UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Thriller >

A Different Loyalty

A Different Loyalty (2004)

May. 16,2004
|
4.9
|
R
| Thriller Romance

In January 1963, British journalist Leo Cauffield suddenly disappears from his home in Beirut. His wife Sally knew that he was working part-time for British intelligence, but was not prepared to be told by the British embassy that they suspect he has defected to Communist Russia. As his wife puts together the pieces of the mysterious jigsaw of the past, tracking her passionate relationship with her husband and his history as former head of MI6’s counter-espionage section, her relentless search for the truth takes her to London, New York and finally Moscow.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Micitype
2004/05/16

Pretty Good

More
Kaydan Christian
2004/05/17

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

More
Logan
2004/05/18

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

More
Justina
2004/05/19

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

More
HardToPlease
2004/05/20

The DVD packaging describes this movies as a thriller, and as if to underline that, shows a picture of helicopters circling an exploding van while a guy with a gun runs away.This movie is not a thriller, and there are no explosions or helicopters. (What was that on the packaging? Clip art?) When I'm in the mood for explosions and helicopters, it's a disappointment to bring home a movie that instead has as its big moments someone breaking down a door or fingerprinting someone.This movie is a rambling, disjointed drama. It wasn't completely awful, but was like real life in that the story doesn't completely make sense and doesn't work artistically. (And if they'd shown one more Casablanca-esquire foggy airfield, I'd have screamed.) It's just a bunch of confusing stuff that happens, and then other stuff happens, and who cares about any of those people? And we spent the first 45 minutes trying to tell the various dark-haired women apart. Or maybe they were all the same woman. Still don't know.

More
Vampenguin
2004/05/21

For me, the biggest thing that can make or break a movie is it's characters. The characters in this film, however, had about as much depth as a Kleenex. For the first half hour or so of the film, I found myself thinking "Who cares?". Basically, we're introduced to two people who meet and fall madly in love....in the first 5 minutes of the movie. No character development to speak of, and they certainly didn't change or grow during the course of the movie. Everett and Stone had zero chemistry, so the love scenes just looked forced and awkward. On top of all this, the film had no flow to it what-so-ever; it cut back and forth so quick and so often it was hard to keep track. Somehow it did manage to keep my attention throughout, so I guess that buys it a few points....but in general, this is a very poor film. Don't bother wasting 100 minutes of your life, watch something else.2.5/10

More
Rick Jones
2004/05/22

Sharon Stone turned in a very strong performance as the wife of Kim Philby the British double agent. Why the producers chose not to use real names nor to do some basic research about the Soviet Union in the 1960s is a mystery.One viewer already has made the point that many technical mistakes in the film were made. Least of which is the view of Christ the Savior Cathedral that was rebuilt in the 1990s and did not exist in Moscow in the 1960s. Additional mistakes include Aerorus instead of Aeroflot and probably the encounter that Sharon Stone had with the CIA in the USA. It would have been the FBI and any meeting would have taken place at the local Federal Building to protect the FBI agents from any accusations. The biggest error was the continual use of the word Russia or Russian for Soviet Union. When I lived in Leningrad as a student in 1974 one rarely heard the word Russia. It was only used in the context of language or culture but never in terms of governance like the Russian Embassy, Russian government etc.. in the USSR. There was great emphasis on the use of the word Soviet Union.In general, the movie was a bit slow, there was some effort at moral equivalence between the West and the USSR but the acting was good and most viewers will draw the conclusion that a great drama was played out not only between the Philby character and his country but also with his wife and family.

More
Bubba JIojo
2004/05/23

I just saw A different loyalty on DVD, and was very pleasantly surprised (especially after seeing the trailer). The story was extremely interesting and powerful. Sharon Stone and Rupert Everett were both fine in their parts, though their love story wasn't made completely believable (the second half of the movie was by far better than the beginning, and Sharon Stone actually did a great job portraying this woman). It took me a while to get used to the looks of the movie, though (I'm still not sure why the flashbacks looked so much like an erotic movie from the 70ies). But what an incredible story and a great and subtle script.

More