist communist sympathiser. She is fascinated by Leo (Tom Hughes) and his cousin Sonya who are supporters of the Russian revolution.

Joan gets a job within the Tube Alloys project. The government project that secretly developed the atomic bomb.

After the bombing of Hiroshima. Joan finds herself passing secrets so the Soviets also have parity in the nuclear arms race.

Joan also falls in love with her boss, Professor Max Davis (Stephen Campbell Moore) who is later suspected of possible espionage.

This is a plodding, sludgy film with an interminable romance subplot. This is really a television film.

Just because it is based on true facts does not meant it will be an interesting movie. This does not hold a candle to films/tv shows about the Cambridge Spies; Philby, Burgess, Blunt, Maclean.

There are some good performances but it is a movie with no thrills.

I also did not buy the fact that Russia would not had been able to have developed the atomic bomb without Joan's help. After the war, Russian bought over their own share of Nazi scientists who had worked in developing the bomb.

Dame Judi Dench stars as Joan Stanley who is exposed as a KGB Russian Spy long after retirement. The Film opens when she is arrested at her home then taken for interrogation. While being interrogated, Joan Flashes back to the past and that is what drives the Film. Sophie Cookson plays Joan during her early years as a Physics student at Cambridge University and it is here where she is recruited by the KGB and a Soviet supported politically radical friend Leo played by Tom Hughes. Judy Dench is actually only in a handful of the scenes but really delivers at key moments in the Movie and so do her fellow Cast Mates. As the Legal Battle ensues, the Flash backs intensify. Based loosely on a True Story I felt the Storyline was very believable and Builds and Finishes Strong. Well done Production. Top Notch Actors

Playing the pleasant game of alternative history, we can make a couple of reasonable assumptions.

If Stalin had gotten The Bomb first, would he have used it to achieve global domination? Of course.

And Hitler? He would have leveled London without a second thought.

But the jarring plot point in this narrative is that Joan puts the US in the same category as those guys.

The Yanks took out Hiroshima, and Nagasaki - therefore they have no moral compass whatsoever and poor little Russia must have The Bomb to protect itself.

This is the basic problem with the script: when it comes to science Joan is a very smart cookie.

When it comes to other things - politics, people, sex - she doesn't really seem to know her ass from a hole in the ground.

In her concluding speech she makes the argument that she was right - 50 years of peace proving her decisions - but conveniently fails to mention the epically expensive arms race that resulted.

This is a well-done movie, and certainly worth the time, but the main character - as she's written - is not very convincing and it's reasonable to react to her with a strong sense of impatience.

Greetings again from the darkness. Sir Trevor Nunn is a Tony Award winner best known for his stage productions, and for being director of the Royal Shakespeare Company from 1968 through 1986. The film is "inspired by a true story", and Lindsay Shapero has adapted Jennie Rooney's 2013 novel, which was a blend of history and fiction taken from the life of Melita Norwood ... the longest serving British KGB spy.

Dame Judi Dench plays Joan Stanley (the movie version of the aforementioned Ms. Norwood) whom we first meet as she is being arrested for treason by MI5 agents in May 2000. Most of the film consists of Joan being interrogated while having flashbacks to her earlier life, beginning in 1938 at Cambridge University. She was a hard-working nose-to-the grindstone Physics student who is drawn in to the fascinating world of Sonja (Tereza Srbova) and her brother Leo (Tom Hughes), who are supporters of the Soviet party. In the flashback scenes, young Joan is played by Sophie Cookson (who reminds of a young Faye Dunaway).

The film spends most of its time in flashback mode, and Ms. Cookson excels as the idealistic Joan first in her scenes with Sonja and Leo, and later with Stephen Campbell Moore who plays Professor Max Davies. Joan is recruited to work in the lab with Davies, as the secretly work to create the Atom bomb. It's Sonja and Leo who coerce Joan into passing along secret documents that allow Stalin's Russia to keep pace on bomb development. She easily flies under the radar since, as Sonja tells her, "Nobody would suspect us. We are women."

From a historical perspective, the film kind of falls flat. It also doesn't qualify as a British spy thriller since there are really no thrills to be found. "The Americans" TV show was infinitely better at the spy genre than this one; however, if the film works on any level, it's as moral debate fodder. Joan clearly has her reasons for doing what she thought was right ... leveling the playing field between super powers, so that none had an advantage. The question is, what is right and who is to decide? During this time, alliances were quite fluid between Russia, Britain and the United States, and she believed her actions saved lives.

Dame Judi is really not on screen much, and when she is, there's little for her to do except play innocent and dream of years gone by. She was labeled "Granny spy", and though her story is interesting, and does provide yet another aspect from WWII, the film itself never really grabs us as viewers. The early periods are well filmed with beautiful costumes and sets, but we are never as dumbstruck as Joan's son (Ben Miles) when he admits he thought his mum was merely an over-educated librarian. As a character study, there's something here ... but as entertainment, it's a bit lacking.

Sorry, but Melita Norwood (the person on whom this was based) was a despicable person who fervently and slavishly loved Stalinist Soviet Union long after we knew they were as murderous and oppressive as the Nazis had been.

She did not go to Cambridge, but dropped out of Southhampton. She spent most of her time compromising and destroying the lives of many of her co-workers. And as a direct result of her work the Russians were able to target annihilative fission weapons at the UK instead of basic atomic bombs.

A bit slow moving but worth the effort for an intriguing true story and brilliant performance - as you'd expect- from Dame Judi Dench. Story follows Joan Stanley, a widow living out a quiet retirement in the suburbs of England who is suddenly placed under arrest by the British Secret Service It seems Joan has been concealing a past double life as a soviet spy. The charges stem from the 1930's and through many flashbacks we see how she gets involved with providing classified scientific information - including details on the building of the atomic bomb - to the Soviet government.

I enjoyed the Judi Dench modern parts the most here, seeing an old lady get arrested in her front garden, the shock to her son and neighbors. The flashback sections to the 30's and 40's and the actress attached to them were a bit weak and melodramatic, still interesting though and I ultimately I sympathised with why she did what she did.

The acting, costumes, and sets for this period piece are all excellent and engaging. The depiction of political indoctrination and group dynamics was accurate. When the reason for disclosure of nuclear secrets is revealed, I docked 2 stars. While I'm sure that the rationale of the traitors was historically accurate, the writers obviously did not bother to hire a sufficiently competent military or intelligence advisor. Had they done this, they would have at least provided the rebuttal to scientists who hastened Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) via Soviet nukes. They wrongly presumed that the United States would ever use a nuclear first strike in an act of aggression, rather than saving 5 million lives, as they did for Japan and America, when choosing to drop the bomb in WW2. The years after Hiroshima until the Soviets obtained the nuke proved that point.

The next wrong presumption is that Soviet nuclear power decreased war casualties by preventing another World War through MAD. That presumes that the world had conditions for another World War, which were somehow abated by MAD. In truth, Soviet acquisition of nuclear missiles allowed them to instigate proxy wars along with China across Asia, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe, which slaughtered millions of people, and brought tyranny to millions more. Without the deterrence of US nuclear superiority, Europe, Asian allies, and America had to confront the communist proxy wars with containment and spheres of influence, unable to assist the rest of Asia with prosperity and peace like Japan and S. Korea.

So they can carry the false narrative that Soviet nukes were beneficial to humanity, as they did in this movie. But those millions of families who still suffer from the brutality of Pol Pot, Mao Zedong et. Al., are not so easy to kick to the curb for those of us who know history. When the scriptwriters presented the question of scientists (who ostensibly care more for humanity than for nationality), versus the politicians and military officers (who ostensibly care more about power and nationality than humanity), they deliberately took the side of the "humanistic" scientists. Which is precisely an inversion of reality. History proved those "humanistic" scientists wrong about MAD leading to peace. And if they weren't so arrogant, they would've left that determination to the military officers and political science experts who accurately predicted the dangers of communist nuclear armament. If the scriptwriters had conveyed this message, the movie would deserve 8 stars.

A thought provoking , agreeable story , well paced and competently acted. Enjoyable film with intrigue , suspense and historical events . Red Joan (2018) boasts a good cast , such as Sophie Cookson, Stephen Campbell Moore, Tom Hughes , Ben Miles and Judi Dench, all of them giving stunning interpretations. Based - very loosely - on a true story , it starts in a picturesque village in England , where Joan Stanley lives in contented and peaceful retirement. Then English-born Joan Stanley (Dame Judi Dench) is detained and interrogated by MI5 , accusing her to be one of the most influential spies in living history . Later on , a series of flashbacks telling past events , in which a young Joan (Sophie Cookson) gets recruited by the K. G. B in the mid 1930s. She successfully transfers secrets to Soviet Russia, and remains undetected as a spy for over a half a century . For Joan - she is How far would you go to protect everything you love?. To Change the World, She Betrayed Her Country.

Based on Incredible true events in which various countries during WWII compete in the nuclear career , as Germany , Russia and US were developing an atomic bomb ; along the way , British agents and undercover Soviet spies enter the picture, and while our starring gets a job at a nuclear investigation project ,which enables them to keep up with the west in the development of atomic weapons , but strange behaviours raise suspicions among colleagues . As the Manhattan Project, in Los Alamos , as mentioned in this film , was an American project of research and development during World War II that produced the first nuclear weapons and the famous ¨Fat Man and Little Boy¨ . The picture has substance and intellect enough , containing suspense , intrigue , twists and turns . Although "inspired by a true story" about a spy who has been hiding an incredible past , it is very far from the truth . There are usually extremely well made movies with adequate period piece , fine production values , nicely acted , brilliant cinematography (here by cameraman Zac Nicholson) , evocative score (by George Fenton) and shot but they also play fast and loose with the actual facts as to make them more commercial to the audience . This genre is very popular , especially in the United Kingdom , as they are good award bait and popular with the spectators . The film is pretty well and as an espionage drama it works frankly nice . The tale was really interesting and intriguing , and as far as I'm concerned well filmed , though packs some failures , flaws and tiring , at times . It's a compelling flick , motivating and engaging , however partially unfaithful it is to the events that inspired it . Loosely based on the real-life case of Civil Servant Melita Norwood (1912-2005) , who successfully passed classified information about the British Atomic program to the Russians in the 1940s and 50s . In fact , she was actually imprisoned and Norwood stated the following one : "I did what I did, not to make money, but to help prevent the defeat of a system which had at great cost given ordinary people food and fares which they could afford, a good education, and a health service" . The main characters feature Sophie Cookson as a Communist Party sympathizer, becomes employed as a British government civil servant, and Judi Dench who excels in her role as the elderly retired woman whose tranquil existence is shattered as she's shockingly arrested by MI5 , resulting to be one of the most important spies in living history.

This morally empathetic motion picture was well directed by Trevor Nunn . His film debut was Lady Jane (186) ,this was first theatrical film for director Trevor in eleven years , the last had been Hedda in 1975 and the third and final was Twelfth Night or What You Will ; all three pictures are costume period films. Furthermore , he has directed TV films , such as : The Merchant of Venice , Oklahoma! , The three sisters , The Great Hamlets , American Playhouse, Theatre Night , among others. Rating : 6/10 . Acceptable and passable.

I went to see this film without any fore knowledge of the content, only the general awareness that Judi Dench plays a senior female Russian spy, Joan Smith, hence the film's title. This film turned out to be a story told in flashbacks as Joan now a senior citizen is arrested for treason. Her spying activities start after we see Joan as a young Cambridge physics student flirting with revolutionary socialism and with a young Russian student, Leo, a cousin of her friend Sonya. The idealism of youth and the enduring friendships of university life bind the plot together as Joan becomes embroiled in spying for Leo as she becomes smitten by him, and starts working at a secret government research centre with her physics degree. A thoughtful story that takes on the feel of a work of romantic fiction as the relationship between Leo and Joan evolves, sometimes at a distance, revealing the extent of the spying and the consequences of secrets revealed. A thought provoking and interesting film that is intelligent in its approach. Perhaps calling it 'inspired by a true story' that of Melita Norwood is too far fetched, as that real life Granny Spy never went to Cambridge University, never had a barrister son, never studied physics and had no doubts about her socialist ideals as both her parents were Communists. This is different more nuanced story and altogether better for it from a storyline perspective. Judi Dench is as wonderful as ever and Sophie Cookson as the young Joan is mesmerising. Leo as played by Tom Hughes adds mystery as the idealist young male love interest, to this fascinating and intelligent tale.

Now, I get that modern audiences tend to want some extra flavor added to their historical drama nowadays (at least, that's what Hollywood keeps telling us), so I was expecting they'd sprinkle on some romantic subplot, change the characters around to suit modern identity/gender politics, and changed the narrative a bit. But in doing so, this film seems to have gotten away from its source-material to such an extent, that none of it felt like a real story anymore. At no point did I get that "wow, this really happened" feeling, which is supposed to be the main motivation driving such films. The plot just isn't interesting enough to stand on its own without any historical context, yet it's far too altered to feel like it connect to its own, real life history.

One of my main gripes was with the main protagonist, who's younger version of herself in particular (played by Sophie Cockson), felt like a completely two-dimensional and shallow character. -- Young, beautiful girl who happens to be a genius-level nuclear physicist (but looks like a supermodel, of course) who, despite her supposed intelligence, at the same time is motivated by completely naive and immature idealism. The fact that the movie tries so hard to endear you to this person who, by any measure, was at her core a despicable traitor not only to her own country but also everyone else around her, made it a hard one to watch for me. Instead of this run-of-the-mill Mary Sue character that feels so completel played out in modern cinema, I would've loved to've seen a REAL actress actually bring something to the role. The film failed in communicating to the audience WHY she did what she did, instead it hinged the whole plot line on the dumbed down notion of "she's in love with a handsome communist". Would not recommend this one. The film feels labored and tedious, too much disingenuous, romantic sentimentality. Overall, a bore to watch.

7/10 for the cinematography and the production design 4/10 for the story and characters

Terrific. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time and emotional at the end. What more do you want? I loved the pacing. This is a young woman's film and Judy Dench was the translator and narrator. Throughout I asked myself, what would I do if I were in her shoes? I was impressed with the story and immersed inside it. The seriousness of what she did was dramatic. My glass was full with the intensity of it all. Excellent film.

Biographical drama. A screen version of the book "Red Joan" (as in the original the picture is called, with greetings to Russian distributors) by the English writer Jenny Rooney, in turn based on the biography of Melita Norwood, a Soviet intelligence officer in Great Britain. I have nothing to say for the book, because it was not published in the country of defeated socialism, so I will evaluate the picture as an independent work. And the world of intelligence and espionage can sometimes surprise you with unexpected turns. I have been looking closely at this picture for a long time, and that's just the topic. And here's my brief opinion - The story of a brave woman who saved the world from a new world war. The picture made an overall good impression on me, but this does not mean that there are no minuses in it, which I intend to disassemble, not forgetting to mention the pluses, of course. Now, let your humble servant finish with the preface and get down to the point. So the pros: 1. The story of the scout - here the name of the main character was replaced by Joan Stanley. She is a successful Cambridge student in the late thirties - a troubled time, I can tell you. With the outbreak of World War II, she was hired by the government laboratory, which is responsible for the development and creation of nuclear weapons. Time is very important, because Germany, the Soviet Union, Great Britain and the United States joined this race, whoever receives this bomb first will have crushing power. Well, after the end of the war, the heroine comes to the conclusion that if you do not help the USSR with nuclear weapons, the world will face a war more terrible than the one that took place just yesterday. The film tells about a brave girl who went to the transfer of secret documents of the USSR from idealistic and humanistic convictions, and until her death she believed in this. The picture clearly demonstrates this. There are very few such people now who, not for money, but for an idea, are able to do the almost impossible. 2. Atmosphere - the budget of the picture was clearly small, but even for the money that is here, the creators were able to plunge us into the atmosphere of the late thirties and early fifties - a tense and extremely difficult time, during which many events happened that changed the appearance of the world and determined further events literally for decades. Communist ideas, opposition to Nazism and fascism, a tense and forced alliance between the USSR and the Western allies, post-war mistrust that almost grew into a new war. 3. Costumes, scenery - the time is still quite recent, and often used in world cinema, so I have no comments and nagging in this regard. Everything is authentic and in keeping with the spirit of the time. So the cons: 1. Smoothness - Joan's personality is smoothed and only partially corresponds to the real biography of Melita. For example, she was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain (this is not in the picture, she is presented as a "sympathetic"), was a staff agent of the NKVD-MGB-KGB (there is no recruitment in the picture), circumstances with close relatives (she had a daughter, not a son) and etc. The creators decided to smooth out her biography, though it's not clear why. What? Her membership in the Communist Party and contacts with the members of the "Cambridge Five" somehow had to shock the audience? By God, the creators! The Cold War ended more than thirty years ago. Or does the ghost of communism come to you at night? 2. Inaccuracy - I have already mentioned the time of the film, so why is the Soviet special service called the KGB in the film? Help for Creators (if you read this (translate it into English, don't worry)) The KGB was created on March 13, 1954, transformed from the MGB. Why is it so difficult to open a banal "Wikipedia"? Not to mention more serious sources. This negligence is simply amazing! 3. Gay - could this have been avoided? Well, at least here? Although the creators here did not provide details, it means they still have a conscience. 4. The reflection of the heroine is her throwing, and the emphasis of the creators on her personal life spoils the meaning of the picture a little. Are we looking at the biography of a Soviet intelligence officer or the personal life of a spy against our will? The creators are trying to push us exactly the second option. A little about the main characters: 1. Joan Stanley, played by Judi Dench (elderly Joan) and Sophie Cookson (young Joan), is a young Cambridge graduate who became a member of the government's nuclear weapons group. Which, because of her convictions, helped the USSR create its own nuclear weapons. A brave, smart, impulsive and a little eccentric girl who took a mortal risk in order to prevent another big war. Judy did an excellent job of the role, which cannot be said about Sophie, who only annoyed the whole picture. 2. Lev Galich performed by Tom Hughes - Joan's Cambridge love. A committed communist who believes in a better world. An agent of the Soviet special services, persuading Joan to become an agent and help the USSR in the creation of nuclear weapons. Tom was convincing. Well done It should be said that Melita (as well as the "Cambridge Five" and many other agents) was surrendered by the traitor Vasily Mitrokhin, which led to her arrest at the beginning of the 2000s. And only recently, the British special services declassified the archives, and the world became aware of this brave woman, who received the Order of the Red Banner from the USSR, over many years of cooperation, because she retired only in the mid-seventies, and the British counterintelligence did not have any evidence against her if Mitrokhin had not handed over tons of top-secret documents to the British. I admire this woman. Remember all the citizens of the former USSR. If it were not for Melita Norwood, Klaus Fox, the Rosenberg spouses and dozens of other agents of the Soviet special services, who disinterestedly and gratuitously handed over many secret documents to the leadership of the USSR, then our country would not have been able to create its own nuclear weapons so soon after the Americans, and the territory of our countries would have been turned into a radioactive wasteland sixty years ago, and you and I would not have been on this planet. You can see a picture, and even need to, but not believe it one hundred percent. As a result, we have a good biographical drama about a brave woman, with a good script, a good atmosphere, but with a bunch of blunders and outright lies, and with good acting. My rating is 7 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!

Red Joan

I enjoyed the movie but it just failed to rise above its subject matter. The movie was torn between two conflicting issues that it failed to resolve

• firstly Joan was a traitor, it cannot be for any individual to decide what a foreign country/enemy should know or not know. The movie suggests that 50 years of peace justifies her decision but this is a leap too far. Hiroshima is an example where using the bomb cost lives but saved millions of others in conventional war.

• Secondly Joan was groomed both intellectually, romantically and sexually. This was tawdry manipulation from the start and she was a naive idiot. This was revealed very early on in the movie, and yet this silly romantic thread continued.

Lastly to just state this was a reflection of a true story is not sufficient to justify this rather small story of a traitor that wasn't caught until her eighties. If it had been me I would have prosecuted her and left her to rot in jail as the traitor she was and remind the viewer of the countless lives lost during the Cold War at the hands of other traitors namely Burgess and MacLaine