The Tailor of Panama (2001) User Reviews

Good, entertaining and worthwhile, but not quite great

[runamokprods · 7/10 · 18 November 2012]

Geoffrey Rush is excellent as Harry, an Englishman with a sadly shady past who has re- invented himself in Panama as the best tailor in the country, making clothes for the rich and politically powerful. Into his world comes Osnard, played by Pierce Brosnan. A morally corrupt, self-serving MI6 spy, sent to Panama as a last chance after seducing a Euro diplomats wife.

Many were bowled over by the irony of casting Brosnan, so associated with James Bond, as this much realer, creepier Bond alter ego. A man who is handsome, and self-confident, but whose endless seduction of women seems smarmy not sexy, and who delights in screwing other people while profiting himself.

For me the casting was actually problematic. Brosnon's terrific, but the irony is so distractingly obvious, that it pulled me out of the story, and made me think too much about film and our hero images instead of simply accepting the character. Beyond that, Osnard is drawn a little too broadly for my taste. He's so transparent, I have a hard time he gets anyone to trust him even for a moment. If his inner self-serving pig were a bit better hidden, it might have given the audience more to unravel, and make other characters' willingness to do his bidding a bit easier to buy.

The mix of tones also was a bit of a misfire for me. Never quite darkly funny enough to ascend into true satire, but certainly never edgy enough to be taken seriously, there's a lack of danger here. Unlike 'Dr. Strangelove', we never really think Harry and Osnard's games will reduce Panama to a pile of rubble, and the intimation of it seems false and a bit silly.

Yet, all that complaining is because the movie is good enough, smart enough, brave enough and entertaining enough that I felt frustrated it didn't quite work as brilliantly as is should. But I'd certainly still recommend it, in spite of my long winded misgivings, and I'm also willing to give it another look.

Excellent satire of the intelligence business, told with a straight face

[shengyang · 5/10 · 21 October 2002]

It's too bad about the low IMDB rating for this movie. It is a deft blend of James Bond, Casablanca and Dr Strangelove which directs its often vicious tongue-in-cheek barbs at both the intelligence industry and the spy films which glorify it. While it can be enjoyed "straight", that is as a story in its own right, I think those who miss its satirical structure (the film doesn't directly let the audience in on the joke - it must be inferred), miss half the fun.

An atmospheric, well-crafted thriller with actors having an infectiously good time.

[RichShep · 24 September 2002]

The Tailor of Panama is an atmospheric, well-crafted thriller in which the actors have an infectiously good time with their characters, especially an excellent and hilarious Pierce Brosnan as Andy Osnard, a roguish British spy who is sent to Panama (superbly described as "Casablanca without heroes") to keep out of trouble and get back his government's trust. However, even in post-Cold War diplomacy you have to play the game and earn your wage. The diplomats still have to listen to their sources. Osnard selects British ex-pat tailor Harry Pendel (Geoffrey Rush) to be his information source, using Pendel's hidden past to get his cooperation. Pendel is well-placed as his wife works for the director of the Panama Canal Company, but he also has friends formerly in the anti-Noriega ranks. Osnard passes on what Pendel tells him to his superiors. These two characters start to spin a web of exciting misinformation that they start to revel in, but this has consequences which escalate beyond their control. The background of Panama, from its "laundromats" (banks) to its seedy nightclubs, suits the characters and the story perfectly, and gives the film an atmospheric richness of the type director Boorman excels in. It is a treat for those who love international political intrigue and who may have traveled or lived in such places. This is a thriller which relies not on hi-tech filmmaking gimmicks (and there are many opportunities to), but on characters interesting enough to follow all the way through the film. It has an old-fashioned feel, and an wry and mischievous humor. Some may see some implausibility in the final conseuences of Osnard's and Pendel's actions, but on the whole the shamless good time they have bring these (almost) anti-heroes to life is infectious. Great fun.

In the right frame of mind, this is good.

[Rhino Rover · 6/10 · 13 May 2001]

The name Pierce Brosnan is synonymous with James Bond now, wouldn't you say ol' chap? So when I heard that Brosnan was doing a movie as another British agent I thought it would be along the same lines but I couldn't be more wrong. This was one of the few movies that I did not know anything about before I went but I have to say that I was impressed and amused with what I saw.

The Tailor of Panama is about a British agent, Andy Osnard (Brosnan) that fouls up his previous mission so badly (Brosnan fouling up?? Is that possible?) that his boss decides to send him to the backwoods of international espionage, Panama. What could possibly go wrong in Panama? There hasn't been anything of any international significance in years…until Osnard shows up. Unimpressed with being sent to Panama, Osnard decides to create something of his own by finding himself someone of British background that is fairly well placed in the upper echelons of Panamanian society. The unfortunate chap to cross paths with Osnard is a tailor by the name of Harry Pendel (Geoffrey Rush). Having found himself a plump target, Osnard begins to pick this gentleman for information and what ensues is an intricate story full of deception, blackmail and skullduggery.

You're probably thinking right about now that this doesn't sound like the suave, controlled characters that Brosnan has played in the past. And you're right although you still do see some of that suave demure that he exudes but this time with a bit of a mischievous twinkle in his eye. This movie couldn't be pulled off without a strong counterpart for Brosnan's character and Rush does not disappoint. I've seen Rush in other movies (Shakespeare in Love) and he is definitely a talented actor. In fact, you could probably argue that he's more integral to this movie than Brosnan is and you wouldn't be far off. Rush plays his character so well that at times you can't help but feel sorry for the predicament he's in and Brosnan plays his character so different from 007 that it's just a pleasure to watch.

If you're expecting stunning explosions and incredible action sequences, you're not going to find them here. This movie is about scheming, planning and manipulation. What a character says is of utmost importance, which means that you have to pay attention. This could be a weakness of this movie too however. If you see Brosnan as the main bill and you're expecting an action filled movie you're going to be disappointed. The dialogue is intricate and what someone says is not always what they mean and this could turn off some viewers if they have to pay that much attention.

I've never been a big fan of Jamie Lee Curtis' but she doesn't do a poor job here but then again she doesn't do a good job either. It just seems like a job to her and she does it. The ending scene with Rush and Curtis doesn't seem believable considering all that has happened up to that point and it did take a bit away from the overall movie.

Overall, the movie was pretty good. It's probably safe to say that this movie isn't going to do huge numbers but for those who do go see it and realize that it's an intellectual thriller, you will enjoy it.

Our Man in Havana in Panama

[MOscarbradley · 7/10 · 28 May 2006]

Given that John Le Carre is credited as Executive Producer and co-writer, with Andrew Davies and director John Boorman, of this adaptation of his novel then fidelity is assured. But even he has to admit the debt he owes to Graham Greene and "Our Man in Havana" of which this can be seen as a prescient remake.

Pierce Brosnan is Andy Osnard, the disgraced MI6 agent banished to Panama for his sins. In order to justify his existence he needs information and settles on Harry Pendel, tailor and former jailbird down on his luck. But Harry is even more desperate than Andy and like Wormold before him the information he supplies becomes ever more fanciful and dangerous. But where the jokes in Greene's 'Havana' soured into tragedy, here the tragedy is closer to (very) black comedy and very funny it is, too. With marvellous performances from Geoffrey Rush as Harry and Brosnan in a career-best turn and flawless direction from John Boorman, this is a crisp, pertinent and hugely enjoyable entertainment.

Decent, Low-Key Spy Story

[ccthemovieman-1 · 6/10 · 20 August 2006]

This is extremely low-key, too much for most people but I still enjoyed it. In a nutshell, it's about a British spy sent to Panama to see who is going to control the Panama Canal. The public didn't care for this movie because it was so slow-moving. Pierce Brosnan, Geoffrey Rush, Jamie Lee Curtis, Brendan Gleeson and Catherine McCormick are all actors I find interesting so I enjoyed watching them and this film, in general.

My only objection was the normal Liberal bias, here making George Bush, the British and the Americans look pushy and obnoxious in their dealings to control the locks.

The story is a bit confusing in spots but interesting enough to stay with for the entire 109 minutes. There are a few sexy scenes thrown in to help keep your attention. I was surprised at the number of f-words in this movie.

Undecisive mix of different genres

[Homer-2 · 5/10 · 8 June 2001]

After seeing this movie I left the theater with a strange feeling. There are a good story and some nice ideas from the directional side. Geoffrey Rush is excellent as usual and I loved to see Brosnan in his anti-role as an evil spy. Nevertheless I didn't like the movie too much. Its big problem is its undecisiveness. In the beginning it seems to be an espionage thriller but there is no thrill. There are some small historical aspects and political statements but there are too few to make an impression. It's too shallow as a family drama and there are not enough jokes to make you laugh for 2 hours. Later on it seems to be a satire on the whole espionage business (these are the best scenes of the movie). Unfortunately the movie develops the satirical potential of the story too late. When it starts getting interesting the movie is over.

A waste of a good story and cast. 5/10

Oh ... and go see it in OV. Beware the awful german dubbing.

The spy who came in from the heat.

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 18 May 2007]

I wasn't totally familiar with John Le Carre's work when I saw "The Tailor of Panama". But whether or not you're familiar with his work, you're still likely to get impressed by the movie. If it looks strange that Pierce Brosnan plays a non-James Bond spy, don't let that turn you off; as it is, I like this spy better than his role as James Bond.

The plot has British agent Andrew Osnard (Brosnan) getting involved with impeccably dressed tailor Harry Pendel (Geoffrey Rush) in Panama City. Both men have self-serving sides, but Osnard clearly has some unctuous plans up his sleeve, and will likely stop at nothing to get the job done. The potentially explosive political climate surrounding them serves to heighten the tension.

I certainly thought that Brosnan and Rush both did a really good job with their roles. Jamie Lee Curtis is actually, in my opinion, a strange person to cast in a spy movie - I've always found it a little bit hard to view her in a tense role - though I do feel that she did a good job with the role. And playing the son is none other than Harry Potter himself, Daniel Radcliffe.

So, while it may not be the most eye-opening spy movie ever, it creates a fairly unnerving feeling. After watching it, you may be tempted to go to Panama...just to see whether or not this sort of thing actually happens (although you probably wouldn't want to experience it). Worth seeing.

Neither fish, flesh, fowl or good red herring

[pekinman · 1/10 · 13 June 2005]

'The Tailor of Panama' is a ham-fisted attempt at satire that only manages to fumble and stumble over its own large concept and inept script. There are shades of 'Dr Strangelove...' James Bond and 'All The President's Men'. Bits and pieces of tired-out anti-American, anti-military dribblings, sugar-coated in glossy cinematography of Panama City, looking like every other American city that popped up in the 80s and 90s. A city that is as anonymous and non-descript as this mess of a movie.

Not even Geoffrey Rush's fine acting can save this turkey from boring the viewer to sleep. The script is clichéd and choppy, the attempts at clever satire fall flat as day-old, cheap champagne. There is gratuitous sex that fails to titillate and pseudo-violence and threatening "thugs" who fail to alarm or disgust. Failure is the operative word for this dreadful movie.

I admit I was expecting much more from John Boorman, one of my favorite directors, and John LeCarré, one of the best writers of the English language in the past 50 years. So the disappointment was acute when I realized that this movie wasn't going to amount to much more than one those adolescent Leslie Nielsen "big gun" show-cases made more than 20 years ago for the teen-age crowd.

'The Tailor of Panama' has a half-complete feel to it. The characters are like cartoon creatures who run around exhibiting lots of angst and tragedy only to be dropped down a hole, to use one of LeCarré's favorite phrases, and forgotten. The ending comes all of a sudden, as if half the third act had been excised, after a drooping second act.

Lots of money obviously went into this pile of offal. I wonder if the money might have been better spent on the third world "victims" of tyranny this movie purports to support, rather than giving a nice holiday for the film-makers in Panama City and environs.

Pierce Brosnan plays a vile anti-hero who neither conjures up total disgust or invokes all-out laughs, which Leslie Nielsen, to his credit, could always do.

This movie is neither clever, intelligent or exciting and is a complete waste of time.

Not one of Boorman's, or LeCarré's, finest hours, to say the least.

See for yourself, but rent don't buy.

Irony for the wicked

[Rammstein-2 · 9/10 · 1 November 2001]

If you understand irony, this film should be a real riotous laugh straight through. It is possibly one of the most brilliant movies so far this millennium, outright disrespectful of the "spy" theme: Brosnan's degenerated, decadent b*****d spy Osnard is just the way one would picture James Bond in real life, had the latter not been so awfully loyal. Actually, Osnard is James Bond minus loyalty and with his self-confidence, decadence and sexism turned up a couple of notches. A brilliant character, brilliantly acted. Another fantastic actor is the amazing Geoffrey Rush in the role as the Tailor of Panama, Harry Pendel.

The story is absolutely fascinating, one of the most clever and witty stories to emerge in a long while - the Tailor of Panama reluctantly becomes a spy and conjures up non-existent government plots to sell the Panama Canal to the Chinese, which makes the English and the Americans (portrayed as a bunch of idiots with delusions of grandeur and as militaristic blow-hards with victory as the only goal) react aggressively.

It is important that one understands that this film is serious in one respect only: its comedy. Don't see this expecting to see a thrilling spy-movie. It isn't, though I find the scope of the film thrilling. It's more of a comedy, and if you can't see that when the American general with tears in his eyes blurts: "There is a star missing from the American flag!", then you're not really equipped for this kind of film. The reason I'm writing this is that some reviewers have found the movie to be silly... which is just what one would think if one didn't get it.

Brilliant. Just brilliant.

Intelligence, seduction and betrayal

[valadas · 7/10 · 7 June 2006]

The seductive part is of course played by Pierce Brosnan who hooks at once any woman that may fall within his scope which includes air stewardesses, fellow spies and even friends'wives. But the movie is a bit more serious than this. After a first part rather lukewarm and uninteresting it gains speed, action and rhythm in the second one. The story takes place in post-Noriega Panama in a whirlwind of political intrigue, secret plotting, passion, corruption, deceit, betrayal and lust in which a more or less well intentioned and honest British citizen, himself half tailor half spy is caught with his charming wife. A rather well told and interesting story served by a good cast of players.

Quirky and Intelligent. A rare gem for true movie lovers.

[Sinnerman · 28 August 2001]

Sly references to James Bond and Casablanca aside, "The Tailor of Panama" solidly stands on its own merits.

Its quirky excesses(loopy appearances of imaginary characters and serendipitious plot development) may seem, in the beginning, a little out of place for a political spy thriller.

But it doesn't take very long for one to realise that this is NOT a political spy thriller per se. Its that rare gem of a movie where one can safely suspend one's disbelief and yet not lose touch with one's intelligence along the way(Hmmmm....).

With its tongue planted so firmly in cheek(i.e. atypical casting, a sexy double edged screenplay and 'surreal' sendups of American/ British diplomatic gamesplay), I quickly gave up figuring out what's going on and instead focused on what's going to happen. In layman speak, I "went with the flow".

Which is a good thing as I soon discovered this movie to be deliciously entertaining both for the audience as well as the actors involved(noticeably having their share of fun in the quirky performances).

This is the kind of show(sadly, not many of them around anymore)that demands your attention, but will reward you threefold if you are a willing participant.

Not wanting to sound condescending, this is not a great movie. But it is an intellectually entertaining one. Sadly, with the standards of present day popcorn fare degenerating to new depths with each passing pic, I dare to hope that one day, films like "The Tailor of Panama" will again resume its rightful place - as nothing more than just a top rate pop corn flick.

But that day may never come and by default, this show will now have to assume a pedigree normally reserved for greater films. A sad predicament indeed. But that films like these still get made at all is reason enough to hope and celebrate.

I would recommend for all true movie lovers out there to go see this show and be thankful(at least for that two hours or so) that we can temporarily forget bum-numbing stinkers like "Pearl Harbor" ever existed.

I rest my case.

Thank you and good night.

A couple of stitches missing, but still a decent fit

[Sloke · 6/10 · 5 May 2001]

"The Tailor of Panama" is an adaption of a good John le Carre novel, which is in turn an adaption of a better novel by Graham Greene. There's nothing wrong with lifting the plot of "Our Man In Havana," especially since le Carre acknowledged this at the outset and managed to do some interesting things with his story. "Tailor" is a fine rumination on the costs of political and personal deception, more downbeat than it needs to be, but le Carre isn't in the business of writing happy books, and he manages to create a pair of interesting characters, in the way-over-his-head title character, one Harry Pendel, and his more opportunistic partner-in-crime, the corrupt and corrupting British agent Andy Osnard.

The movie manages to do right by one of these characters, anyway. Pierce Brosnan is inspired casting as Osnard, a clever rake with a heart of lead. As transparent as all that is, it's hard not to like him and admire his randy gusto. Brosnan gets off some funny lines, mostly as he's getting ready to hop into bed with one of his female co-stars. Like Olivier's Richard III, you dislike him, but you can't help but be entertained and wish him better than he deserves.

I can't get behind Rush's performance, though. Part of it is the trouble of playing a character whose greatest interest in the book comes from his internal torments. Director John Boorman helps out by having Pendel be visited by the image of his dead Uncle Benny as the plot thickens, and these surreal scenes do work when they happen. But Rush seems to have based his characterization on Alec Guinness's Fagin from "Oliver Twist," and he doesn't quite have the screen presence to carry off his more over-the-top scenes. As Harvey Kornman from Blazing Saddles" might have put it, "too Jewish."

The movie does a good job of conjuring the vital, sleazy ambiance of the book's Panama City, and what Matthew Wilder in an earlier review here said so well, "the melancholy of ordinary human characters caught in the cogs of wheels too large for their imagining" which has been le Carre's M.O. since "A Small Town In Germany." The scenes in the British embassy come across particularly well, though without some of the complexities and character insights that made the same scenes more involving in the novel.

What I missed most in the movie was the sense of Pendel's bad intelligence taking on a life of its own. Here we just get the feeling right away that he is spinning some threadbare fiction no one would rightly believe if they weren't seduced by the smell of money. It doesn't help that the characters of Mickie Abraxas and Marta, Pendel's allies in the novel, are not sufficiently developed in the movie. Brendan Gleeson actually outhams Rush in the former role, while Leonor Varela is wasted in a handful of scenes and never given her proper place in the story's spotlight.

What else was wrong? Too much exposition, especially at the outset. We already know everything about Pendel's and Osnard's dicey backgrounds before the titles are over, and the novel's best scene, a cold opening of the pair meeting for the first time at Pendel's shop, is stripped of its juice because there's no reason for us to wonder why the conversation is taking the turns it does.

One improvement over the book was the ending, not as downbeat and catastrophic on film as it was on page. Seeing Osnard winging away scot-free and unbowed was nice, but the overall impact of the conclusion still leaves one cold. Does the punishment meted out to Pendel really fit his crime?

I liked this film on the whole, just not very much. I can easily understand the attraction of the story, and hope it finds the thoughtful audience it deserves. It just could have been better. How much better? Watch Sir Alec in the movie version of "Our Man In Havana" and find out. And the next time Hollywood wants to make a Graham Greene movie about flawed heroes in Latin locales, they should take a good look at still-cinematically-virgin "The Power And The Glory." Now that would make a good movie.

Enjoyable spy intrigue the way they used to make it

[huggybear-2 · 7/10 · 26 June 2001]

This film contains many standard elements of a spy thriller - the deceit, intrigue and lies, the twists and turns, the sex and money. It's a fairly typical story of a holiday in Panama, I'm sure.

What lifts this above the ordinary is the gentle pacing - the story doesn't pretend to be something it's not, but glides along, with the actors left to do their jobs. Pierce Brosnan is a lovable rogue, Geoffrey Rush convincing as the tailor, and Jamie Lee Curtis adds to the mix very nicely indeed.

Quirky, but good stuff.

Fun, Poignant

[jacob rosen · 7/10 · 15 January 2002]

Pierce Brosnan happily plays against type as a rogue British secret agent sent to Panama to be kept out of sight and instead decides to instigate trouble by getting involved with a tailor with a past (Geoffrey Rush) and his wife (Jamie Lee Curtis). John Boorman continues to explore one of his dominant themes--the tenuous bonds of family--as intelligently as he did in films such as `Where The Heart Is', `Hope And Glory' and `The Emerald Forest' and it's a reassuring feeling to find someone who finds such comfort in family. Brosnan is delightful as he subverts his James Bond persona at every turn, reveling in his tawdry exploits both sexual and manipulative; it tells us much about Brosnan's approach that he would even dare to explore the undercurrents of his image as well as that of popular film espionage. All in all, it's a fun film to watch, tastefully done and poignant.

So awful I had to comment...

[austininnc · 1/10 · 7 April 2001]

I've never felt so strongly about a film that I contributed a comment, but The Tailor of Panama is so thoroughly terrible that I couldn't resist. If my comments can save just one person from seeing this film, then I will have done a good deed.

How is it that such a bad film is garnering such positive reviews? What film are these reviewers watching? Surely it's not the one that is so sloppily edited that at times it makes no sense at all; so cheaply produced that a shot of the airplane on which Pierce Brosnan flies to Panama looks like a model airplane against a background of sky and clouds that was painted by a third grader in art class; so badly directed that Pierce Brosnan looks uncomfortable playing a British spy.

Granted, the film has some nice scenery. But, although I like Pierce Brosnan and Jamie Lee Curtis and thought Geoffrey Rush was tremendous in Quills, I thought they all stunk this one up. And the story reflects how desperate some spy writers became after the end of the Cold War took away their supply of stock bad guys and forced them to try to find new enemies and new stories to tell. Too bad that we've all met the bad guys in this movie before - standard-issue South/Central American druglords. And forget about the story, which is completely hokey and unsubtle.

Thank goodness that at least one person agrees with me about this film: whoever's in charge of marketing at Columbia. Their failure to promote the film is truly a gift to the movie-going public. In appreciation, I pledge to find a Columbia-distributed film that I like and write a positive review. I only wish that they would give me my eight dollars back from this one.

Insightful but not much deep, intelligent but not so interesting yet with some merits

[Rodrigo_Amaro · 7/10 · 31 May 2012]

The world of espionage got a little less thrilling with the end of Cold War. It survives with different complications than just two economical and political poles fighting each other and quoting a great character from a memorable film: in this war the winner isn't the one with the most bullets but the one who controls the information. And it is this still chaotic world post Cold War that an apparent simple tailor might cause a significant turbulence on a country that still crawls as being a democratic nation.

In "The Tailor of Panama" Geoffrey Rush plays Harry Pendel, a British tailor highly requested for his services by the powerful authorities of Panama, a man who seems to know anyone and everything, and he's recruited by Andy Osnard (Pierce Brosnan), a Brit secret agent at one step to finally get retired who needs good informations about what's going on in the country with the awaited return of Canal of Panama's control by the country's officers and no longer controlled by the U.S. Reluctant but wanting to save himself from his debts, Pendel accepts this "mission" and the money that comes with it but since there isn't much going on he decides to spice things a bit by inventing that the Canal is being sold to the Chinese, and that there's a silent resistance group, led by the drunk Mickey Abraxas (Brendan Gleeson), that wants to take over the power and stop the deal. Pendel's plans get to a lower level when he's forced to spy his own wife (Jamie Lee Curtis), who works for the government. Trouble is set when Osnard shares the amazing information with his bosses, that'll share it with their American cousins, then...chaos again!

John Boorman's film loses itself as being a comedy with two or three laughs, with not much depth but staying close to the original work written by John Le Carré, who paid a tribute to Graham Greene's "Our Man in Havana". When it gets serious towards the ending the plot gets some credibility. It can be said that the film followed the book's quality and intentions since it's not one of Carré's greatest works, it's quite plain, with plenty of humor but not much interesting. Same thing the movie, that on a first view will confuse its viewers with many plots that aren't so great to follow. A good film, yes, but not on the same level as other Carré's film adaptations such as "The Constant Gardener", "The Russia House" and "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy", all intriguing, attractive, seductive and interesting to follow despite the enormous spider-webs formed by the plots.

Through here, we're able to see that small, ordinary people can create huge problems that might affect a country's national security for the most stupid of reasons. Also there's a sharp criticism to agencies of intelligence, so concerned about their reputation and immersed in believing in everything they hear that they forget about their liabilities, check the facts instead of following rumors. It's all about who controls the information to win the war, even if this war is just a personal cause like getting retired in style or pay all your debts, but always remembering that many will suffer with those lies even yourself, like Pendel realizes later that things got out of control.

Mr. Rush shines as the title character, certainly the great pleasure of watching the film; Gleeson steals the show in his brief appearances; Curtis is almost purposeless as the tailor's wife, there isn't much she can do here; Brosnan plays this irresponsible agent as a James Bond with plenty of women but without the action and the fast cars, an irony since Bond is hated by Carré, who considers 007 as being a prostitute. Completing the casting there's Catherine McCormack, Harold Pinter, Gerard McSorley, Jon Polito, Martin Ferrero, Dylan Baker, Jonathan Hyde and Daniel Radcliffe, way before of his Harry Potter fame, playing Pendel's son.

Here's an amusing and intelligent work from the same director of "Deliverance" and "Hope and Glory" that deserves a view. 7/10

Abysmal

[jmmiles · 1/10 · 6 October 2001]

I hated this absurd, badly made piece of tripe. Awful, just awful. Someone said it was good to see Pierce Brosnan as a rotter. This is true, but it did nothing to save this horrible pointless film.

Exciting and Cynical, LeCarre at His Best

[gws-2 · 8/10 · 2 April 2002]

There are no heroes or villains in "The Tailor of Panama," only exploiters and victims. Some may be turned off by the cynical tone of the film. For example, Andy Osnard, the British secret agent, played by Pierce Brosnan (who else?) is a scheming sociopath, not a patriotic hero. The title character, Harry Pendel, played by Geoffrey Rush, is a liar and an ex-convict. Don't be put off by these flawed characters, though. In the great tradition of John LeCarre's characters, these devious, selfish people are endlessly interesting -- and believable. I suspect that those who did not like this film reacted as they did because of a lack of heroes and because the outcome of the machinations it depicts are sadly grotesque. Nevertheless, this is the thinking person's spy movie. Highly recommended, 8 out of 10.

Nice, intelligent motion picture!

[buiger · 7/10 · 7 January 2010]

Very good, intelligent, funny and entertaining movie.

Finally a screenplay worthy of being called that, some good dialog and excellent acting (both Rush as well as surprisingly, Brosnan). Brosnan is much more comfortable in this role than he ever was with James Bond. Here he is believable, charming and evil at the same time... On the downside, even though I am a big fan of hers, I have to admit that Jamie Lee Curtis was totally miscast as Rush's engineer wife, she doesn't even come close...

It makes you wonder whether something similar to the plot in this film could really happen (or has already happened)...

Cliched characters, sloppy directing - very disappointing

[all_wild · 1/10 · 29 April 2001]

This is easily the worst film of this century. The plot is absurd, the characters are, at best, stereotypical and, at worst, cliched and wooden. The dialogue is unimaginative, unrealistic and turgid.

I was astounded at how bad the film was as I sat watching turgid scene after turgid scene, but I kept hoping for some redeeming twist that would save it by the end. The Tailor of Panama needed the twist, but it never came. You are left with a feeling of time wasted and money thrown away - for both the viewer and the actors/filmmakers.

How nice to see Pierce Brosnan as a rotter.

[vjoyce · 27 March 2001]

How nice to see Pierce Brosnan as a rotter. Without the man-tan make up, you can actually see his freckles.

A co-production of the Irish government and Columbia Pictures, The Tailor of Panama is an old-fashioned British espionage film that is Euro-light on the violence and silhouette-discreet on the sex. No skitzy MTV editing and no hip hop trendy hits. Which may be heaven for some and limbo for others.

Starring along with the current James Bond is Geoffrey Rush and Jamie Lee Curtis. Pierce is still handsome as hell and he's still a spy. This time he's been exiled to Central America to cool his heels. Overly ambitious, he latches on to local tailor to the rich and powerful and starts to squeeze him for information becoming more ruthless and despicable with every turn. The colorful Rush obliges him with making stuff up and this leads to all kinds of intrigue. Jamie Lee reprises her wife-who-doesn't-know-her-husband-is-a-spy role that she did in True Lies, but without the little black dress. The humor is very dark and very British. The plot is reminiscent of the 1960 Alec Guinness-Ernie Kovacs gem, Our Man in Havana, an early spoof of the Bond saga.

Tailor is taken from the '96 Le Carré novel of the same name. John the spymaster shares screenplay credit along with Andrew Davies and the veddy British director John Boorman, most famous for Deliverance. Yes, this is the man responsible for Dueling Banjos. Receiving Acad noms for directing Hope and Glory and the Banjo movie, he also has a producing credit here.

This is the first film done on location in Panama so the look is fresh and it's beautifully shot by veteran, Phillipe Rousselot who is currently working on Planet of the Apes.

This film is getting almost no hype and no promotion. Again, it's very low key with no gunfire, car chases or blood. The politics of Panama are in the forefront with more than one reference to the 'Frankenstein' Noriega and how he was set him up by CIA Head, George the First, Bush that is. Ah hem.

There are some splendid character actors in the supporting cast like John Polito of TV's Homicide and Martin Ferraro of TV's Miami Vice. Playwright Harold Pinter is in the strangest cameo role you may see this year. Scoop du Jour: in the role of the Tailor's son, we get a look and the kid who will star in the Harry Potter film, Daniel Radcliffe.

There is some stock footage of the political unrest and references to the thoroughly corrupt Central American government with lines from the Tailor like, 'you know what the poor call those?' pointing to the city's skyline, 'Cocaine towers! And the 85 banks? Launderettes!' You can easily understand why the media isn't getting behind this thing. But then again Traffic didn't win best picture, Gladiator did.

Agent 007 Wakes Up

[brianoh2 · 7/10 · 10 February 2008]

Ah, it's wonderful to watch great actors ply their craft. It is a truly uplifting experience. "Don't get carried away I hear you say", but in reality this is the exception rather than the rule. Not to take anything away from the writers and directors and other professionals involved who must add much to the secret ingredients. However, in the end it is the actors that must make it all come together. I suppose it is like most things in life. People who want more than to be average and have the talent and experience to make it happen. The end result as seen from this movie is that it makes us feel part of what is happening, and not just wasting time and hoping that things will get better. From my experience they rarely do, although I have been surprised on a few occasions. No such worry with this movie - great from the start, but can it continue the high standard throughout?

Such were my thoughts after 15 minutes - but could it keep up that high standard throughout. Well, in my opinion, not quite. It was however quite well done thanks mainly to Pierce, Geoffrey, great camera work and direction. Jamie-Lee didn't overly impress me, however it was probably just the part she played that didn't provide the space necessary. Pierce really is a fine actor, and always rises to whatever occasion. He is a bit camera-shy of tourist cameras though as I found out at LAX circa 1993. Who did Geoffrey copy that Cockney accent from? Was it Michael Caine, who is proud of his? Pierce plays a rather bent 007. Perhaps he was once a 007 but now realises that after 45 they no longer need you. I note that "shengyang" uses comparisons to Casablanca. The first 15 minutes had me thinking along those lines also. It is a tall order however in the final analysis.

It is marked "Thriller" but is really a hybrid Comedy-Thriller.

Overall - 7 out of 10 in my book. Well worth seeing.

Darkly Humored and Edgy Defrocking James Bond

[LeonLouisRicci · 7/10 · 26 February 2015]

Successful in some Respects, Not so much in others, this Dark Satire on the Genre has Pierce Brosnan Showcasing a James Bond like British Spy who has Lost His Grace. The Name isn't "Bond", it's Osnard.

Nothing about this MI6 Reject is Suave, Cool, or Charming in Any Way. He Bullies His way around Panama like a Rabid Dog that has No More Instincts. The Movie has Varying Tones of Violence and Sex, most are Lurid and Repulsive.

The Script was Written by Acclaimed Spy Novelist John Le Carre from His Book. The Director is the Inconsistent John Boorman. The Film is Interesting and can Intrigue and Amuse if You let it, but some May Find it "in your face" and Anything but Subtle. It Works and then, it Doesn't.

So the Overall Effectis Wanting but those Looking for something a bit Different in the Spy Genre will most Likely Enjoy its Edge and Forgive some Clumsiness. Worth a Watch to See Brosnan Riff On His James Bond Persona and there are Enough "out there" Scenes to Capture the Anti-Hollywood Cultists.

But Mainstream Moviegoers and those Looking for more of the Same will Probably Not Appreciate the Messy Message in this Very Darkly Humored Display.

Boorman doesn't quite pull this one together.

[senortuffy · 6/10 · 26 November 2003]

This is an interesting film that doesn't quite hold together. I haven't read the Le Carré novel it was based on so don't know what the author's intentions were, but as handled by John Boorman, it's an odd mixture of humor and political commentary.

Pierce Brosnan plays a bad boy British spy, sort of a spoof of his James Bond character. His womanizing has landed him in a last chance job in Panama - not a very glamorous position. He recruits a local British tailor, played by Geoffrey Rush, who is in need of money and who wants to continue hiding his past from his wife. The tailor makes suits for the President and other well-connected people in Panama, so is a perfect choice to cultivate information.

Brosnan plays the part for laughs. His character hits on just about every woman he meets. When he and the tailor meet at a local whorehouse, he's bouncing up and down on the bed watching porn flicks and oohing and ahing. At another meeting at a gay night club, he really gets into the part and drags Rush out onto the dance floor. It appears to be a deliberate attempt to contrast with the coolness of his Bond character.

Geoffrey Rush is very good as the lovable con man who just wants to save his marriage, settle his debts, keep his property, and do what he can to support his old revolutionary pals. It's his acting skills that make this film watchable, because there are several plot holes and loose ends that leave the viewer wondering what's going on at times.

I'll have to read the novel because I suspect Le Carré wasn't writing a humorous spy story. There must be nuances that Boorman hasn't captured. It's not a bad film, and I enjoyed the acting - even Brosnan's over-the-top roguish spy - but there's something missing that should hold it all together.