I can only guess (ha!) that LeCarre' had nothing to do with this film. It's a cartoon. Funny, but horribly directed. LeCarre' should sue, or at least remove his name from anywhere in the "credits". The overacting is a stitch! Especially the U.S. general in charge of the invasion. Yeah, I have to admit it's a great job of turning a serious book into a farce, if that was the intention. But it it wasn't intentional, then it's just a farcical piece of film drivel. Making fun of LeCarre' is just plane rude, insensitive, and insulting. Even though I rated a 1 out of 10, I do have to admit it made me laugh. I just have to pretend that I never read a LeCarre' novel, and don't admire him for being the best (serious) spy genre novelist of all time.

On the surface, The Tailor Of Panama is a bit of a contradiction. It's based on a novel by John le Carre, famed for his gritty and realistic spy thrillers, yet stars the man famous for playing the exact opposite of le Carre's thrillers: James Bond. But those contradictions are just on the surface, with the film itself resulting in a few surprises,Perhaps the biggest surprise of the film is Pierce Brosnan. Given that he's playing a British spy, and that the film came out in the midst of his tenure as James Bond, one might assume that he would be playing a slightly different take on 007. Nothing could be much farther than the truth. Andy Osnard is a character who is almost unlikeable: arrogant, cursing, sexist and ultimately a man with no loyalty except to himself. Yet, despite being unlikeable, Osnard (and Brosnan) is the one you can't take your eyes off of in whatever scene he's in. He's the corrupt heart and soul of the film and the film is, ultimately, better for it.The rest of the cast does well for the most part. Geoffrey Rush as the titular tailor of the title, Harry Pendel, gives a fine performance as the good with a checkered past who, drawn into Osnard's sphere of influence, begins setting a series of events in motion that threatens to unravel everything around him. There are also good performances from Catherine McCormack and David Hayman as well as Leonor Varela and Brendan Gleeson as two old revolutionaries drawn into the events around them and worse off for it. There are also some nice pseudo-cameos as well from Dylan Baker, Jonathan Hyde and noted playwright Harold Pinter as the proverbial spirit of the late Uncle Benny who acts as the conscience of his nephew Harry. The weak link of the cast is Jamie Lee Curtis who, for reasons that are unclear, has little to do in the film.If Osnard is the film's physical heart and soul, then its metaphysical one is the script based on the novel of the same name by John le Carre. By le Carre's own admission, The Tailor Of Panama is a take on Graham Greene's Our Man In Havana, updated from 1950s Cuba to late 1990s (early 2000s for the film) Panama. At the film's heart is a tale of how one man (Osnard) and his corrupting influence of those around him, told through the prism of a spy story. Intriguingly, the film in retrospect almost seems like an odd premonition of events leading up to the invasion of Iraq set in another part of the world: British intelligence that is ultimately dubious, as is its source, is used to justify a US invasion.Yet the film suffers from a glaring flaw. The film's tone is all over the place as director John Boorman has the film bouncing around between serious spy thriller, black comedy and domestic drama. The three in this case don't sit well next to one another which can lead to undermining of otherwise key moments (such as when Harry yells at those in his shop as the film begins to head towards its conclusion). The result is a film that is uneven to the point of fault.Despite the tonal issue, the film has plenty going for it. From Brosnan's performance to the strong script from the le Carre novel, The Tailor Of Panama is still an intriguing film. While neither the best spy thriller nor the best le Carre adaptation, for those who enjoy either, the film is certainly worth a viewing.

Now this is one movie that may not click with everybody as it shows people getting away with huge wealth through illegal & unethical means. And for that reason, it hasn't clicked with me too.However, I appreciate the performances of actors like Geoffrey Rush and Pierce Brosnan. The former struggles to do the right thing while the latter is effortless in doing the wrong thing! Keeping in mind the brazen character essayed by Brosnan, naturally there are some hot scenes too.Maybe it's too many dialogues & dialogues that makes it partially cumbersome. If not for the steamy moments, I would have easily dozed off! Verdict: Partly boring, partly provocative. I'd say, skip it.

This is a great Greeneland-style spy film. If you like Le Carre-type British secret servicemen in a Graham Greene setting, this is for you. There are definite hints of Our Man in Havana here and Le Carre takes this feel and runs with it to great effect.There are great three-dimensional characters performed with alacrity by some great acting talent. The screenplay is sharp and witty. There was barely an explosion in sight either.It's been described as a deeply satirical, grown up thriller and that is a pretty apt description.There was a brief and unnecessary scene of bad CGI helicopter gunships but, apart from that, what's not to like?