User Reviews (33)

Add a Review

  • pawebster29 December 2012
    Hayley Atwell made this for me - she was excellent throughout. The story was exciting, although I still don't know who was watching from the forest and why they would suddenly start to do so, long after the original events. Charlotte Rampling is also very good indeed in her part.

    The credits show that quite a lot of it was filmed in South Africa, which seems to have done duty for the USA. This sometimes looked cheap (the little street corner that stands in again and again for New York City) and some of the local actors had dodgy American accents. "Turn left hyah" doesn't strike me as authentic for New Mexico.

    It was enjoyable and I recommend it.
  • 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.
  • Was "Restless" worth using up 3 hours of my life on? The answer is (probably) 'Yes', but only just... The plot was interesting, the performances adequate, and I had to think a number of times as to who, when, and where the characters were when settings changed. The casting was a bit iffy for me. I found it hard to accept the actors as the same people at varying stages of their lives. (I accept there must be difficulties involved in productions that need to show characters at different points in their lives, but the casting here wasn't the best. I suppose it's a toss-up between using different actors, or ageing characters by make-up. Both must have their problems.) On top of that, and without even trying, I noticed some anomalies. Among others, the wrong version of the Stars and Stripes was used, and wrong telephone ring tones too. The mother and daughter left the shop without taking all of their purchases with them. The college tutor finished his drink twice. All in all, it passed the time, but my 'suspension-of-disbelief' was suspended. I'm only a customer - what do I know..?
  • Warning: Spoilers
    When Ruth Gilmartin goes to visit her mother Sally she is surprised to find her acting somewhat paranoid; convinced that there are people in the woods who are watching her and intending to kill her. Sally has a bigger surprise for her daughter; she isn't really Sally Gilmartin; her name is Eva Delectorskaya. She was a Russian émigré living in France when she was recruited to British Intelligence by a man called Lucas Romer. We see the younger Eva working for him, helping plant false news stories that are intended to help the war effort. The most important of her missions takes her to the United States; here they are trying to sway opinion so that neutral America will join the war against Germany. Things don't go according to plan and Eva becomes convinced that one of the group must have betrayed them! As she learns more about her mother's past Ruth helps her track down Lucas Romer but if her mother is right they are both in more danger than ever.

    This two part thriller nicely balanced the events that took place during the war and those that were taking place thirty years later. Michelle Dockery and Charlotte Rampling did fine jobs as Ruth and Sally Gilmartin but it was Hayley Atwell who stole the show as the younger Sally, aka Eva. Even though we knew her character had to survive the war her scenes managed to be tense; especially those in the United States. For the most part the tension was maintained by the threat of violence but occasionally the threat became a reality. Much of the violence was fairly tame but there is a scene where somebody gets stabbed in the eye which is surprisingly graphic. I suspect most viewers will guess who the traitor was although when it is revealed the motives are not those that I'd expected… I won't say more to avoid spoiling the ending too much!
  • RESTLESS is a two-part BBC drama, based on a story by ANY HUMAN HEART author William Boyd. It's set in two different time periods, the 1940s and the 1970s, and follows the fate of characters working as spies during WW2.

    For starters, this is no ANY HUMAN HEART. The calibre of the script just isn't up there with that production's, and the whole cross-cutting between two time periods doesn't work that well. The wartime espionage stuff is fine, but the '70s era plotting is dull and features luvvies Charlotte Rampling and Michael Gambon giving typically lethargic performances.

    Thankfully, we have at least half of a good show, because the spy stuff is where RESTLESS hits its stride. Hayley Atwell (PILLARS OF THE EARTH) once again proves her worth as a tough, sexy, heroine, trained to be a spy by the British and engaging in all manner of dangerous plots thereafter. Rufus Sewell more than matches her as the suave spymaster she falls for.

    Clocking in at three hours, the production is a little slow and the ending more than a little obvious; the identity of a key villain is also way too obvious. Still, the espionage scenes are handled well and it's a pleasure to watch drama that doesn't pander to its audience.
  • This gripping film was brilliantly directed by Edward Hall, who has previously directed six episodes of the TV series SPOOKS but is otherwise little known. I cannot imagine that now he will be little known for much longer. The film is from a screenplay by William Boyd, an adaptation of whose novel (by himself), ANY HUMAN HEART (2010, see my review) was truly spectacular. I would say that William Boyd is now one of the hottest things British television has got to offer to the world. Hayley Atwell does a truly brilliant job of playing the lead in this new film, just as she excelled in Boyd's earlier series. This film is a new variation of the British traitor theme, and concerns a devilishly cunning double agent. Atwell plays the young Eva Delectorskaya, a Russian émigré fluent in English and other languages, who is recruited as a British spy in 1939. The film begins in the current day, when Eva is played with steely conviction by the indomitable Charlotte Rampling, who was for so long every thinking man's choice of the ideal tea partner, if crumpet was to be served. Really, I do think Charlotte Rampling could convince anyone of anything. If she had not been an actress she could have made a fortune as a salesman. Even now that the film is over, I still believe she is out there with her sawn-off shotgun ready to protect herself from the people who want her dead because she knows too much. The screenplay, as is to be expected, coming as it does from Boyd, is sensationally well crafted. All the cast are excellent. Rufus Sewell has matured into a most interesting actor who has gone beyond youth into becoming a real man at last. For too long he was the thrusting young man. Now he can get all those good solid grown-up parts which suit him so much better. He does a wonderful job here as the spy master Lucas Romer, who in the present day scenes is played with his usual powerful presence by Michael Gambon. Young Michelle Dockery plays the daughter of Rampling. We can see her character visibly maturing on the screen, as the action brings out that rare thing in a movie, true character development. At the beginning of the film, when Rampling announces to her daughter that her name is Eva Delectorskaya, Dockery thinks she must be getting Aldzheimers or something, and says: 'Nonsense, you're my mother. Your name is Sally Gilmartin', as if she were a nurse calming a patient. But gradually the truth begins to dawn, and it is not long before they enter into a double game as a team to flush out the threat to Rampling's life. There are many heart-stopping moments. But the central glowing presence on the screen which makes everything work so convincingly is Hayley Atwell. She was named by her parents after Hayley Mills, as so many thousands of British girls were. (Hayley was only a surname until Hayley Mills was given it as a first name, her mother being Mary Hayley-Bell. William Hayley, 1745-1820, their ancestor, was a distinguished minor English poet of the 19th century and a close friend of William Blake.) So maybe talent is hereditary, passing down through anyone named Hayley. Just a thought! The seamless interweaving between past and present in this film (well, I say film, it was shown in two episodes on the BBC and is thus technically a mini-series, I suppose, though with a running time altogether of only 3 hours) is done with considerable finesse. Everything seems to have come together to make RECKLESS a total success, and that splendid achievement was anything but reckless. More, please!
  • The description of the three hour, two episode drama is misleading. The daughter doesn't find out her mother is not who she thought she was. Instead she is given a manuscript containing the complete story of her mother's life. Most of the film is what Hayley Atwell's character did in the 40's, with little that makes any sense in the 1970's "present".

    Now, the story is interesting, a sort of cloak and dagger British Intelligence outfit that is tasked with convincing the Americans to join the war effort in favour of Europe. Sexy Eva is recruited, trained and unleashed upon unsuspecting foreign agents. However, as many have noticed, the execution of the plot survives only to the most superficial scrutiny. But it is damn ridiculous to complain about the inconsistencies, though, if we liked the movie. It's not like we don't know it's a film.

    What does strike as slightly annoying is the length of the feature. Certainly this could have been more concise in the length of a normal film or more detailed and watchable in a three or four episode miniseries. As such, you can't wait for it to be over, waiting for the climactic ending that, alas, doesn't really come. Everything is explained in the end, but with a fizzling finale that holds no power and creates no emotion.

    Beautiful Hayley Atwell and Rufus Seawell both made the film bearable due to their performance. Perhaps it would have been better to just discard the 1970's story and just tell the 1940 one from beginning to end. The Americans would have done so, ended the story with her escaping and quickly preparing a sequel. :)
  • Derek11722 August 2016
    I just stumbled across this film on iTunes on a lazy Sunday, and have been jumping for joy! I love "thinking" spy thrillers--films like The Ipcress Files, Funeral In Berlin, The Night Manager, Homeland, and even Turn: Washington's Spies--and Restless ranks right up there with the best. The plot is intelligent without being too complex, the directing was spot-on (I particularly liked the cutting back-and-forth between time periods at the end of the first part of this two-part mini), and the period clothes, cars and interiors are right up there with The Man in the High Castle. Oh and the acting by this cast of Brits, should make U.S. actors want to go back to school. And I can't say enough about Hayley Atwell's performance: incredible! Plus, with her generous curves, she was made for 1940s films. All around excellent film. Find it on DVD or iTunes and watch it--and then watch it again. You won't be disappointed.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This was watchable which sounds as if is damning with faint praise but since so much on TV is hyped beforehand and turns out to be poorly produced and/or acted it is good to be able to sit through 3 hours of drama and want to know how it all ends. Having said that if you are going to set a drama in a very recognisable historical setting it is just as well to get everything right otherwise nerds like me spot anomalies and we end up talking about what was wrong and not was right.

    The London Transport bus shown briefly in the 1940's scene was a Routemaster which was only introduced on to the streets in the early 60's. In the 1975 scene where the daughter visits Lord Romer we see a "P" reg Rolls Royce drive off. The "P" reg was issued in 1978. **SPOILER** Where did the young Eva learn her gun technique to bump off Alfie when she was specifically omitted from the gun training at spy camp? **SPOILER END** What was the point of Ruth's ex-lover turning up in the closing scenes? And why did the older Eva live in a remote cottage if she was frightened of someone bumping her off? The best place to hide would be in a busy city.

    Actually, the more one thinks about it the more plot holes open up so perhaps I had better stop now.
  • blanche-210 October 2023
    Warning: Spoilers
    Restless is a TV movie from 2012 that takes place during World War II and I believe somewhere around 1976.

    A young woman (Michelle Dockery) is given a manuscript by her mother (Charlotte Rampling). In it, her mother reveals she was a British agent during World War II and tells of her adventures and a romance with her handler (Rufus Sewell).

    As a result of her last mission, she is convinced that she has finally been found and, the government believing her to be a traitor, is going to kill her. She is desperate to find Rohmer, her old handler, and asks her daughter for help.

    I thought this was very intriguing, plus I will watch Rufus Sewell in anything.

    Hayley Atwell plays Rampling as a young woman, and she is wonderful in the role, plus perfect for the time period in looks.

    The story had some holes in the original book that the script filled. The big problem is, if Rampling thinks she's in danger, what is she doing in the middle of nowhere?

    There was another problem- a biggie! Gorgeous James Norton killed off in the first ten minutes!

    Despite this, Restless is very absorbing and well done. I thought the '40s atmosphere was fantastic despite some anachronisms.
  • I thought the first half or so was marvelous. I felt the ending was a let down and flat somehow. There felt like so much build up for the present day resolution and then it went out with a whimper. Still good overall. (One thing that may have thrown me is that i thought I was watching a movie. Prime then said episode 1 of season 1 so I thought it was going to be more lengthy.)
  • Warning: Spoilers
    For three hours we enjoyed being transported back to a historic time, the sets, costumes. Everyone smoked and drank, there were mens clubs, classic cars, double breasted suits, men's hats and secret passwords. And Haley Atwell was saving the world.

    Lots of people got shot for some reason. An entire team of spies was 'rolled up'. Ollie had to be killed. And decades later someone was coming to kill Eva for some reason that I don't understand.

    For all the money and effort that went into this production is it too much to ask for someone to read the script and make sure it makes sense?
  • 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
  • However, the actors chosen to depict the characters as they had aged was a real stretch. It was very difficult trying to image the Rufus Sewell turned into Michael Gambone over a 30 years span. Charlotte Rampling wasn't quite as difficult, but it would have been easier to watch and understand had they simply used aging make up. We're only trying to go from actors in the 30's into their 60's. The plot was great and intriguing and fun to follow, but those different faces that didn't really fit interfered.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    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
  • ***may contain spoilers for some sensitive folks***

    RESTLESS, the television adaptation of William Boyd's novel of the same name, was shown on UK BBC One and US Sundance Channel television in two parts in December 2012. The teleplay was nominated for two Primetime Emmy awards the following spring. Part one, the story of Eva's early life as a spy in the days leading to World War II, is beautifully filmed on spectacular locations in Europe. The cars used in the production are European vintage in beautiful condition. The costumes are interesting and appear authentic. The cast is superlative: Sally Gilmartin...Charlotte Rampling ("Swimming Pool") Eva Delectorskaya...Hayley Atwell ("Any Human Heart") Ruth Gilmartin....Michelle Dockery ("Downton Abbey") Lucas Romer....Rufus Sewell ("Zen")(Part 1)....Michael Gambon ("Dancing at Lughnasa")(Part 2)

    The story begins in 1976 in a remote part of England when Ruth (a long red-haired hippie working on her doctorate) and her son visit her mother Sally Gilmartin. Ruth finds her mother in great fear thinking someone is in the woods behind the house trying to kill her. Sally has purchased a rifle, binoculars, and a telescope. She tells her daughter she was a Russian girl named Eva that was a spy for the British in a clandestine group that offered refuge for German informants and recruited Roosevelt's help for British causes in WW II. Sally implores Ruth to find and visit Lucas Romer, the only one she trusts in the group, to stop the present-day killers; she gives her daughter her journal of her days as a spy.

    Eva's journal begins in 1939 German-occupied France when she is recruited by spy-master Lucas Romer after her brother is killed by Nazis. She is trained at a safe house in a remote part of England. The film emphasizes that Eva receives no weapons training, so it is clearer that she is training to be a seductress. (At least, clearer to me in the teleplay than in the novel.)

    The restaurant scene, one of Eva's first capers, takes place in Amsterdam when she and Romer, but primarily Eva, are to rescue a Dutch informant. The man gives Eva the wrong "double password" and Eva escapes through a bathroom window and witnesses the informant's death by several Nazi diners. The scene is vivid and well done...and shows Romer's early dominance over Eva's activities. (He's across the street in a hotel with a pair of binoculars!)

    Romer, played by a handsome Rufus Sewell with a thin mustache, is not nicer than in the book...still an arrogant, rude man! He stays in the shadows at Eva's brother's funeral and during her spy training. The several times they meet, he is discourteous and does not treat her as a lady (although one of her fake passports is for a Baroness). Both Eva and Romer smoke continuously. Other men light her cigarettes...just not Romer. There is a strange scene where one of the group, an older man, calls Eva to witness a murder posed as a suicide at a crime scene before the police are summoned. Eva recognizes the victim as one of the directors of the group.

    One can still wonder in the film, as in the book, why Eva and Romer became lovers. It happens suddenly with a kiss and then a seduction in a hotel room. If I recall, it's right after the restaurant caper. (As someone mentioned in my book club discussion...love happens fast in tense times.) Although RESTLESS is an adult drama, there is no profanity nor any bodily function or display in bad taste. Romer's sexual practice (coitus interruptus) is hinted at in the hotel room scene...but you would miss it if you have not read the novel.

    The first part ends when Eva is assigned to go to Washington, D. C. to persuade America to come to Britain's aid in its war with Germany. Her specific assignment is to seduce the aide of Roosevelt's personal assistant Harry Hopkins. Previews of the conclusion show her as a blowzy blonde.....

    Stay tuned...
  • This was poor and left me grieving for BBC Drama - who is going to make quality television if the BBC can't? It had a lot of the right ingredients - if they were re-making The Singing Detective, then Rufus Sewell would be a perfect choice, so it was only right that Michael Gambon played Sewell's older self. But the pace was slow, the plot became nonsense (was it perhaps originally a six part that was then cut down?), and the dialogue was awful. They left the worst til last though, the ending was truly dire leaving me regretting that I had spent 3 hours getting there - God knows how the actors and crew felt when they saw it, after all it took them a lot longer.

    Why is this 4 and not 1, because I like the genre.
  • I enjoyed these for a lot of reasons. Suspenseful story. I find that Charlotte Rampling is always in reat stuff
  • Warning: Spoilers
    EPISODE #1:

    Another British spy drama starring some legendary British actors but also some newcomers to acting also from Britian. Set in the 70's the story is about Ruth Gilmartin (Michelle Dockery) who along with her son goes to meet her mother Sally Gilmartin (Charlotte Rampling). On this visit she finds out the truth that Sally's real name is Eva Delectorskaya (Hayley Atwell) and she was a spy for the British during the times of world war II. We then get flashbacks to the 30's-40's seeing the training Eva went through to become a spy because her brother was killed. While going through the training she meets Lucas Romer (Rufus Sewell) who becomes her closest Allie while being a spy. After one mission goes wrong and a dutch spy gets killed the thriller aspect of the story kicks into full gear. While we see these flashbacks going on back in present time Ruth still in shock now about the truth of her mother she agrees to help her mother stay safe while trying to get help from past friends of her mother. At the end of the first part of the miniseries we get our first look at the older Lucas Romer (Michael Gambon) as Ruth try's to get help from him for her mother. An impressive cast lead this story. The film is like a typical British spy thriller based in the past but the two connected times lines in something different for a change. The best performances in this first part came from Hayley Atwell and Charlotte Rampling who play the same character but in different points of the character's life. We were left with a cliff hanger with the reveal of Lucas Romer who is needed to keep Sally/Eva alive. Every detail in the clothes, sets and direction was spot in for the period that each part of the story was filmed. An impressive first part can only lead to a great conclusion in part two.

    EPISODE GRADE: B+ (MVP: Hayley Atwell)

    EPISODE #2:

    Part 2 and the final part of the miniseries. Still split between the two time periods we find out more about Eva's days in the states as a spy. In present times Ruth sits down to interview Lucas, when she asks some of her questions he becomes suspicious and ends the interview after asking more questions then she got to ask him. In the past we see Eva was made sleep with someone on a mission and she successfully did it but did not feel good about selling herself to him. Eva's other mission in the states involved her going to Albuquerque, New Mexico to get a package along with the $5,000 she was given to hand off to someone. She gets the package and looks at it to find some mistakes on the package. When she gives some of the money she returns back to her motel room only to have a gun held to her. The gun man takes the money off her but also makes her take her clothes off before leaving. She then drives them and once they stop she takes her chance to get free by stabbing him in the eye. She then covers her footsteps by making it took like a car crash. Eva believes she was sold but when she meets with Lucas he tells her she did better then anyone could have expected. Eva still worried she was set up now has the idea she made a mistake after Morris tells her she might have, however when Eva goes for a meeting with Morris she finds out the news that he committed suicide. This makes Eva come up with a plan to escape to Canada so she asks Sylvia to come with her. When they get to the border Eva escapes but Slyvia staying behind is killed. Once Eva gets to Canada she hears USA is know in the war also she has met her future husband. Eva escapes to London with her new husband. She meets Alfie in London finding out Angus was killed as well. During the London bombings Eva kills Alfie and also has to run from Lucas scared he might kill her. This ends the past and we return to modern times where Ruth is starting to worry about what her mother has been doing lately. At the end of the episode Eva finally confronts Lucas once again. She reveals that she now knows that Lucas was the spy of all spies. She does not kill him but once she leaves her injects himself to kill himself. Eva still questions revealing Ruth was her daughter but Ruth tells her not to worry. Once again the performances by Charlotte Ramplinbg and Hayley Atwell were very strong. Michael Gambon and Michelle Dockery were also great. The production value was also as strong and the thriller aspect to this part was even more thrilling then the first part. This was a great miniseries overall.

    EPISODE GRADE: B+ (MVP: Charlotte Rampling)
  • ronlda30 May 2023
    If you just want entertainment and don't feel the need for picking nits, this is an excellent 2 part series. Granted the 1970's weren't quite as exciting as the 1940's but the transition back and forth is certainly more seamless and smooth than many series. There's numerous recognizable faces in here but HayleyAtwell and Rufous Sewell certainly have the best bits and respond appropriately. Great characters and well acted depictions of those characters. Michelle Dockery and Charlotte Rampling are adequate as is the rest of the supporting cast. I have read many of the worst reviews here and my response is balderdash! This is definitely 3 hours well spent and I just wish all short series were this good!! Fun series!
  • hazangel-899104 February 2024
    If not for Hayley alone. It's amazing how much she suits this era. Her beauty is timeless. She is a great actress and seems to embody all of her characters. Watching this reminded me of her role as Agent Carter. That role was made for her. Of course she is great in other roles as well.

    I'm not the biggest fan of war/spy movies as they are rather confusing at times. It was still fun to watch. It also had some romance thrown in with the espionage.

    It would have been nice to see more of Ruth's father. I realize it wasn't really important to the story though.

    Great acting all around. The ending was a bit strange but the story as a whole was interesting.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Well... most reviewers have clearly told the story in depth so I feel no need to repeat it. What I do wish to say is how disappointed I was. The opening shots, score and promised cast lured me into believing I was in for a treat.. and then found out I was wasting my time watching three hours of poorly acted, poorly directed, poorly constructed, and poorly edited drivel.

    I'm curious to read the book now as I, too, wondered if this miniseries had originally been double the length and chopped down to three hours. So little seemed to fit together. Scenes were short, badly edited and disjointed regardless of whether we were in 1941 or the 70s. Whether it be the blame of the director, cinematographer or shooter the slow, sweeping camera pans, changes in depth of field, use of unnecessary angles and the overuse of the classic documentary shot "start on the top of the building and slowly pan down to the street or the characters" drove me to distraction. (Not quite as badly as the opening 15 mins of the Downton Abbey movie did before it settled down to an acceptable style). I totally agree with another reviewer that Michelle Dockery acted exactly the same as her character in Downton Abbey (Mary). They described her "plummy" accent and authoritative air perfectly. I was so put off as it didn't match her hippy garb and the fact that she'd met her ex in a commune. Not that the character couldn't have sounded like that but she was acting exactly the same in a very different role, so it was hard to watch her without thinking she was in the wrong costume. And her son? As another reviewer commented. What was the point of having him and her husband pop into the story for no reason? Most of the time she seemed to forget her lively son existed... and he was far too "down to earth" and energetic to be the son of this stoic, cardboard Mom. Again, I am left with the thought that there was more to their roles but that it ended up on the cutting room floor. But the worst part of this miniseries was the dialog and story which lacked reality, suspense, logic and drama. How other reviewers found it exciting, gripping, etc I cannot imagine. I feel they watched a different film than I did. I love the genre and comparing it to something like "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" it honestly struck me at the beginning of the second half, that maybe it was supposed to be a spoof of the genre because it was just so unbelievable. But it wasn't good enough to be. When she went off to "training" it was as if she was off to boarding school. We never saw any of the agents doing anything remotely believable as acts of espionage and none of the scenes led anywhere. Even on her first "mission" to make contact with the Dutch agent before the German arrived, she messed up and dropped her "signature" handbag at the scene. She wasn't actually supposed to do anything but observe but she couldn't even get that right. I agree with another reviewer that she seemed more like a lovesick pup than a serious spy. Nothing she did was believable and everyone was one-dimensional. There was no reason for anyone to be chasing Sally (Charlotte Rampling) after all these years and no reason for Lord Mansfield to take his own life at the sight of her. Who did she think she was expressing that his whole life would be over once she'd found him. Really? The score was also dreadful. I felt like I was watching "Jaws" the amount of times we heard the same foreboding music. Then there was the overly predictable orchestration every time something exciting was supposed to be happening. The endIng was dull and anticlimactic. I prefer to think that she really was delusional and paranoid and caused the death of an old man for absolutely no reason. She was still seeing "Reds under the beds".... so now I prefer to think that that was the whole point. But, ultimately, I just don't really care. A real shame for a series that held such promise.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    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.
  • This 2 part series is very shallow and the most significant thing about it is all seeing all the period costumes and old cars. The leads are badly cast, and although I do like Charlotte Rampling, her role here was almost non-existent. Michelle Dockery appeared to be practicing from back then for Downton Abbey as her portrayal as Rampling's daughter was no different to that of Lady Mary in Downton. She used the same "plummy" accent and imperious manner of speaking. The fake accents for the American scenes were grating to the ear, and I am not sure how she came to be driving a 1947 Chevrolet convertible in 1940. Probably some kind of time warp. I watched both episodes but am thankful there was not a Season 2 for this low caliber series.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The premise of this movie is crazily wrong. Get this: in 1941 the Soviets did not want America to enter the war. Yikes. Whoever wrote this must have dropped out of school in the 8th grade.
An error has occured. Please try again.