Cambridge Spies (2003) User Reviews (26)

High on drama, low in substance

[sbjc0 · 7/10 · 16 April 2009]

Since no one has said so yet, it seems necessary to add this.

The series is an excellent drama, in every way - no doubt about that. Well worth watching.

BUT.

And that is the point: The subject of this drama is politics, international affairs, government, intelligence - and these are largely absent from the drama.

So if you are prepared to enjoy a view of the events from the perspective of the personal lives of the main characters, then all is fine. But if you were looking for more than tenuous references to the events and forces at play in the world, and an account of how the characters of the story were involved in those events and forces, you will miss something...

This is not to say that it's a bad drama - it's still excellent. And lavishly designed and produced.

But those political events and forces were of historic importance. At a time where the world was still strongly driven by ideological currents, and there was a ruthless struggle for world domination.

In my view, that is even higher drama, and I missed those connections.

Beautiful period piece mini-series, excellent acting!

[gazebo · 7/10 · 20 June 2005]

I almost didn't watch this when I found out the story behind the "Cambridge Spies", but I'm so glad I did.

This mini-series almost authentically captures the feel of the 1930s in Europe. It's a beautiful looking mini-series. The actors who played the infamous four spies were all very good and they each held their own. They made you care about them even though you know they are all traitors to their country. I enjoyed it very much. One of the best parts also, coming from the DVD, is the interesting documentary on the Cambridge Spies. It's a fascinating, well acted show.

Take a close look at the guy who plays Guy Burgess. He's a lot of fun to watch and strangely enough, looks almost exactly like the real Guy Burgess.

Very good show! Worth watching a second time!

Good but misleading, too sympathetic to traitors

[Joxerlives · 7/10 · 20 June 2016]

Well made and acted but I'm afraid it didn't have the guts to show the reality of the result of their treason. Why did we not see the suffering and death of the agents whom the Cambridge spies betrayed? Why did they never confront the hypocrisy of helping a regime which sides with Hitler, imprisons its' population and regularly executes their KGB contact agents? It tries to be sympathetic to men who put their loyalty to their friends above their loyalty to their country, their colleagues and those they're supposed to be protecting. What's more even that is incredibly flawed, Blunt abandons the rest of the group to their fate, Philby sleeps with McClean's wife and sends Burgess to accompany him into exile behind the Iron Curtain unaware that he's never coming back to the UK (and will quickly drink himself to death in Moscow).

What's more it only seems to tell half the story, concentrating disproportionately on the recruitment process and the influence of the Spanish civil war on the group. We get none of the fallout from the defection which was a revelation in Britain at the time or Philby's infamous press conference which is still cited today as a classic example of how to lie, we never get Philby's flight from Beruit or McClean and Caincross' plea bargain. Perhaps the most sympathetic character in the whole story is James Jesus Angleton who appears to be the lone voice in the wilderness.

So all told a great series but do some research first.

Spy Story for Sunday Night

[Philby-3 · 9/10 · 6 July 2003]

This is a lightly fictionalised account of how four tewwibly well brought up English boys betrayed their country to the Soviet Union. Philby's father had been a distinguished diplomat and Arabist and McLean's a cabinet minister. All had public school educations and had been undergraduates at the same Cambridge college. They set off into promising careers in the foreign office and security services and were Soviet agents from the start. Their great coup was to give the Soviets enough details about the atomic bomb to speed up their program to build one by a couple of years, but it was at the expense of blowing McLean and Burgess's cover (they escaped to Moscow in 1951), and Philby being fired from MI6. He joined them in Moscow in 1963. Blunt, by now the Keeper of the Queen's Pictures was then interrogated; he confessed, and was let go.

It's one of the really great spy stories of the 20th century. This version concentrates on the personal dynamics. The amount of contact the spies had with each other after Cambridge seems to be much exaggerated (pretty bad security), but gives us the picture of the gang of four against the Establishment. The women are interesting too. Philby was a ladies' man to whom Donald McLean's American wife Melinda (Anne-Louise Plowman) was attracted. They later lived together in Moscow. Blunt and Burgess were both gay, but friends rather than lovers.

The Establishment, in the person of Lord Halifax (James Fox), Ambassador to Washington, found it difficult to believe that 'people like us' could do such things and started looking for the atomic spy in the embassy kitchens. One or two western counter-intelligence operatives including the CIA's formidable James Jesus Angleton nearly nabbed them, but with Philby tipping them off (and duchessing Angleton), Burgess and McLean made it safely to Moscow.

With four hours to play with all the characters are richly drawn. Tom Hollander's Guy Burgess is a drunken dirty little sod who somehow manages to be witty and charming as well. It was great cover for a spy. As Donald McLean, Rupert Penry-Jones is the Golden Boy who feels himself unworthy, and sees communism as the way to redemption. Toby Stephens as Kim Philby gives us the cleverness, the deviousness and the angst as well, especially in the Spanish episode.(I'm afraid us Philbys are a devious lot, but we bleed, we bleed). Samuel West's Blunt has the occasional hint of emotion, but basically is a cold fish. Art, it seems is his life. He does get on tewwibly well with the Queen.

Seventy years on, it's not so much why they did it, but why they kept it up that mystifies. Given their location close to the heart of British Intelligence and hence knowing as much as anybody outside about what really went on the Soviet Union, it's extraordinary that Philby and McLean in particular continued on right up to 1951 (Blunt was more or less inactive after 1945). It is suggested here that Ms McLean did try to get her husband to give up spying but there's no real explanation as to why he persisted. Perhaps he still believed. Anyway, truth or fiction is hardly the point here - Sunday night is not for history lessons. This is a familiar tale well told, visually splendid and not too taxing. The real story, I suspect, is far too complex for even the most adroit (or left) TV producer. An earlier TV account,"Philby Burgess and McLean" (1977) is also worth watching, if you can find it.

Cambridge Spies is excellent

[aussiebrisguy · 9/10 · 23 July 2006]

What a superb series the BBC has made in Cambridge Spies! The cast are really fantastic. My favourite actor has to be Imelda Staunton as the late Queen Mother. She has some of the best lines and delivers them so well. The leads are cast very well indeed. Tom Hollander is suitably seedy as Guy Burgess, Samuel West is very starchy and upper class as Blunt, Rupert Penry-Jones is wonderful as the handsome but flawed Donald Maclean and Toby Stephens is delightfully dislikable as Kim Philby. These characters are thoroughly entertaining and horrible in the extreme in their betrayal of King and Country. The cloak and dagger feel of the piece is wonderful. The settings are really great too. Cambridge is so beautiful. The writers should be congratulated in keeping the pace moving so well. All in all BBC you have done it again. I wish we saw more quality drama like Cambridge Spies!

First Class TV

[glasslens · 19 May 2003]

High production values and a great story drive this excellent show along at just the right pace. Never rushed or drawn-out. A few oddities with the script - some things don't seem to flow right but minor. Perhaps the editor put a few bits of film in the wrong place! David Higgs' photography is a joy to watch - it would almost be worth watching without any sound! Aspiring DPs (directors of photography)should look at his lighting, framing and camera movement. Lovely use of long lenses to separate the characters from the background. Older DPs should start to worry!

Good... but that and no more

[greatyarmouth · 6/10 · 29 March 2013]

A very highly fictionalised account - but why did it need to be? The story of the Cambridge Five really did deserve better than this.

As drama it can't be faulted, but as a depiction of historical events it left much to be desired. We British are prone to look down upon the American TV movie, and for all the same reasons that were evident in the Cambridge Spies.

The story of the Five is well known enough for me not to have to point out the inaccuracies involved in this production, but beyond that I had no real sense of time and place, and certainly no sense of the evil these men did and the horrors and tragedies that came about as a result of their activities. In four hours there was room enough to get it right.

Some events were tick-boxed in glib exchanges, others rendered risible - the horror of Guernica reduced to one aged aeroplane with German markings, a mother, her son, the rattle of gunfire, the inevitable priest who rushes to the aid of the dead boy.

Philby lost his stammer, MacLean's bisexuality was never hinted at, Burgess became almost a paragon of virtue compared with the reality of the man, and Blunt...

The appeal of this series was, whatever the BBC might say, that it was based around real events. In that case I feel the viewer has a right to expect factual accuracy, otherwise the fictionalisation may as well have extended to the substitution of fictional names for the characters, and the excising of the "what happened next" text before the end-credits.

As BBC drama this was well up to standard, as BBC factual drama it took a long step in the wrong direction.

Amazing

[mattsday · 10/10 · 23 May 2003]

The BBC has once again shown that they can still create top quality drama. While there may be some historical issues with the script, one has to admire the fact that the characters are portrayed accurately and convincingly. Having just seen the last of the four-part series, I can comment that for entertainment value it is top notch.

Sure, some may argue the historical facts are inaccurate, or that the light spun upon the situation is somewhat different to how it was at the time, but much information about the infamous Cambridge spies is uncertain at best - in particular Kim Philby (Toby Stephens) is somewhat a mystery even today. Do not be fooled into thinking that this series is a documentary, it isn't. However, you will be forgiven for thinking that you are watching the actual events, with the locations, pieces and acting all first class.

Watch it with an open mind, as if it is fictional. You will be greatly rewarded, excited and even humoured at how four masterminds underplayed the archaic MI6 for their principals. I'd certainly recommend it.

Overall: 9/10 - Losing the ultimate 1 mark for seeming rushed in parts and sometimes making it hard to understand the relationships between the very complex characters - particularly at the start of the series.

Don't waste your time

[=G= · 6/10 · 5 January 2005]

"The Cambridge Spies" tells of four Cambridge grads and idealistic communist sympathizers who, in the run up to WWII, arrange their careers such that they have access to Britain's secrets which they may then divert to the Stalin regime. Unfortunately, spying of this sort is a rather dull business, something which is made eminently clear in this clumsy film which seems to have no sense of what it wants to be about. Though we have no back story, no idea of how these men support themselves, no clue how they secure their lofty positions and easy access to intelligence, we do see that women tend to throw themselves at them. Stagey and stiff with time squandered on incessant dialog about ideologies, this film bogs itself down in the mundane trivialities of the four spies lives while the world postures for the mother of all wars. I watched only three episodes becoming so bored as have no desire to sit through the last one. Not worth the time except perhaps for those with an acute interest in the period or the history and fans of the players. (C+)

Gripping

[shellemk · 10/10 · 16 May 2003]

Only halfway through the 4-part series so far but Cambridge Spies has definitely lived up to my expectations. Much impressed by the excellent Toby Stephens, having seen how versatile he can be from: Tenant of Wildfell Hall, Sunset Heights, Great Gatsby and of course Die Another Day! I have to say what a superb actor Tom Holland is too. Putting aside historical inaccuracies (this has never claimed to be a documentary anyway) in favour of sheer entertainment value, this is proving to be a fast-moving, truly gripping drama. I'm hooked!

Fascinating

[dgjones-62258 · 7/10 · 27 November 2020]

A superb production with really good acting and a script that tells the true story. The Cambridge spies were not raving commies and this show shows their characters and motivation for doing what they did.

My only problem with it was that I didn't really like the characters, but hey-ho, that didn't spoil it. I found it more interesting regarding the history and I recommend a watch.

BBC comes up to scratch even when depicting painful/shameful parts of British history

[BeneCumb · 8/10 · 15 December 2021]

I had heard and read about Kim Philby, of course, but not of the other ones, plus I was not aware of their past and story of formation. Realistic atmosphere, motives well explained and logical, vices and virtues of the protagonists, etc. - everything depicted in a skilful manner. And, of course, the performances, particularly Tom Hollander as Guy Burgess, but also the others - convincing, stylish, but also showing dangers of "elite" and closed communities where depravities are so easy to emerge and develop.

In retrospect, one may ponder on and over how the British authorities were so naive, but, on the other hand, it was an era without much technology and funding to deal with "the own"...

A film about the famous English spies

[decanal1 · 3/10 · 28 January 2017]

While not unhistorical, this is a very garbled and misleading presentation of the spies in question. Presumably, historical truth is sacrificed for dramatic reasons. But Cambridge Spies doesn't manage to rise to the level of drama. It's melodrama. There are moments when, if you turn off the sound, you'd swear you were watching a not very good silent movie: sentimental and over-wrought. The Guernica scene is a case in point; Guy Burgess, emoting in the rain, lamenting the death of Julian Bell is another. Rather a waste of acting talent. The main characters in this effort have each done other work that displays their talents to much better effect.

Very entertaining

[angelonline · 18 May 2003]

Cambridge Spies is glamorous, intelligent and exciting - a winning formula! The acting is brilliant and the editing very stylish. The plot is slightly hard to catch at times, but it doesn't matter as the locations are stunning and performances touching. Great TV!

Very British Traitors

[timdalton007 · 9/10 · 19 October 2010]

It was called the spy scandal of the century at the time. It began with the 1951 defection to the Soviet Union of Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean before leading to the revealing of Kim Philby and nearly thirty years later Anthony Blunt as fellow spies for the Soviet Union. While that part of the story is well known, what about the events leading to them? Cambridge Spies is a four part, four hour BBC mini-series that looks at the journey these four spies took from recruitment at Cambridge up until the Burgess and Maclean's 1951 defection.

The four actors playing the four Cambridge spies are all perfectly cast. Toby Stephens brings a huge amount of charm along with a quiet methodicalness to Kim Philby, the most successful of the four spies, though he is stretching believability a bit playing the younger Philby. Rupert Penry-Jones plays Donald Maclean as the most confessional of the four who ultimately is the first of the group to be discovered. Playing Anthony Blunt, the spy who later became Surveyor of the Queen's Pictures, is Samuel West who gives a strong performance in what is perhaps the smallest role of the four. Giving what is perhaps the best performance of the four protagonists is Tom Hollander who is perfectly cast in the role of the flamboyant and outspoken Guy Burgess. Their performances takes them from young men at Cambridge in the 1930s across nearly twenty years and the four actors develop their character performances, and their relationships with one another, with a strong sense of reality across the four hours. Though the actors might bare little resemblance to the real life figures, they make up for that by bringing four incredibly complex historical figures.

The mini-series is also blessed with an excellent supporting cast. They include performances from Lisa Dillon as Philby's first wife Austrian communist Littzi Friedman, Patrick Kennedy as fellow Cambridge student and Burgess' great love Julian Bell, Marcel Iures and Darrell D'Silva as the foursome's Soviet handlers. The standouts of the supporting cast though lie in the final parts which feature John Light as CIA counter-intelligence chief James Jesus Angleton, Anna-Louise Plowman as Maclean's wife Melinda and, in the final part, James Fox in the small but pivotal role of the British ambassador to the United States Lord Halifax.

The production values are stand out as well. From David Higgs cinematography to the costume design of Charlotte Walter and the production design of Mike Gunn, the various aspects of the production values all give a strong sense of time and place over the nearly twenty years the mini-series takes place across. This is especially true of the first episode with its scenes set at Cambridge and in Vienna, the latter heavily evoking the look of the classic 1949 film The Third Man. Last but certainly not least is the score from composer John Lunn whose haunting and at times beautiful score adds, despite its spareness of use, considerable atmosphere to the entire mini-series. The result is a historical drama set in a convincing setting.

Perhaps the biggest highlight of the mini-series, besides its four lead actors, is the script by Peter Moffat. Though this is not the first time this real-life spy drama has been filmed (the first being Philby, Burgess and Maclean in 1977) this is the first since the revelation of Anthony Blunt as the "fourth man" and the end of the Cold War. As such, Moffat looks beyond the treachery of these Cold War spies into their motives and actions. The result is an oddly sympathetic look at them from their Communists (and anti-Fascist) days at Cambridge in the early 1930s through their rising through he ranks of British government. Highlighted in particular on this journey are the sacrifices they all made in their personal lives ranging from Philby's first wife to Burgess' great love Julian Bell and Maclean's being forced to leave behind his wife and children (though only one is seen in the mini-series). Also seen is Blunt's journey as he gradually loses faith in both communism and his spying for the Soviet Union. Moffat's script does contain a few historical inaccuracies (it was Philby not Burgess who passed on information about the attempts to parachute agents into Albania for example) and glances over several things including the so-called "fifth man" James Cairncross (a Cambridge educated cryptographer who passed to the Soviets information on the Enigma code-breaking operation) though most can only be spotted if the viewer is armed with quite a bit of knowledge of the real events. Overall though it is the overall portrait of four men who started out as wanting to fight fascism and ended up becoming traitors in the process.

So what is Cambridge Spies then? It is an intimate and highly personal portrait of four men, four college friends who committed to an ideology as young men, rose through the ranks of British government and sacrificed their loves, their lives and their careers to that cause. While containing a few historical inaccuracies (most of which require quite a bit of knowledge about the events to spot) this mini-series is filled with excellent performances and production values as well. While perhaps too sympathetic to the spies for some, the result overall is a fascinating human drama nevertheless.

Cambridge Spies

[vincentdrummer · 10/10 · 16 August 2005]

I saw Cambridge Spies with a friend of mine. I believe I have seen it for about three times by now. I find it brilliant. It is honestly the best thing I have ever seen in my life. It may be that I like it that much because I love the opinions and thoughts of the actors in the movie. (they are communist) But the film has so much very (very very) excellent:

-acting (actors)

-conversations (you wouldn't want to miss any of them)

-filming

-beautiful locations

-great atmosphere

-perfect storyline (it has really happened)

-twists and changes in the storyline that keep you interested through the whole four hours of the movie. (even when you watch it for the third time)

I think you can gather much relevant information from it, and even important life-lessons. If you are an anti-fascist of any kind, you must have seen this film. You can get great inspiration out of it. I would rate this 10 out of 10.

brilliant

[m_elgersma · 10/10 · 12 May 2003]

Although have only seen part one of this brilliant series, am delighted. Performances of lead actor very good indeed, very nice photographed in period, am looking forward to next episodes

One of the Best

[krandallkraus-274-352246 · 10/10 · 17 November 2019]

The only spy series I like better is the original series of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and Smiley's People, both starring Alec Guiness. This comes VERY close.

Very disappointing........

[paulted · 2/10 · 20 April 2015]

Having been familiar with the history of this subject, I can only be abjectly disappointed. First the good points- it was well acted and looked great. However, the actual facts of this story were largely ignored. The character of Philby was unrecognisable, the writer seemed determined to make him some kind of romantic "Hannay" type moralistic hero, which he was not. Where was Nicholas Elliott, a key, central figure in this drama? Why was Philby's second wife ignored? why all the homo-erotic scenes? Where was Philby's period in the wilderness and his utterly gob smacking press conference? I sense a leftist leaning writer at work here trying to fit in HIS story instead of the true compelling drama that originally unfolded. Bad and worthless.....

It's a soap opera not a spy story

[pasany · 2/10 · 25 October 2014]

When you see a title like this, you expect secrets, conspirations, tension, etc. Especially if it's about the famous Cambridge Four. What you get instead is love, friendship, tears, gay love, drama, complete historical inaccuracy and sheer boredom. It focuses on all the wrong aspects. And it portrays the Cambridge Four as insecure kids instead of cunning master spies. Also the part when Kim Philby travels to Vienna couldn't be more ridiculous. It portrays Litzi Friedman as a petty thief (and still expects the viewer's sympathy towards her). And it portrays Vienna in 1934 like Berlin 10 years later. Roadblocks on every corner with soldiers asking for papers? Jews must hide and if found they get executed on the spot along with their helpers? In Vienna, in 1934? ARE THEY F*-ING SERIOUS?!!! Hitler just rose to power, Jews were largely unharmed yet even in Germany, and Austria was still independent for a long time.

Complete Whitewash of Four Notorius Traitors.

[rchalloner · 4/10 · 18 August 2023]

While I don't take issue with the quality of the acting, the portrayals of Philby, Burgess, Maclean and Blunt are for the most part, wildly innacurate and this is nothing more than an apologist exercise for these four traitors. Kim Philby could hardly have written a better or more flattering script himself. Tom Hollander as Guy Burgess is the only one who gives anything like a realistic impression of the person he portrays. Samuel West looks nothing like Anthony Blunt and only on occasion gives a hint of the cold, sly, deceptive nature of Blunt's character. The rest of the time he appears timid and fearful. The worst portrayals of all are those of Toby Stephens as Kim Philby and Rupert Penry-Jones as Donald Maclean. In the Cambridge years Philby comes across as a needy, anxious, weak individual gushing about his belief in Communism, desperate to be taken on as Soviet Agent and secure the praise of his Soviet handler Otto. Later on he is amateurish and nervous. This could not be further from the truth. Philby was brilliant, controlled, singleminded and ruthhless from the start. Donald Maclean is portayed as a hand wringing, wimp bedevilled by his conscience, again far from the reality; and all four of the Cambridge spies are presented as naive, thoroughly decent and principled individuals who only want to make British society fairer and help the poor. This is complete and utter nonsense. In reality Blunt, Philby, Burgess and Maclean were completely committed, focused and utterly ruthless Communist agents who knew from the beginning exactly what they were doing, what it would entail and the damage they would do. They were utterly cold blooded and ruthless and had no interest in righting societal wrongs or helping the poor as is suggested in this series. The fault lies with the writing and direction, both of which appear to be aimed at garnering sympathy for four despicable men. While one can enjoy the series as entertainment and appreciate the quality of the acting, it is important to bear in mind at all times that these four men betrayed their friends and their country and did so without compunction or regret.

Melodrama focused on gay relationships and some fake scenes

[JurijFedorov · 4/10 · 28 July 2022]

Damn... what a huge letdown. I have just read a book on Kim Philby. Watched several docs about the Cambridge Five. Watched movies and TV shows pertaining to the story. It's interesting spy stuff. So a TV show about it would be fun no matter how you make it if you just present the basic facts. Just show us basic spy work, show agents trying to trick each other, show Philby and the other guys travel the world. Show Philby getting a job at MI6 and CIA. Show him getting hundreds of people killed.

I watched the first episode. It's a mess. I don't even know what the hell is happening. They whisper about certain events and you kinda try to figure out what is even going on on screen. You can't. Events just happen and then later some of it is explained. Multiple of these traitors were gay communists. The TV show could have explained how homosexuals are largely left-wing or something and then left it alone. Instead 40% of the first episode is just about gay romance melodrama about who sleeps with who and who dates who. Why do they think people interested in historical spies would in any way be interesting in progressive gay melodrama from BBC? A flamboyant gay character is constantly acting extremely gay everywhere. It looks absolutely fake. I'm not sure if they meant for this to be comedy or what. The overacting is ridiculous. Instead of realistic scenes the actors shout and scream no matter if they are around people or not. There are multiple scenes where you see naked men from behind or see their upper bodies. Zero scenes where the same happens to women. We see a woman's back once in the first episode. So clearly it's not meant to just be realistic and show sex scenes overall. It's meant for a certain very liberal audience - and audience unrelated to fans of this real story.

Because the episode also tries to present it from their point of view it takes the standpoint of anti-fascist communists who work for Stalin's regime. So fascists are presented as the bad guys. There are multiple scenes where fascists are openly hating Jews. In Vienna in 1934 the Nazis have taken over the country so Jews cannot travel anywhere and are caught and shot on the spot. That's 1 year after Hitler took power in Germany and we are supposed to believe Jews were already getting hunted and killed in Austria? Even in 1938 Germany this would be too soon for such scenes. After that I could believe it, but even then they would catch Jews and send them to camps not just shoot them randomly on the street. It would be a giant disaster for city morale and regional support. At any rate Austria was independent in 1934. Even in Vichy France during WW2 they caught Jews and sent them to Germany. They didn't hunt them down and shot them.

The sound is bad. As I mentioned before they sorta whisper their lines or shout them. This was clearly not filmed on modern digital cameras so I assume they just got unlucky with old mics or storage of the recordings. At any rate the video and and audio quality is below par. It's a BBC show that looks ugly which is a damn shame as they have some great set locations here that don't even exist anymore. The plot of course often ends up being a mess in historical movies as you can't walk from set to set. But here it's extreme. They just appear on a set then appear in another set.

I'm pretty offended at this. Of course the story is quite huge and important and interesting by itself. But this is not focused on that story enough. And furthermore they are made into heroic characters. You kinda have no choice as it's too hard to make a proper TV show about evil people in the leading roles if you are not an expert at this. So we get a weird show where the bad guys are made into full on anti-heroes. Imagine a show about Nazis where they gassed Jews, but otherwise were shown as heroic. Don't forget these guys had hundreds of people killed by giving their names to KGB. The show should have been from their point of view and then from a patriotic agent's point of view too that way you wouldn't be forced to make people like Kim Philby into anti-heroes smuggling Jews in 1934 Vienna. You could just tell the real story without inventing plotlines making them into heroes.

Either tell fiction or tell a true story, but don't pass off fiction as a true story

[rob-05198 · 3/10 · 21 August 2023]

My view on this aligns with a question posed by Antony Beevor - why do people think that they can improve on history? Either tell fiction, or tell a true story, but don't try to pass off fiction as a 'nearly' true story. This is particularly dangerous as a high proportion of people may after watching believe this to be an accurate account of what actually happened when in fact it the story has been twisted to serve what has, in this case, been called (in a disclaimer at the start) 'dramatic effect'. If the particular line of the 'dramatic effect' suits or serves to underpin a particular political narrative or world view then that is clearly problematic.

What a joke!

[siucin · 12 May 2003]

Being a student in Cambridge, I am naturally curious about the show. Not that I had much expectation when I watched this TV series, but I was very disappointed with what I saw. The script is inadequate. Dialogue is corny. Abrupt cutting in between scenes. It felt as if the story was cut in such a way just to fit into a one or two hour TV time slot. It seemed that a lot of things happened between the characters, but we the audience were not told. So we don't know why some of the characters behave in such and such a way etc.

Almost all the characters in the show were portrayed as gay men, and they were either fascist or communist. Not that I doubt that there were indeed gay people, fascist people and communist people back in the old days in Cambridge, but I think the portrayal of the characters are just too one-sided and incomplete. There are no emotional depth in the portrayals.

Toby Stephens has managed to top his corny performance in Die Another Day with yet another cornier portrayal of Kim Philby.

If anyone wants to know more about the true facts of the spies or the real history of Cambridge, please go read a book on the subject, and stay away from this show.

British aristocrats in the service of the Land of the Soviets or The most famous Soviet agents in the Kingdom

[lyubitelfilmov · 5/10 · 22 January 2021]

Historical drama. A mini-series about the life and work of the "Cambridge Five". I continue to study the world of intelligence and espionage, and at one time this series loomed on the horizon, but I kept postponing watching it indefinitely, as they say, and then I just got into the subject. And here's my brief opinion - British aristocrats in the service of the Land of the Soviets. The series has both advantages that brought your humble servant joy, and disadvantages that pissed off (yes, again stepped on the old rake), so let me finish the introductory part and focus your attention on the essence. So, the advantages: 1. The atmosphere - espionage, alarming, when the traditional British stiffness faced communism, which was supported by young students, especially aristocrats, because these people were not from the poor sectors of society. Kim's father Philby was a well-known Arabist, a respected person, and other agents had relatives no less respected and had authority in society. Mid-thirties, harsh and bloody forties, early fifties. The Spanish Civil War, World War II and the Great Patriotic War, the beginning of the Cold War, the nuclear race. A very harsh and difficult time. 2. Costumes and decorations - The British Empire, which will soon lose its power and become a US puppet, but has not yet realized it. The empire still imagines itself as the navel of the earth, but this is not for long. Suits, hats, ties - everything is in stock and perfectly matched to the situation. So the disadvantages: 1. A lot of gomosyatiny - I haven't found anything like that in the biography of these people, but here they put everything on display, either trying to humiliate him, or fig knows him, come up with a reason yourself. It is disgusting, it is disgusting, in order to watch the series in full, you had to cover the screen with your hand from this abomination and disgusting. I understand viewers who quit watching the show at these moments. 2. Bed scenes - if you do not know how - do not take it! These scenes look mediocre and cause nothing but irritation. It was superfluous in this show. 3. Formulations - Creators! In 1951, the KGB did not yet exist, the Soviet special service was called the MGB in those years (reorganized from the NKVD in 1946). At least open Wikipedia! You are welcome! How infuriating it is when they make elementary mistakes in a historical series. 4. Historical inconsistencies - this applies to any picture or series on a historical theme. Only the motives of the heroes coincide, their studies at Cambridge and the operations in which they participated have not yet been revealed. Their recruiter and contact (Arnold Deutsch, codenamed "Otto") was much younger than on the show. All the "five" worked in isolation and not all of them were best friends. Why was not John Kerncross prescribed and so on. The series gives only a general impression about the agents, showing them people with their own convictions who actively helped us during the Great Patriotic War and after, even obtaining information about the American nuclear bomb, which helped accelerate its development in our country and save many lives, including ours. grandparents, dads and moms, by the way. A little about the main characters: 1. Kim Philby performed by Toby Stevens is the smartest and smartest of the four friends. In the future, he goes to work in the British Secret Service, where he is looking for Soviet agents in Great Britain (he catches himself). Sometimes emotions take over, but Toby played well, no complaints here. Well done! 2. Guy Burgess, played by Tom Hollander, is an eccentric, eccentric, extravagant agent. In the future - an employee of the BBC and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. His antics (albeit under the influence of alcohol) are remembered and dilute the agents' everyday life. Tom did a great job. 3. Anthony Blunt performed by Samuel West - the second smartest in the team of friends. Prudent and prudent. In the future, he will be a court art critic, a member of the royal family. Samuel perfectly played the classic British aristocrat. 4. Donald McLain, played by Rupert Penry-Jones, is a nervous, sometimes indecisive, but convinced communist. In the future, he will be an employee of the United Kingdom Foreign Office and Deputy British Ambassador to the United States. It was through him that secret documents on nuclear weapons got to the USSR. Rupert quite confidently coped with this role. Here young Benedict Cumberbatch also appeared in a small role. The show made a good impression on me, but the gomosyatina was clearly superfluous and ruined the viewing. Therefore, just because of this, I will not recommend it for viewing. Because I try to instill good taste in my viewers and warn about the abomination that happens in the pictures. Unfortunately, there is no alternative to the "Cambridge Five" in the world of cinema. There is really a picture "Another Camp" in 1984 about the school years of Guy Burgess, British production (like this series). It's a pity, an interesting topic about extraordinary people. Aristocrats who thought not only about the fate of their wallet, but also about the fate of the poor people of England and the whole world. Idealists in white collars who donated tons of top-secret information to Moscow, thereby saving millions of lives on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Communists who believed in a better future for everyone. Revealed only with the help of traitors from Soviet intelligence. As a result, we have a good historical series about the famous "Cambridge Five", with a good script, excellent and tense atmosphere, good music, but with an abundance of homosexuality and a bunch of inconsistencies. My rating is 5 out of 10. As for the recommendation - see for yourself!