MovieChat Forums > Eye of the Needle (1981) Discussion > why does this film get such bad reviews...

why does this film get such bad reviews?


I saw this on British tv the other day.
As usual the idiot in the RADIO TIMES (the BBC listing magazine)says it is not very good and it is a joke that the spy works in a railway yard.
I disagree,working in a railway yard or seaport would be a good place to be a spy,you would see what stores were being loaded and could spot which units were going where.
I also disagree that it is a bad film.
If you like spy/war movies at all it is one of the better modern ones.
The script is ok,being from a best selling novel,it looks good and has a good cast,I like Donald Sutherland and Kate Nelligan is beautiful as well as being a good actress,why she never became a star is a mystery to me.
My only criticism of the film would be that it slows a bit towards the end,and the helicopter is not neccessary to the plot and is historically dodgy.
This is more enjoyable than ENIGMA or CHARLOTTE GREY.

reply

In the novel he doesn't have any civilian job at all, though he's got several fake identities and passport, and has lived in Britain since around 1936-37. The British have never been fond of paper bureaucracy but I doubt you could keep out of the eye of the authorities for years like that - after all, he's physically fit and in an age when he'd have been liable to serve in the armed forces.

reply

Actually, he was at least 39 and says it in the film, so he was definitely not of age to serve, although in the film I think he says something about having been wounded in the war.

reply

39 probably is eligible to serve in the armed forces. Especially during a time of war when they need more men.

reply

Not if you are in a "defense critical job" and are over 30. Read David Niven's biography and you will find that even a former British Lieutenant had a heck of a time going back into service during wartime even though he was just over 30 years old.

reply

I believe in the movie it says he was born in 1900. The Invasion at Normandy was 1944 - so he was 44.

So, maybe that pushes him past the eligible age.

reply

He does have a job in the film. He is a kind of worker in the train yards - {and this agrees with the book} -when he kills his housekeeper, he has to leave...hence the excitement.

reply

Superb Film Adaptation of a First Class WW2 thriller!! Ken Follett's masterwork has sold 10,000,000 copies since 1978!!

reply

[deleted]

It's sold five million more copies since then. Great Novel. Perhaps the best spy tale ever to be adapted to the wide screen.

reply

I loved this movie (saw it in the theatre, due to the rising fame of Sutherland, who I liked in the remake of "Invasion of The Body Snatchers".
If you can handle sweeping music, lots of great outdoor scenes and a slow but suspenseful murder-mystery, I would recommend it highly. Yes, it gets strangely sappy at times, and yes, you may yell at the heroine of the movie several times for her stupidity, but hey, in the end it leaves you wanting more- with that haunted feeling that a good film should leave in your mind.
Definitely in my list of favorite films of all time.

reply

Bad reviews by whom? Radio Times is an awful magazine, I get my listing from the digital box or the Guardian's The Guide. Roger Ebert, who for all his failings, knows a good film, gave the Eye of the Needle a solid review, 3 stars.

Those of you who complain about the historical accuracy/his eligibility to serve in the army are slightly missing the point I feel. A thriller doesn't have to be historically accurate - The Jackal's plot didn't actually happen, this doesn't change it as a film. As for Henry serving in the army, the film makes explicit references to his not serving, it's an enigma like many aspects of his character; that's not to say you've 'got one over' Marquand or the scriptwriter in noticing this.

reply

I don't know

this is a great and very underrated movie




I Worship The Goddess Amber Tamblyn


reply

I agree it is a good movie. Nelligan and Sutherland are always good with a good script, and I have no problem here. Plausible spy movies are always enjoyable for me, and this is totally belivable to me. And Sutherland's character was definitely 44. The fake aircraft across the Channel from Calais were absolutely in the spring of 1944, and his year of birth in the movie was 1900. As to the helicopter -- well -- I see the problem there. But has anyone ever seen "Where Eagles Dare" with Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood; another great movie with an historically questionable insertion of a helicopter. It was not necessary in "Eagles" and is not necessary in "Needle;" the "cavalry" could have been in a boat close by Storm Island. Those kinds of obvious and unnecessary mistakes do, frankly, bother me.

reply

This is one of my favorite all time movies. I fell in love with Donald Sutherland after seeing this movie. Ken Follett has always been my favorite author (along with Clive Cussler, whom I believe, started writing after Follett), and the book was awesome as well.

I am watching it now on "On Demand" (Free movies and such from Comcast Cable in the US). 24 minutes into the movie there is someone relating all of the info they have on Faber and I think they said May 26 but definitely born in 1900. He had met Hitler when he was younger, etc......

Funny .. just saw the scene where he took pictures of the fake airplanes. It was either that scene, or after reading what the character did in the book, that I was thinking of when I was in Long Beach, CA in the early 80's.
A friend of mine and I had flown out to Los Angeles for the day (ok, we worked for the airlines so it was no big deal) because we had nothing else to do.

We decided to visit the Queen Mary. One of the guys that worked there was pointing out the Spruce Goose to us. Or trying to as it was almost impossible to see and it was kind of far from the ship. At that time, it had not yet been moved to the harbor to be by the Queen Mary. It was hidden under camoflauge at an old navy base nearby.

So we get in our rented car because we wanted to see it. We came to a guard shack where there was a Navy guy on duty checking the vehicles going in and out. I just waved to the guy and kept going. (No way can one do that nowadays!)
He got in his car and followed us but we kept going until we saw the Spruce Goose. It really was camoflauged and hard to see at first until we were almost right on top of it. The guy was almost to us but I ran out of the car with my camera to take pictures. When I was doing that, I thought of Ken Follett's character, Henry Faber.

I got my pictures, though! We didn't get in trouble. We just played dumb and said we weren't from the area. He asked to see our drivers licenses and that was about it.

BTW, "Where Eagles Dare" was also a great movie. I had almost forgotten about that one. I'll have to see that again real soon. Thanks for reminding me!

reply

I agree with the OP. This film is head and shoulders above Charlotte Grey and Enigma - two very underwhelming films set in WW2. Where Eagles Dare was good except for the performances. Maybe I'm too fond of the book, who knows. But Clint Eastwood was miscast, and Richard Burton put in a very disinterested performance in the film. The only real highlight is the fight on the cable cars...and even that was more electrifying in the book. Poor Alistair Maclean. Not a single film has ever done true justice to his writing.

reply

I liked it and so did Siskel and Ebert.

reply

This was like 20 percent spy movie, ruined when they added the relationship, I thought there would be good dialogue between him and the girl, not some unloyal wife. Before they met, it was a spy movie, so maybe 50 percent, ruined film for me.

reply

I'm amazed, too. It's better than most war movies and was a box office hit the year it was released. Perhaps a lot of people thought Sutherland was miscast as Faber because in the best-selling novel the Nazi spy is tall, dark, and handsome, not to mention, aristocratic. Yet Sutherland is such a great actor in anything he does that we can overlook this.

Most books are monumentally superior to the film adaptions, and this one is no exception, although it is always thrilling to watch. I have it on DVD and every time I play it, I go overboard and watch it over and over. Then I have to wait a few years before I do it again. Right now I am listening to the Audible version and will have to put the CD set in the audio player of my car. It's my favorite spy tale of all time. I just downloaded the book on kindle for the first time, and am trying to talk myself out of watching the movie yet again. Hard to do.

You might be interested to know that before Follett even wrote the book, he imagined Kate Nelligan as the heroine Lucy Rose. The author was struck by her classic English Rose type loveliness and wouldn't sell his story to M.G.M. until they agreed to cast her as the leading lady. It's a good thing she was a very fine stage-trained actress, because Sutherland was extremely good and Christopher Cazenove stole every scene he was in.

Nelligan was always difficult to work with, although she was great on television in 1975 opposite Richard Chamberlain and Tony Curtis in The Count of Monte Cristo, and terrific in the title role of Eleni (1986) opposite John Malkovich, Oscar winner Linda Hunt, and the vastly underrated Oliver Cotton. She was finally recognized for the great actress she is when she was Oscar-nominated for her role as Nick Nolte's long-suffering Southern mother in The Prince of Tides, the best film she ever appeared in. Mercedes Rhuel won the Best Supporting Award that year for The Fisher King, but Nelligan deserved it as well. I agree that she should have been a major star, but all the truly talented ones rarely achieve stardom.

reply

Interesting that you say the author had Nelligan in mind since Lucy Rose looks nothing like Kate Nelligan based on the description. Lucy Rose has red hair.

reply

Just give Nelligan a wig of red hair and she would've fit Lucy's description in the book just fine. In other words, her hair color really wasn't that important to the role.

reply