MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

pointyfilippa The movie runs out of plot and jokes well before the end of a two-hour running time, long for a light comedy.

miss_lady_ice-853-608700 NOTE: The spoiler is in the fourth paragraph.It's not that Restless is badly acted- just that a story about a WW2 spy should be a lot more fun than this two-parter TV movie, totalling three hours.There are two timelines: the present day, which is the seventies, and the early forties. In the 'present day', Ruth Gilmartin (Michelle Dockery) is told by her mother Sally (Charlotte Rampling) that she is not Sally but instead is Eva Delectorskaya, a former British spy during WW2. In the forties, Eva (Hayley Atwell) is recruited by charismatic spymaster Lucas Romer (Rufus Sewell) who naturally she ends up falling in love with.Whilst real life espionage is probably not like a Bond movie and is closer to the mundane work here, full of innocent code phrases and staring out of a window for hours spying on someone, it makes the pace drag. The espionage becomes more exciting in Episode 2 but it's not really worth sitting through Episode 1, which is a bit of a waste of time unless you want to see the romancing of Lucas and Eva.Were this a normal length TV movie, that would have helped considerably as there is a lot of filler here. It also means that the viewer might be more forgiving of the various clichés- it's blindingly obvious that Lucas is going to seduce Eva and that he will be a traitor. The fact that this does not occur to her at all makes Eva come across as stupid. Rather than focusing on her espionage skills, she comes across more like an ordinary woman motivated by love.There are hints in the second episode of some politically relevant parallels with WW2 in the seventies but this is not explored. Restless is too superficial to be interesting but not superficial enough to enjoy as a pulpy spy story. I am aware that it is based on a novel by William Boyd but the filmmakers needed to either make it intellectual or entertainment and they did neither.

SnoopyStyle It's the 70's England. Ruth Gilmartin (Michelle Dockery) visits her mother Sally (Charlotte Rampling) with her son. She is shocked when her mother reveals her secret past. In 1939, she is Russian exile Eva Delectorskaya (Hayley Atwell) in Paris. Her brother is murdered and then she's recruited into British Intelligence. She starts working for Lucas Romer (Rufus Sewell) in AAS Ltd disseminating false information. She's almost killed during an attempted defection by a Nazi in Belgium. As the war advances, her group works in America but the spy world gets murkier.There are two different sides to this two-part miniseries. In the 70's story, Dockery is functionally shocked by Rampling who at times seem to be a mad woman. It has a paranoid feel but they don't have the same thrills. In the WWII story, the spy story has a good build-up and then plenty of solid spy thrills. All of it combines to be a compelling story weaving in old war rumors. The three female leads are terrific and this is a nice espionage movie.

Nicole C Having been introduced to Atwell in the Captain America movies, I have become quite a fan. I loved her in Agent Carter and hope for the series to continue regularly; so was very interested to find that she was in a movie - a TV movie but still a movie nonetheless. I have also become a fan of Dockery's, whom I first saw in Downton Abbey, and I think these two are my favourite British actresses, in historical dramas anyway. So the acting is great, though Atwell can not really pass as Russian, plus her 'Russian' accent changed too fast to be believable.Also, I like the atmosphere of the past better than the present. It feels more authentic, and there was more action there I guess. I was not as interested in the present than I was of the past and the events that happened. But the juxtaposition of the two times was done really well. Action scenes were executed impressively as well with some very thrilling sequences.I'm not really sure what the significance of Ruth's son was, and her relationship with Karl-Heinz (Alexander Fehling) because maybe it added some depth to her character but the characters seem kind of pointless. Also, it added some confusion to the story as I was wondering what he was involved in when it didn't really affect the main story anyway.I did not much like the ending as well. The music makes me think something bad happens but it just ends. So yea, I was hoping for a better ending. I like how the story concluded, but the ending scenes just felt like something was missing.Read more movie reviews at: championangels.wordpress.com

richwgriffin-227-176635 This made for British television movie has astonishing performances. Michael Gambon, Michelle Dockery (of Downton Abbey), Hayley Atwell, and especially Charlotte Rampling. The film is well directed and keeps up the suspense all the way to the end.Some of the reviews of this have been quite astonishing. I have no idea (other than Michelle Dockery is in both) a reviewer would compare it (unfavorably!) with Downton Abbey - the best British television series EVER. Also people saying there are all these alleged "plot holes". Actually, it all makes sense and is brilliantly done and very entertaining.But I want to give my greatest praise for the brilliant actress Charlotte Rampling as the older Eva. I suspect she will win a well deserved Emmy as Best Supporting Actress next September. She has a steely determination and a feeling of paranoia after years of stress over being found out.My only complaint has to do with the commercial interruptions on Sundance - once it comes out on DVD the maddening commercials will be gone.Grade: A