Customer Reviews

The Tailor of Panama (Special Edition)

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(17)
3 star:		(9)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(23)

 

 

If before the release of John Boorman's adaptation of John le Carre's "Tailor of Panama" (scripted by the novel's author himself) anybody had told me I'd ever see Geoffrey Rush and Pierce Brosnan costarring in the same movie, I'd have snapped "And pigs fly" in response. Apparently I wasn't alone in that feeling, as Mr. Rush himself said much the same thing - although more politely - in an interview broadcast around the time the movie hit the theaters.

Yet, on second thought, who'd have been more appropriate to play James Bond's evil twin than the latest incarnation of Bond himself? Who more appropriate to play the story's multifarious title character than the actor who shone in complex roles like David Helfgott, the Marquis de Sade and Shakespearean theater owner Philip Henslowe?

Going in, I didn't doubt that Geoffrey Rush would be an amazing Harry Pendel - the role of the seemingly pathetic antihero, the little man desperately trying to maintain his dignity in the face of overwhelming odds fits him like a glove; and he does indeed give a bravura, almost Chaplinesque performance. The greater surprise for me was Pierce Brosnan, who takes every single Bond cliche and merrily runs with it in the opposite direction: I confess this took some getting used to, but once I'd gotten into the swing of it, I enormously enjoyed his skill and courage in deconstructing the very image on which his fame is grounded.

Brosnan is Andy Osnard, an MI6 agent sent to Panama as a punishment for having stepped on one toe to many during his last posting. He isn't exactly enthusiastic about the assignment to what he views as a seedy tropical backwater, but his superiors tell him that he's there to safeguard British interests in the wake of the Panama Canal's turnover to the Panamanian government after General Noriega's ouster. Generating leads in preparation for his arrival, Osnard comes across the name of Harry Pendel, a tailor billing himself as one half of "Pendel and Braithwaite," ostensibly an enterprise in the venerable Saville Row tradition, founded by now-deceased Arthur Braithwaite. But the shop's alleged provenance is as big a fabrication as Harry's personal history; for in fact, he learned tailoring in prison, where he was sent for burning down his Uncle Benny (Harold Pinter)'s shop. Discovering this - and the fact that Harry used to be Noriega's tailor and is still very much in favor with the currently reigning clique (the same people already in power under Noriega: "They got Ali Baba but missed the 40 slaves," Harry comments) - Osnard quickly decides that Harry Pendel is the weakest link in the British expat community; the perfect guy to lean on and generate intelligence.

Soon Harry is trapped between the growing pressure exercised by Osnard, his considerable financial needs (which Osnard has promised to remedy) and the admonitions of his faux conscience Uncle Benny never to tell the truth, the only thing that can really hurt him: "Try sincerity, that's a virtue" Uncle Benny advises - "truth is an affliction." And so Harry spins lie after lie; constructing a mesh in which he is ultimately caught together with his wife (Jamie Lee Curtis in one of her best-ever performances) and closest friends Micky Abraxas (an almost unrecognizable Brendan Gleeson) and Marta (Leonor Varela), who have barely survived Noriega's regime - Micky broken in spirit, Marta with a perpetually scarred face. Because Harry's lies about a "silent opposition" network and alleged plans to sell the Panama Canal to the Chinese are good enough to eventually prompt the British *and* American governments to plan a new invasion - and with that prospect looming large over Panama City's infamous "cocaine towers" skyline, the Pendel family, Micky and Marta find themselves in an almost inescapable stranglehold.

Although written by one of the great masters of the spy thriller genre and despite a plot featuring all the trademark elements, "The Tailor of Panama" is *not* a thriller but a farce; as much parody of the genre as mordant satire on the intelligence community (which le Carre knows intimately from personal experience) and sharp criticism of the first world's exploitation of the corrupt power structures of strategically located, cash-strapped countries in the developing world. References to both "Casablanca" and Graham Greene's "Our Man in Havana" are deliberate; obviously so in its setting and in the satirical creation of a would-be spy spinning a web of lies just to keep the cash coming in and eventually caught in that web when his lies come true; but also in Harry's reference to Panama as "Casablanca without heroes," and when Osnard, taken to a small plane by a British diplomat, wonders aloud whether this could be "the beginning of a beautiful friendship" ("I think it desperately unlikely," is the icy response).

The movie seems to be particularly unpopular with two groups: Brosnan fans disappointed not to see him play another superhero like James Bond and Remington Steele (and there's little to be said about this; you either buy into his deconstruction of that image or you don't) and Panamanians alienated by their country's portrayal as a corrupt banana republic. I admittedly haven't been to Panama (yet); and I'm sure it has more to offer than corruption, cocaine and the colorful, seedy nightlife so amply displayed here. But Panama's history is a troubled one, and the ongoing role of the Western powers (particularly the U.S.) in its politics is problematic; so I do think le Carre and Boorman have a legitimate point.

In sum, this is a fine production, featuring great performances from its entire cast (also including Catherine McCormack as the career diplomat who becomes Osnard's love - err, sex - interest and Daniel Radcliffe, now of "Harry Potter" fame, as Pendel's son) and spellbinding cinematography by Philippe Rousselot, making Panama's lush, tropical setting come to life in all its vibrant facets. Don't be discouraged by the naysayers ... take a look and judge for yourself!

ok, first of all i'm panamenian so when we got the news that they were making a movie in our country we were excited!! you know mr. brosnan, geoffrey rush, jaime lee curtis even the kid from harry potter among others, it was awesome, great actors so the hype was visible, we could not wait 'till opening night, cause we are not used to have such talent in our small country at once, and we also had a few local actors in the movie as well so it was fun, but when the movie started, basically it was a little weird, what a waste of talent i mean brosnan character turns out to be a wise guy who's only interested in two things money and sex, nothing compared to his roll as mr. bond. rush's performance wasn't bad but it could have been way better as for the other players, well i'll say a regular outcoming. Another thing that bothered me is WHY everytime somebody makes a movie in another country other than USA always shows the "poor side" or the b side of that particular place, hey i know my country has its highs and lows but for some reason they always showed the low ones, we are more than just a little village or in this movie's case a lost city!!. but anyway the movie could have been way better than it did, the only fun thing about it is that you actually see the buildings and landscape that we are used to.

Geoffrey Rush is excellent as Harry, an Englishman with a sadly shady past who has re- invented himself in Panama as the best tailor in
the country, making clothes for the rich and politically powerful. Into his world comes Osnard, played by Pierce Brosnan. A morally
corrupt, self-serving MI6 spy, sent to Panama as a last chance after seducing a European diplomat's wife.

Many were bowled over by the irony of casting Brosnan, so associated with James Bond, as this much realer, creepier Bond alter ego. A
man who is handsome, and self-confident, but whose endless seduction of women seems smarmy not sexy, and who delights in
screwing other people while profiting himself.

For me the casting was actually problematic. Brosnon's terrific, but the irony is so distractingly obvious, that it pulled me out of the
story, and made me think too much about film and our hero images instead of simply accepting the character. Beyond that, Osnard
is drawn a little too broadly for my taste. He's so transparent, I have a hard time he gets anyone to trust him even for a moment.
If his inner self-serving pig were a bit better hidden, it might have given the audience more to unravel, and make other characters'
willingness to do his bidding a bit easier to buy.

The mix of tones also was a bit of a misfire for me. Never quite darkly funny enough to ascend into true satire, but certainly never
edgy enough to be taken seriously, there's a lack of danger here. Unlike 'Dr. Strangelove', we never really think Harry and Osnard's
games will reduce Panama to a pile of rubble, and the intimation of it seems false and a bit silly.

Yet, all that complaining is because the movie is good enough, smart enough, brave enough and entertaining enough that I felt frustrated
it didn't quite work as brilliantly as is should. But I'd certainly still recommend it, in spite of my long winded misgivings, and I'm also willing
to give it another look.

This movie presents a different story altogether than the one LeCarre wrote. The plot line of Harry and Marta was not the unspoken love story of the book, and the ending in no way resembled LeCarre's tale. The verbally explosive scene at the tailor shop makes Harry the one who gets upset, rather than Mickey (via Harry's humiliation of him), giving Mickey's suicide a different motivation entirely. The episode where Harry moves Mickey's body and cleans up Mickey's apartment is left out. Louisa is given an alternate personality more suitable to Jamie Lee Curtis. Don't waste your time and money--read the book. Better yet, listen to The John LeCarre Collection audio. Let LeCarre tell the story himself--he does so wonderfully.

This movie is the opposite of the Bond movies. This is not a showcase of the smooth or sophisticated. Most of the characters are seedy. They are generally examples of pride, greed, incompetence, and power mongering. However they are likeable and understandable in their own twisted ways. I am not suggesting that you'll like everything they do. Yet I found myself hoping for a happy ending for the primary characters. (I won't spoil it for you.) Also there is some great humor. I laughed at the vibrating bed scene. A must-see for a fresh look.

As a great fan of Le Carré I was very disappointed with the ending of this movie. I had hoped that the alternative ending was better, but it wasn't. Pierce Brosnan was good, though I had imagined that the actor was more like a Michael Caine-type. I don't think that Jamie Lee Curtis was the best for that part - at least not with Geoffrey Rush as her husband. However he was a perfect taylor.

My spouse and I stopped watching this film about one half way through it. For me, Brosnan, is never believeable in the characters that he plays. My wife liked him as Remington Steele but I could not stomach him. I thought he did his recent Robinson Crusoe role alright. Here in "Tailor" he seems to project the correct image here, but his character really is not likeable. Besides that, I can't figure out where this movie fails. If it was any good, I could also excuse the face of the tailor's "conscience" that periodically flashes on the screen and speaks. Unless this film rescues itself in the second half, I don't recommend it. Certainly don't buy it.

The Tailor of Panama is an excellent and entertaining film. Both actors Pierce Brosnan and Geoffrey Rush bring a great sense of enjoyment to their characters. Mr. Brosnan brings a great sense of wickedness to his character Andy Osnard. Mr. Rush brings a great sense of naivetivity and at deception to his character Harry Pendel.
When Harry begins to spin his lies to Osnard both men know what's going on.But they allow each other to keep going just to see were everything leads to. I really liked the ending of the film. I also enjoyed the way it was filmed the scenery of Panama is breathtaking and the music adds a sense of mystery and excotic feelings. Also the story is very interesing. Although at times the movie kinda drags along it is overall very enjoyable.
I really liked this film and I think it's a very enjoyable movie.

Summary:
Andrew 'Andy' Osnard (Pierce Brosnan), an MI5 agent who has a tendency to 'screw' up missions despite being very good at getting information out of people (usually through sleeping with them), has been reassigned to Panama to help the British government determine the fate of the Panama Canal, which was recently returned to the ownership and direction of Panama. Andy hooks up with Harold 'Harry' Pendel (Geoffrey Rush), who is a tailor, mostly by digging up his true history as a criminal. Andy then uses this history (really the threat of making the history public), as well as a series of bribes, to get Harry to talk about all of his clients, which includes just about every major politician and businessman in Panama.

However, Harry, who really is just a tailor, can't handle the pressure. He cracks and begins feeding Andy lies, a response to pressure he apparently developed in jail. As Andy continues to pressure him Harry's lies grow to ever-increasing proportions until it appears that Panama is about to sell the Canal to China, which obviously the U.S. and the U.K. aren't going to allow. Of course Andy is aware that what Harry is telling him are a bunch of lies, but he goes along with it, claiming to his boss that the rebel group that is hoping to regain control of the Canal before it can be sold, 'The Silent Opposition', just needs $15 million to successfully stage a coup.

When the alleged opposition group leader is found dead the U.S. deems this a worthy reason to believe that everything is collapsing. The result - send in the troops. Just before the troops get there Andy snatches the money, pays a couple of quick bribes, and hightails it out of Panama, leaving Harry, and his wife, Louisa (Jamie Lee Curtis), who works for a major government official, to try to stop the impending invasion.

My Comments:
Other than decent acting by Geoffrey Rush and Jamie Lee Curtis, this is a horrible movie. Why? First, even though the combination of James Bond with 'Wag the Dog' is kind of unique, it's really pretty obvious that that is really all the movie is, a combination of plot devices that have been done (and much better I might add). A spy creates a scenario in which major world powers feel the need to go to war. Perhaps it is a decent premise, but when you consider it in light of the next criticism, it just doesn't work.

My second major problem with the movie are the motivations, or lack thereof, of the characters. Sure, Andy is greedy, but that doesn't explain why he is willing to destroy so many people's lives by starting a war in Panama. Is there a motivation beyond his penile urges and his greed? Or is he really such a shallow character that he is just driven by greed and sex? And what about Harry? Why is he investing in farms? He's a tailor, and a successful one at that. Why does he resort to lying? The stated reason, that this is his defense mechanism learned while in jail, is pretty silly. The problems with the motivations of the characters makes them all very unconvincing and shallow. Even the attempts at backstory - flashbacks to the Manuel Noriega days - don't add much depth to Harry's character.

The third problem is the limitless, gratuitous sex. Andy's affair with the embassy aide Francesca Deane (Catherine McCormack) is just that - sex. There must be 20 minutes of Andy and Francesca engaged in violent sex and for what? Nothing. He doesn't learn anything from her, he just has sex with her, over and over again. It doesn't advance the story in anyway. Andy also tries hitting on Louisa and even takes Harry to a gay bar. Maybe the director and producers realized that they didn't have a very good story so they opted for a mild porn ambience to sell this film. Whatever the reason, it can only be considered gratuitous.

Add these problems to the other major story holes and you have a very forgettable movie. What happened to the U.S. intelligence? Why do they not back anything up with their own people? What about calling the president of the country? Where did Harry get the 'spy phone'? Why would Harry think his wife's papers he photographs are of any importance? And on, and on, and on...

The political overtones to the movie are also kind of silly with the military being rampant warmongers that just want to kill, kill, kill; the politicians are all corrupt, etc.

Overall this is really just a silly story with a lot of sex to try to compensate for it. The acting is mediocre, at best, and none of the characters are believable. It just doesn't work as a convincing film. Not recommended.

This uneven story can't be saved for me by the fact that I am a Big Brosnan fan. It is only a FAIR - 2.5 STAR movie, rounded up because I am a Brosnan fan.