A Different Loyalty (2004) User Reviews (16)

A Different Loyalty

[RickJones-1 · 5/10 · 27 February 2006]

Sharon Stone turned in a very strong performance as the wife of Kim Philby the British double agent. Why the producers chose not to use real names nor to do some basic research about the Soviet Union in the 1960s is a mystery.

One viewer already has made the point that many technical mistakes in the film were made. Least of which is the view of Christ the Savior Cathedral that was rebuilt in the 1990s and did not exist in Moscow in the 1960s. Additional mistakes include Aerorus instead of Aeroflot and probably the encounter that Sharon Stone had with the CIA in the USA. It would have been the FBI and any meeting would have taken place at the local Federal Building to protect the FBI agents from any accusations. The biggest error was the continual use of the word Russia or Russian for Soviet Union. When I lived in Leningrad as a student in 1974 one rarely heard the word Russia. It was only used in the context of language or culture but never in terms of governance like the Russian Embassy, Russian government etc.. in the USSR. There was great emphasis on the use of the word Soviet Union.

In general, the movie was a bit slow, there was some effort at moral equivalence between the West and the USSR but the acting was good and most viewers will draw the conclusion that a great drama was played out not only between the Philby character and his country but also with his wife and family.

Weak movie lacks style or much else

[SnoopyStyle · 4/10 · 19 April 2014]

In 1951, two British diplomats who are actually Soviet spies escape to Moscow indicating British intelligence has been infiltrated at the highest level. Then it's 1961 Beriut. Leo Cauffield (Rupert Everett) and Sally (Sharon Stone) fall in love, and she would leave her husband for him. Four years later, Leo disappears and he's accused of being a Soviet spy. Then she is told that he has gone to Moscow freely.

It's a small thing but the movie opening and subsequent text has this computer font. It indicates a 70s motif which clashes with the era of the movie. Then the movie takes too long to get going. This is based on a true story, and the story moves at a pedestrian pace. The dialog is uninspired. As for Sharon Stone, she is miscast in this role. Even thought she has dyed her hair dark, she can't hide her flashy Hollywood persona. The material is there for the taking, but this is not movie for it. The lack of style, ill-fitting acting, and weak dialog all add up to a weak production.

See this movie for Sharon Stone and Rupert Everett's exceptional acting!

[gazebo · 6/10 · 6 June 2005]

Who knew Sharon Stone would look so great as a brunette? She is incredibly beautiful in this film about a true story that took place in the 1960s. I don't know too much about the cold war, during which this story takes place, so I won't mention too much about the politics of the times.

Sharon Stone plays this woman who falls deeply in love with a handsome British gentleman, played by Rupert Everett. She leaves her husband to be with this mysterious gentleman and they get married and lived quite happily for about four years until one day, her husband walks out the door and never comes back home. Sally (character played by Sharon Stone) searches for her husband and finds out her husband has defected to Russia. Thus begins her earnest quest to bring her husband out of the Soviet Union and back to Britain.

Sharon Stone was so good in this film! She made me admire her character's strength. The love story between Sharon Stone's character and Rupert Everett's character was very convincing. I was startled by the eroticism of the lovemaking scenes between these two actors. That's what made the ending of the film so heartbreaking to me, that these two people who loved each other so much, had vastly different loyalties.

The story is a true story, and it's very sad. This film is good to watch because of the actors. Sharon Stone is such a stand out in this film. Rupert Everett was extremely sympathetic in this film in spite of the fact that he defected to Russia. I really liked the characters very much and I was moved by the pain these two people went through. I'll remember this film for a long time.

Not a bad rental at all.

Avoid..

[kostu-san · 2/10 · 18 August 2004]

Watching this movie was a very disappointing experience. The premise was good (like with most movies out there), but the execution was just atrocious, and the story was unrealistic at best. For example, the movie shows us that a westerner was allowed to go in and out of Soviet Union, as well as go though streets of Moscow without any surveillance in the midst of cold war!!

Moreover, the actors seemed like they were made out of wood in terms of expressiveness. The story was painfully slow and was heading nowhere, really: nothing changed nor happened though the entire movie...

Funny how our protagonists had a view at the Basilica of Christ the Saviour in early 70s (Destroyed in early 20th century, restored in late 90s by the mayor of Moscow)... This and many other anachronisms give out the fact that the production team didn't even research the subject of their work before filming...

2/10

Character Development? Don't make me laugh

[Vampenguin · 2/10 · 18 March 2006]

For me, the biggest thing that can make or break a movie is it's characters. The characters in this film, however, had about as much depth as a Kleenex. For the first half hour or so of the film, I found myself thinking "Who cares?". Basically, we're introduced to two people who meet and fall madly in love....in the first 5 minutes of the movie. No character development to speak of, and they certainly didn't change or grow during the course of the movie. Everett and Stone had zero chemistry, so the love scenes just looked forced and awkward. On top of all this, the film had no flow to it what-so-ever; it cut back and forth so quick and so often it was hard to keep track. Somehow it did manage to keep my attention throughout, so I guess that buys it a few points....but in general, this is a very poor film. Don't bother wasting 100 minutes of your life, watch something else.

2.5/10

See "Cambridge Spies" instead

[groundbounce-1 · 3/10 · 3 July 2006]

What a disappointment! After watching the film, there is a very good reason that actual names were not used - other than general similarities to circumstance, this is entirely a work of fiction.

Even a fictionalized account (inspired by the McClean story) could have been entertaining if had successfully delivered an historically accurate context (forget accuracy). There could have been a story of complex emotions, motivations and consequences but instead, you get a superficial drama that misses its mark or worse, doesn't even aim at the interesting targets.

This is a true waste of talent for such a great cast.

We'll Never Know

[robert-temple-1 · 7/10 · 15 August 2008]

Why was this made? Perhaps because director Marek Kanievska had made 'Another Country' (1984) with Rupert Everett twenty years earlier? This film purports to be a film about the stresses faced by Kim Philby's second wife, Eleanor, in the face of her husband's defection to the Soviet Union from Beirut. (Philby's first wife Aileen is not portrayed.) For some bizarre reason, all the names in this film are disguised. Incomprehensible! Sharon Stone plays Eleanor Philby, and the emotional focus of the film is all about her. Rupert Everett plays Philby (having played Burgess before!), and although he was physically all wrong, being too tall, gangly, and haunted, he does very well. There are countless errors in the film, not least the constant reference to 'Russia' before people were using the name like that. There is a great deal of misinformation about Philby flying around, and this film does nothing to dispel any of it. Many people knew he was unstable, a drunk, a bisexual (hence in those days a security risk), and anything else besides. He was unquestionably protected in his job despite all these drawbacks, which should have disqualified him. After his defection to the Soviet Union, he lived comfortably in a four-room flat (five room flats were reserved for the highest officials), and went to work every day as a Colonel in the KGB. The idea that he was sitting around as a lush wishing he could watch some cricket is misinformation spread on purpose. Philby's coded message which he sent back through an unofficial channel when he reached Moscow was: 'When I arrived here the middle toes of both my feet were black.' Work that one out, John le Carre! This film is entertaining viewing, has a good performance also by Julian Wadham, and whiles away the time, as long as you don't take it as gospel. Since we will never known the real truth about any of these things, one fantasy is probably as good as any other. Though why all the sympathy for Eleanor Philby? I can think of worthier objects of pity for what Philby did to them.

An attempt to revive the British spy scandals of the 1950s, dead on arrival.

[lewwarden · 1/10 · 25 November 2006]

Someone -- director, writer, producer, perhaps all -- are caught with their dialectics down. But where did Sharon Stone fit into this turkey? That black wig was simply awful. The Sharon we love and admire is blonde, blonde, blonde. I got a huge laugh out of the critic who thought those black wigged shots were of different women. I think the wig must have slipped around here and there because she sure looked different from time to time. Sharon may be tired of her Basic Instict fame -- although for the life of me I can't figure out why -- but why on earth did she sign on for this one?

And the propaganda! The kindly Soviet officials, the cold and calloused Brits, and the brutal Americans -- that beefy brute with his leather armpit holstered .45 reminded me of a "settler" the US Attorney in San Francisco used to terrify both lawyer and defendant into copping a plea. The guy looked like King Kong, and roared just about as loudly. My poor client visibly quailed. But I just marveled at his performance and said, "No deal. We're going to trial." So the guy went back into his cage.

Sharon gets rescued from the CIA/FBI's Kong by his good-cop companion who was waiting just outside the room. Which was just about the only action in this boring mishmash of flash backs and forwards, with only the scantiest of love scenes to remind us that Sharon was once America's premier seductress. Alas.

You have to be real old and know a little history to be able to figure out what this one is about but it really isn't worthwhile the struggle. The script was a mishmash, the actors' voices largely unintelligible, the camera work murky, the drama slight, and the entertainment value nil. One can only conclude that someone important in this production was in love with the subject matter.

Well, as they say, love is blind.

Don't Believe the Packaging

[HardToPlease · 3/10 · 23 April 2006]

The DVD packaging describes this movies as a thriller, and as if to underline that, shows a picture of helicopters circling an exploding van while a guy with a gun runs away.

This movie is not a thriller, and there are no explosions or helicopters. (What was that on the packaging? Clip art?) When I'm in the mood for explosions and helicopters, it's a disappointment to bring home a movie that instead has as its big moments someone breaking down a door or fingerprinting someone.

This movie is a rambling, disjointed drama. It wasn't completely awful, but was like real life in that the story doesn't completely make sense and doesn't work artistically. (And if they'd shown one more Casablanca-esquire foggy airfield, I'd have screamed.) It's just a bunch of confusing stuff that happens, and then other stuff happens, and who cares about any of those people? And we spent the first 45 minutes trying to tell the various dark-haired women apart. Or maybe they were all the same woman. Still don't know.

Surprisingly good

[marchal-2 · 9/10 · 1 February 2005]

I just saw A different loyalty on DVD, and was very pleasantly surprised (especially after seeing the trailer). The story was extremely interesting and powerful. Sharon Stone and Rupert Everett were both fine in their parts, though their love story wasn't made completely believable (the second half of the movie was by far better than the beginning, and Sharon Stone actually did a great job portraying this woman). It took me a while to get used to the looks of the movie, though (I'm still not sure why the flashbacks looked so much like an erotic movie from the 70ies). But what an incredible story and a great and subtle script.

Stone Does It Again Pity About Everett

[Sherpro2 · 1/10 · 11 July 2007]

Sharon Stone is the product of the Hollywood marketing machine but sadly again displays the fact that she just can't act. As always she's always too intense and comes across with first year drama school responses. This movie is a bore and it's understandable that it never got a theatre release. Messy and boring. Supposedly based on Kim Philby, so why the silly name changes? Rupert Everett must have needed the money or been obliged to take part through contractual obligations. He's a fine actor and tried hard in this dog but simply couldn't make any headway with his co-"star" and a lousy shallow script. At least they could have done some basic research and got some of the planes, buildings and cars right!

Moderately Interesting

[rangeriderr · 5/10 · 8 December 2021]

This movie has very good acting. The core story line is a good one. The primary reason I gave it only 5 stars like many other people is because the story moves very slowly and is totally repetitious, again and again.

The whole story could have been told in 45 minutes and it could have been a little exciting which the plot calls for but fails to achieve. If you want a nice quiet story to fall asleep to this one fits the bill.

Weak movie

[Oak1913shaw · 5/10 · 26 March 2021]

Weak movie. I would venture to say it reminded me of a low budget B movie. I was bored. The characters were almost lifeless, all except Sharon Stone's character. Even though it was made in 2004/2005, it resembles the production abilities of much earlier decades. Locations don't seem realistic. For example, Beirut was the Paris of the Middle East in the 1960's yet was cast as a backward location in a more backward town (not even a city). The clothes seem like they were of a decade or two earlier. I gave the movie a 5/10 and that may have been generous.

Certainly different .

[angie-235 · 5/10 · 30 June 2008]

If treason is "different then Kim Philby's "loyalty" to Britain was very different. I watched this film for Rupert Everett after reading his auto-biography . I know little about Kim Philby , I am still puzzled as to why Sharon Stone wanted the names changed. The start of the film is awful , rather corny but I don't think the budget was enormous. It had to set the scene of M.I.6 and that there were traitors within. We just about get that idea. As the right names are not used the escape of Burgess and Mc Clean is a bit odd . If you have watched "Another Country" you might have some idea of what decided Guy Burgess to betray the U.K .

We are then taken back to Beirut in the early 1960s with Sharon Stone playing a bored American woman( whose husband is always away) who falls in love with "Leo" ( Kim) . How accurate the love story is portrayed I can't be sure . After she marries Leo and then he just walks out only to disappear Sharon is very good as a distraught woman left alone , afraid and almost helpless . She is helped by Leo's best friend ( also in M.I.6) .The Lebanese authorities are onto the case , obviously the whole of the western allies would have been horrified as Philby was a quite high-ranking official. She leaves for London with Leo's children , her own daughter has gone back to the U.S with her father. If this movie makes us look up more information about all of the Cambridge spies then it was worth making. I think "Another Country" leaves me feeling that Burgess was just bitter about his treatment as a homosexual ( and really it's fair to say with good reason). I don't know what made Philby a Soviet sympathiser but as an intelligent man he must have been rather saddened by the reality of his chosen country. We see Sharon's character try hard by visiting him in Russia to decide between her country , her daughter possibly and the man she loved but didn't have a clue about his politics. On first viewing I could not understand her choice but in the context of the times Russia really was the enemy of freedom and her life would have been one of being followed and suspected until she died . It's a reasonable attempt to tell an important story with two very good actors but it's budget couldn't cope with such a vast subject. It needed a series , not a film.

A man torn apart

[bhatian · 8/10 · 21 August 2005]

This film teaches you about love vs life. What is more important to you, serving for cold blooded organization or your family? The film starts brilliantly explaining who Leo is and the real human in him. Leo is a mere person (like anyone of us) who is torn between loyal work and his love. In actuality I think Leo is a classic example to all mankind that love comes before work. Life is as short as the length of this film, hence its best to choose love (in this case Sally). What did Leo achieve? Loosing his family to an honorable award from the Russians. My suggestion to all of you: Please choose your family over work, boss, money, and fame. Begin your choices right, only then will you die happy (unlike Leo).

The film has excellent concept of cinematography and film quality. It is shot in the format of old times and the costumes, location sets are perfectly chosen to create the right kind of mood. Sharon Stone is in her best form compared to her previous film "Basic Instinct". If she continues to choose roles such as Sally, then it will lead her to a more professional and recognized acting career.

I recommend anyone to watch this film (especially) young hot blooded men in Universities having an ambition in life. This film is deep and hold true to the accounts of Sally and Leo who are inbuilt in all of us. Please do yourself a favor and watch it with your love or your wife/husband.

I applaud the screenplay writer and the director.

My score 8/10.

NEIL BHATIA

Great factual Spy Drama - and Russian Love Story :)

[Dr_Mark_ODoherty · 10/10 · 10 August 2022]

Great factual spy drama - and Russian love story - inspired by the story of British double-agent Kim Philby, who was revealed to be a member of the Cambridge Five.

So this is another great testament of love and affection between Moscow and London; that when things really get tough and hard in Mother Russia, the Brits from MI6 and the Reds from the KGB always stick together :)

On a more serious note, this picture indicates that the KGB during that time used the threat of assassination and poisoning to coerce people to do their bidding - with Leo Cauffield possibly being coerced to play ball with the KGB; to avoid being killed by subtle and undetectable assassination methods.

Since quite al lot of prominent people - both politicians and celebrities have died rather mysteriously in 2021/2022 - it raises the question, whether there is a connection between foul play and high incidence of unexplained deaths in the world. (Or it could just be the Corona Virus, who knows :)

Hence, for the sake of truth and transparency the Intelligence Community should provide the public with the relevant information.

Either way, fact remains, that quite a lot of Russian politicians, journalists and human rights activists have been assassinated in Moscow during the Putin regime- such as Boris Nemtsov, Bashir Magometovich Aushev, Natalya Khusainovna Estemirova and many more. Indeed, militant factions in the Russian Intelligence Community may have been responsible for these killings.

As the leader of the Intelligence Community, I am obliged to say that this kind of negative behaviour by the Russian Intelligence Community must stop - and all individuals responsible must be brought to justice; for killings and assassination attempts.

Furthermore, as a gentleman, I also would like to emphasize, that I would have been quite willing to take the bullet for Boris, Bashir and Natalya - and all other unsung heroes in Russia; if that would have saved their lives :)