Well... most reviewers have clearly told the story in depth so I feel no need to repeat it.
What I do wish to say is how disappointed I was. The opening shots, score and promised cast lured me into believing I was in for a treat.. and then found out I was wasting my time watching three hours of poorly acted, poorly directed, poorly constructed, and poorly edited drivel.
I'm curious to read the book now as I, too, wondered if this miniseries had originally been double the length and chopped down to three hours. So little seemed to fit together. Scenes were short, badly edited and disjointed regardless of whether we were in 1941 or the 70s. Whether it be the blame of the director, cinematographer or shooter the slow, sweeping camera pans, changes in depth of field, use of unnecessary angles and the overuse of the classic documentary shot "start on the top of the building and slowly pan down to the street or the characters" drove me to distraction. (Not quite as badly as the opening 15 mins of the Downton Abbey movie did before it settled down to an acceptable style). I totally agree with another reviewer that Michelle Dockery acted exactly the same as her character in Downton Abbey (Mary). They described her "plummy" accent and authoritative air perfectly. I was so put off as it didn't match her hippy garb and the fact that she'd met her ex in a commune. Not that the character couldn't have sounded like that but she was acting exactly the same in a very different role, so it was hard to watch her without thinking she was in the wrong costume. And her son? As another reviewer commented. What was the point of having him and her husband pop into the story for no reason? Most of the time she seemed to forget her lively son existed... and he was far too "down to earth" and energetic to be the son of this stoic, cardboard Mom. Again, I am left with the thought that there was more to their roles but that it ended up on the cutting room floor. But the worst part of this miniseries was the dialog and story which lacked reality, suspense, logic and drama. How other reviewers found it exciting, gripping, etc I cannot imagine. I feel they watched a different film than I did. I love the genre and comparing it to something like "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" it honestly struck me at the beginning of the second half, that maybe it was supposed to be a spoof of the genre because it was just so unbelievable. But it wasn't good enough to be. When she went off to "training" it was as if she was off to boarding school. We never saw any of the agents doing anything remotely believable as acts of espionage and none of the scenes led anywhere. Even on her first "mission" to make contact with the Dutch agent before the German arrived, she messed up and dropped her "signature" handbag at the scene. She wasn't actually supposed to do anything but observe but she couldn't even get that right. I agree with another reviewer that she seemed more like a lovesick pup than a serious spy. Nothing she did was believable and everyone was one-dimensional. There was no reason for anyone to be chasing Sally (Charlotte Rampling) after all these years and no reason for Lord Mansfield to take his own life at the sight of her. Who did she think she was expressing that his whole life would be over once she'd found him. Really? The score was also dreadful. I felt like I was watching "Jaws" the amount of times we heard the same foreboding music. Then there was the overly predictable orchestration every time something exciting was supposed to be happening. The endIng was dull and anticlimactic. I prefer to think that she really was delusional and paranoid and caused the death of an old man for absolutely no reason. She was still seeing "Reds under the beds".... so now I prefer to think that that was the whole point. But, ultimately, I just don't really care. A real shame for a series that held such promise.
I'm curious to read the book now as I, too, wondered if this miniseries had originally been double the length and chopped down to three hours. So little seemed to fit together. Scenes were short, badly edited and disjointed regardless of whether we were in 1941 or the 70s. Whether it be the blame of the director, cinematographer or shooter the slow, sweeping camera pans, changes in depth of field, use of unnecessary angles and the overuse of the classic documentary shot "start on the top of the building and slowly pan down to the street or the characters" drove me to distraction. (Not quite as badly as the opening 15 mins of the Downton Abbey movie did before it settled down to an acceptable style). I totally agree with another reviewer that Michelle Dockery acted exactly the same as her character in Downton Abbey (Mary). They described her "plummy" accent and authoritative air perfectly. I was so put off as it didn't match her hippy garb and the fact that she'd met her ex in a commune. Not that the character couldn't have sounded like that but she was acting exactly the same in a very different role, so it was hard to watch her without thinking she was in the wrong costume. And her son? As another reviewer commented. What was the point of having him and her husband pop into the story for no reason? Most of the time she seemed to forget her lively son existed... and he was far too "down to earth" and energetic to be the son of this stoic, cardboard Mom. Again, I am left with the thought that there was more to their roles but that it ended up on the cutting room floor. But the worst part of this miniseries was the dialog and story which lacked reality, suspense, logic and drama. How other reviewers found it exciting, gripping, etc I cannot imagine. I feel they watched a different film than I did. I love the genre and comparing it to something like "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" it honestly struck me at the beginning of the second half, that maybe it was supposed to be a spoof of the genre because it was just so unbelievable. But it wasn't good enough to be. When she went off to "training" it was as if she was off to boarding school. We never saw any of the agents doing anything remotely believable as acts of espionage and none of the scenes led anywhere. Even on her first "mission" to make contact with the Dutch agent before the German arrived, she messed up and dropped her "signature" handbag at the scene. She wasn't actually supposed to do anything but observe but she couldn't even get that right. I agree with another reviewer that she seemed more like a lovesick pup than a serious spy. Nothing she did was believable and everyone was one-dimensional. There was no reason for anyone to be chasing Sally (Charlotte Rampling) after all these years and no reason for Lord Mansfield to take his own life at the sight of her. Who did she think she was expressing that his whole life would be over once she'd found him. Really? The score was also dreadful. I felt like I was watching "Jaws" the amount of times we heard the same foreboding music. Then there was the overly predictable orchestration every time something exciting was supposed to be happening. The endIng was dull and anticlimactic. I prefer to think that she really was delusional and paranoid and caused the death of an old man for absolutely no reason. She was still seeing "Reds under the beds".... so now I prefer to think that that was the whole point. But, ultimately, I just don't really care. A real shame for a series that held such promise.