The Tailor of Panama (2001)

It is a performances centric movie

Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

The movie disappoints because it lacks the subtlety, intelligence and penetration of the source novel. With Le Carré on board as executive producer one could have hoped for a better adaptation, but this is not the case. Ah, well, Le Carré is a man of considerable wit - hopefully he laughed all the way to the bank...On the other hand the movie is not without merits. It does reflect some of the black wit and verve of the source novel, what with a variety of greedy, dissolute or misguided characters who evolve against the background of a Panama pulsing with threat and temptation. Also present is the profound warning against certain kinds of "politics" or "diplomacy" : treat other nations as stone-age hellholes, banana republics or pirate nests and they may very well turn into one of these things, which may be great fun in the short term but produces nothing but deepest tragedy in the long term. The cast is stellar and the performances are quite good, although the movie, as I've said before, would have benefited from greater subtlety and nuance. As it is, the characters (and with them, the actors) do not get enough room to breathe and grow naturally. This results in a number of missed opportunities : Mickie Abraxas, for instance, is just an annoying drunkard instead of a once promising and interesting person broken by mistreatment, and his egregiously unnecessary death does not feel all that sad. By the same token, our tailor does not seem all that devastated by his friend's death, nor by the knowledge that he caused that selfsame death by spreading around equal parts of lies and nonsense. Still, the depiction of Panama - or, in this case, "Panama" - is very well done : a sweltering, volatile, intrigue-riddled place where everything and anything can be sold or bartered, from firm young female flesh to the Virgin's blessings.

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.

The Tailor of Panama (2001): Dir: John Boorman / Cast: Pierce Brosnan, Geoffrey Rush, Jamie Lee Curtis, Catherine McCormack, Brendan Gleeson: Geoffrey Rush is the tailor and he served a prison sentence for dealings involving the Canal. His job is to cover up until Pierce Brosnan shows up from the British Embassy forcing him to resurrect a past that he would rather forget existed. Directed by John Boorman who previously made the suspenseful Deliverance as well as the unsuspenseful flop The Exorcist 2: The Heretic. This ranks as one of his better films with its provocative themes but it still has narrative issues. We see Rush as an individual trying to do good and live out his life trying to forget his sins. This is a different role for Brosnan and he displays a vicious side that involves blackmail. Jamie Lee Curtis is well cast as Rush's wife who knows that something just isn't right but unfortunately the screenplay throws in a pointless scene where she is seduced by Brosnan. In smaller a role is Catherine McCormack but these roles are not as broad as they could be. Brendan Gleeson is another talent but underused as well. Action and thriller fans may be reluctant to approach this due to its pacing. It is a suspenseful film about skeletons in closets and the struggle to do right again. The good news is that some relationships can withstand anything and forgiveness finds a way of healing the scars of the past. Score: 6 ½ / 10

Andy Osnard (Pierce Brosnan) is being banished to the relatively minor backwaters of Panama by MI6. There are only 200 British residents in Panama and Andy picks the tailor Harry Pendel (Geoffrey Rush) as his contact to the highest levels. At the end of 1999, the Panama canal was handed back to Panama and intelligence is vital for its uncertain future. Harry's wife Louisa (Jamie Lee Curtis) works for the head of the Canal Commission Ernie Delgado. Harry is in terrible debt after buying a farm and he needs money by the end of the month. Harry has a checkered arsonist past which Andy uses as well as lots of money to get an insight into the corrupt and seedy politics. Mickie Abraxas (Brendan Gleeson) is a former Noriega opponent drunken loud-mouth angry nobody, but Harry spins him into a leader of the 'Silent Opposition'.Based on a John le Carré novel, this has a great deal in common with Graham Greene's 'Our Man in Havana'. It suffers from the comparison. The atmosphere in 50s Cuba is just so much more tense and more exotic than 2000 Panama. Graham Greene had the cold war. This movie can't even fall back on a Noriega. They have something much more pedestrian and common; corruption. The acting is solid. Pierce Brosnan is playing Bond without the action. Geoffrey Rush can definitely spin a tale. Brendan Gleeson feels very old school stereotype white man in Latin America. I'd rather have a latino actor. There is a generally fascinating little story. The point where the movie lost me is the Americans. The meeting at the Pentagon is cartoonish from another era. Instead of a poignant indictment, this one degenerates into a silly farce.