31 reviews
In this film the adage "truth is stranger than fiction" is well demonstrated. The real story of Vladimir Vetrov, the KBG Colonel who leaked vital details of the Soviet spy network to the West in the early 1980's is even more bizarre that the story related here, where Colonel Sergei Gregoriev (Emir Kursturica) uses a French electronics engineer Pierre Froment (Guillaume Canet), resident in Moscow, to pass secrets to the French domestic intelligence agency, the DST, and on to the CIA. Sergei ruled out using the DSGT, the French external intelligence service because he was aware it had been penetrated by the KGB. As it is the story here is a little lacking in tension despite the larger than life Sergei becoming more and more reckless as the story progresses .Some of the minor parts are pure vaudeville, Fred Ward's Ronald Reagan for example. However the two principals Kursturica and Canet, both prominent film directors, completely contrasting personalities, are very convincing. The 80's cold war atmosphere is well re-created – even the credits are vaguely menacing.
As in several recent spy stories "based on real events" the viewer is left with the impression that the West and Soviets had so thoroughly penetrated each other's security defences that they might as well have monthly meetings to hand over each other's secrets. This story does suggest that the Soviet Union was not able to keep up with Western technology, particularly in computing, and in resorting to stealing software the Soviets sowed the seeds of their downfall. In one instance the West was able to feed the Soviets with enough crook software to cripple their gas pipelines and cause a truly big explosion (without injuring a single person, apparently).
We do get considerable insight into what motivated Sergei, if not Vetrov (who seems to have been a less admirable character). Sergei is s true believer in communism, but he also fiercely loves his son, whom he wants to inherit something worthwhile. In a way the movie is as much about a parent sacrificing themselves for the sake of their child than the old spy versus spy routine. Froment is a less interesting character, but something inside him keeps him involved with the egregious Sergei despite his own misgivings and that of his wife Jessica (a refugee from East Germany with good reason to be afraid). Perhaps it's the opportunity for an otherwise unremarkable person to do something important. Or maybe he just finds it hard to say "non" to a person as charismatic as Sergei.
This film is not an "edge of your seat" suspense thriller but it tells an absorbing story, and is a useful reminder of the spy paranoia that prospered during the cold war.
As in several recent spy stories "based on real events" the viewer is left with the impression that the West and Soviets had so thoroughly penetrated each other's security defences that they might as well have monthly meetings to hand over each other's secrets. This story does suggest that the Soviet Union was not able to keep up with Western technology, particularly in computing, and in resorting to stealing software the Soviets sowed the seeds of their downfall. In one instance the West was able to feed the Soviets with enough crook software to cripple their gas pipelines and cause a truly big explosion (without injuring a single person, apparently).
We do get considerable insight into what motivated Sergei, if not Vetrov (who seems to have been a less admirable character). Sergei is s true believer in communism, but he also fiercely loves his son, whom he wants to inherit something worthwhile. In a way the movie is as much about a parent sacrificing themselves for the sake of their child than the old spy versus spy routine. Froment is a less interesting character, but something inside him keeps him involved with the egregious Sergei despite his own misgivings and that of his wife Jessica (a refugee from East Germany with good reason to be afraid). Perhaps it's the opportunity for an otherwise unremarkable person to do something important. Or maybe he just finds it hard to say "non" to a person as charismatic as Sergei.
This film is not an "edge of your seat" suspense thriller but it tells an absorbing story, and is a useful reminder of the spy paranoia that prospered during the cold war.
Farewell is a spy drama set in Moscow/Russia in the early 1980's. It stars Guillaume Canet and Emir Custarica, both noted directors in their own rights.It is based on real events with the basic story correct though the nature of the two leading characters and a few events are somewhat changed or omitted.
The plot centres around the leaking of Russian intelligence to the French government. Sergei (Canet) works for the Russian secret service but has been recruited by (or volunteered to) the French government to pass intelligence data from his office. Sergei is doing this for purely moral reasons arguing that it will one day bring the system down and give his son a better future. His contact is a French engineer working in Moscow, Pierre, coerced in to helping by the French government and operating as Sergei's dropping point. The story develops around the personal relationship between Sergei and Pierre and also that of their families. Sergei is confident and casual but ultimately a little careless. While Pierre becomes paranoid and with his young family in tow begins to feel the stress.
The data turns out to industrial espionage on everything from the Space Shuttle to the US defence strategy and even secret communication codes. When the American are shown the information by the French (in a neat piece of one-upmanship) it is only a matter of time before action has to be taken and lives are in danger.
The pace is slow and constant and never flat. Tantalisingly delicate, a very light brush from the director allows the actors to communicate in manner rarely seen in Hollywood films. Similar with the cinematography which is used sparingly and always to accentuate the story. Watch out for the early scene where they first meet which simply says 'spies'. Then the scenes of northern Russia in winter.
This is a very smart film with excellent understated performances from all the cast. Watch out for several more famous actors in cameo and small roles. Fred Ward playing Ronald Reagan looks positively weird though they get away with it.
If you arrived here before viewing be sure, it is well worth watching. Spy Game plus.
The plot centres around the leaking of Russian intelligence to the French government. Sergei (Canet) works for the Russian secret service but has been recruited by (or volunteered to) the French government to pass intelligence data from his office. Sergei is doing this for purely moral reasons arguing that it will one day bring the system down and give his son a better future. His contact is a French engineer working in Moscow, Pierre, coerced in to helping by the French government and operating as Sergei's dropping point. The story develops around the personal relationship between Sergei and Pierre and also that of their families. Sergei is confident and casual but ultimately a little careless. While Pierre becomes paranoid and with his young family in tow begins to feel the stress.
The data turns out to industrial espionage on everything from the Space Shuttle to the US defence strategy and even secret communication codes. When the American are shown the information by the French (in a neat piece of one-upmanship) it is only a matter of time before action has to be taken and lives are in danger.
The pace is slow and constant and never flat. Tantalisingly delicate, a very light brush from the director allows the actors to communicate in manner rarely seen in Hollywood films. Similar with the cinematography which is used sparingly and always to accentuate the story. Watch out for the early scene where they first meet which simply says 'spies'. Then the scenes of northern Russia in winter.
This is a very smart film with excellent understated performances from all the cast. Watch out for several more famous actors in cameo and small roles. Fred Ward playing Ronald Reagan looks positively weird though they get away with it.
If you arrived here before viewing be sure, it is well worth watching. Spy Game plus.
Farewell is the wrought piece of espionage spy fiction you didn't really expect to be as good as it is; as is often the case, films and film-makers take it upon themselves to entrust that elements of espionage and distrust between superpowers, or people therein epitomising superpowers, should make for crash-bang, explosive viewing involving very little narrative; very little character and a whole lot of wooden spectacle. It is with open arms then, that we welcome in Christian Carion's 2011 film Farewell; the anti-thesis to Mission Impossible: II or a badly drawn Bond film of the post-Dalton era. The film is one of its ilk that happens to have both a soul and a brain; these characters are people involved in international espionage and some rather dangerous stuff, but they are people involved in such things whilst doing their utmost to maintain families; they are people involved in what they're in, of whom enjoy playing tennis and reading poetry and listening to Queen – they are human beings; they can be overweight; they can wear glasses; they can relax by watching a Western, they are not stock action heroes of a ridiculously photogenic nature; they are not James Bonds darting around in sports cars out-peddling a space orientated laser beam.
The scene epitomising how Farewell really is different to most others of its ilk arrives with a snappy sequence set on a park bench between two people; as might be considered standard with any film of this ilk, we witness such a sequence that is often the first thing people think of when certain genre buzz words are mentioned. Here, the already seated man witnesses another slump down next to him so that they may continue their business – business which would result in serious ramifications should either of them be caught. Instead of cutting to the chase and prolonging causality, the new arrival first mutters about how he hates the fact he is having an affair with someone away from his marriage; that his son knows all about it and, he feels, hates him as a result. Such is the film's nature to take something familiar to the genre, or something with which we will identify, and spin it around to encompass character; to encompass problems away from what would usually be the sole and lone body of content; to take an instance as stereotypical as two blokes meeting on a park bench and incorporate some sort of air of both naturality and substance to proceedings.
The sense that we're being treated like adults begins with the opening sequence, a procession of found footage depicting numerous things Cold-war orientated ranging from shots taken from the fronts of the Vietnam War to numerous technological advancements of the 1970s alluding to the Space Race. All of it is Cold-War orientated and it arrives without voice-overs informing us of what's what and why we're seeing what we're seeing; there is no brief expositional history lesson. Guillaume Canet pays Pierre Froment, an engineer living in Russia with his family of wife and young daughter; the man observes a television set displaying a McEnroe-Borg tennis match, this sense of there being a fondness for that of duelling; a fondness of keeping up with how two super-powers in a respective field are getting along in their long, intense rivalry prominent.
The film is a double-stranded piece, a piece flicking between two men occupying Moscow in the early 1980s doing their utmost to transfer information from secretive sources onto the Americans, and that of the American president of the time in Ronald Reagan (Ward), no less, who dishes it out to his international colleagues, particularly that of then-French Socialist President François Mitterrand (Magnan), when he isn't confining with his own. Pierre's friend is Emir Kusturica's large, life-weary Soviet native to their surroundings Sergei Gregoriev; a man with his own wife and son with whom he does not get along. Sergei uses Pierre as a half-way house in his delivering of top-secret Soviet intelligence which eventually make their way through to the upper-echelons of The White House, a premise spun out by director Carion to really good effect as we delve into this world of lies and power-play.
In spite of the two strands and the array of characters, ranging from this lowly Frenchman to the President of the United States himself, it is Pierre's film; a man caught up in this mucky pool of grime and maltrust and having it go on to affect his home life and general well-being. In a subway fairly early on, it is established how efficient and how clinical the police state work; their picking up of an unknown woman after the insinuation Pierre is in trouble reiterates what he is up against - the verbal establishment beforehand of Pierre's inexperience within this field follows that of Sergei's infiltrating of the backseat to his car with enough ease to fool Pierre as to his even being there. In this regard, the tension is often palpable; if for the fact we often fear Pierre's capture, something that would not stop the film from carrying on with one of its other equilibriums but as to whether his actions will destroy his exemplary home situation and those he holds dear to him. Farewell is the spy thriller peering in at the private lives of these people; the primary stuff about passing on information and keeping informants secret acting as a mere premise to fascinating accounts of how these people exist with themselves; with their families and with one another, the bulk of it making for really good value – you could sure do worse for a thriller.
The scene epitomising how Farewell really is different to most others of its ilk arrives with a snappy sequence set on a park bench between two people; as might be considered standard with any film of this ilk, we witness such a sequence that is often the first thing people think of when certain genre buzz words are mentioned. Here, the already seated man witnesses another slump down next to him so that they may continue their business – business which would result in serious ramifications should either of them be caught. Instead of cutting to the chase and prolonging causality, the new arrival first mutters about how he hates the fact he is having an affair with someone away from his marriage; that his son knows all about it and, he feels, hates him as a result. Such is the film's nature to take something familiar to the genre, or something with which we will identify, and spin it around to encompass character; to encompass problems away from what would usually be the sole and lone body of content; to take an instance as stereotypical as two blokes meeting on a park bench and incorporate some sort of air of both naturality and substance to proceedings.
The sense that we're being treated like adults begins with the opening sequence, a procession of found footage depicting numerous things Cold-war orientated ranging from shots taken from the fronts of the Vietnam War to numerous technological advancements of the 1970s alluding to the Space Race. All of it is Cold-War orientated and it arrives without voice-overs informing us of what's what and why we're seeing what we're seeing; there is no brief expositional history lesson. Guillaume Canet pays Pierre Froment, an engineer living in Russia with his family of wife and young daughter; the man observes a television set displaying a McEnroe-Borg tennis match, this sense of there being a fondness for that of duelling; a fondness of keeping up with how two super-powers in a respective field are getting along in their long, intense rivalry prominent.
The film is a double-stranded piece, a piece flicking between two men occupying Moscow in the early 1980s doing their utmost to transfer information from secretive sources onto the Americans, and that of the American president of the time in Ronald Reagan (Ward), no less, who dishes it out to his international colleagues, particularly that of then-French Socialist President François Mitterrand (Magnan), when he isn't confining with his own. Pierre's friend is Emir Kusturica's large, life-weary Soviet native to their surroundings Sergei Gregoriev; a man with his own wife and son with whom he does not get along. Sergei uses Pierre as a half-way house in his delivering of top-secret Soviet intelligence which eventually make their way through to the upper-echelons of The White House, a premise spun out by director Carion to really good effect as we delve into this world of lies and power-play.
In spite of the two strands and the array of characters, ranging from this lowly Frenchman to the President of the United States himself, it is Pierre's film; a man caught up in this mucky pool of grime and maltrust and having it go on to affect his home life and general well-being. In a subway fairly early on, it is established how efficient and how clinical the police state work; their picking up of an unknown woman after the insinuation Pierre is in trouble reiterates what he is up against - the verbal establishment beforehand of Pierre's inexperience within this field follows that of Sergei's infiltrating of the backseat to his car with enough ease to fool Pierre as to his even being there. In this regard, the tension is often palpable; if for the fact we often fear Pierre's capture, something that would not stop the film from carrying on with one of its other equilibriums but as to whether his actions will destroy his exemplary home situation and those he holds dear to him. Farewell is the spy thriller peering in at the private lives of these people; the primary stuff about passing on information and keeping informants secret acting as a mere premise to fascinating accounts of how these people exist with themselves; with their families and with one another, the bulk of it making for really good value – you could sure do worse for a thriller.
- johnnyboyz
- Nov 5, 2011
- Permalink
I had some previous knowledge of the Farewell-affair, so i came in knowing pretty much what to expect. On the whole they seemed to pull it off pretty well. The one thing that did grate me though were the scenes with Ronald Reagan in them. The acting and dialogue in those are way under par for the movie and seriously impacted my enjoyment of the rest of it.
But yeah. If you want the reverse Snowden then this is the movie for you. The pacing is all right. It is not horribly complicated, as far as spy thrillers go.
A tense dropoff here, an escape here, some exposition of character motivation, some family drama, a whiff of secrecy and an outcome which is never in doubt.
But yeah. If you want the reverse Snowden then this is the movie for you. The pacing is all right. It is not horribly complicated, as far as spy thrillers go.
A tense dropoff here, an escape here, some exposition of character motivation, some family drama, a whiff of secrecy and an outcome which is never in doubt.
- jr-832-233403
- Jan 30, 2015
- Permalink
- Eumenides_0
- Aug 15, 2010
- Permalink
Serguei Kostine's book 'Bonjour Farewell' serves as the source of the historical moments of one of the most important fractures in the Cold War in 1981 - the act of valor of Sergei Gregoriev - and the script for this very important and controversial film was written by Eric Reynaud and Christian Carion who also directed this stunning film (he is best remembered for his brilliant 'Joyeux Noël' which incidentally starred many of the actors in this film). It is a disturbing movie to watch, a film that was condemned by the Russian government, disallowing filming in Moscow - except for some undercover camera work for an apparent Coca-Cola commercial, and refusing to allow Russian actors to take part in the project. It reveals the brutality of the Communist regime of the time, a period Russia would prefer to remain occult
The story is somewhat convoluted, a fact that makes it even more revealing of the nature of espionage work at the time. Sergei Gregoriev (Emir Kusturica) passes secret documents to French spy Pierre Froment (Guillaume Canet) living in Moscow with his wife (Alexandra Maria Lara), documents so important that Froment must take extraordinary risks to pass them to the US Government. In the US President Reagan (Fred Ward) must balance the importance of these documents with the balance of relationships with the French government under François Mitterrand (Philippe Magnan) it is a tense struggle for power and at the crux of it is Froment and the ultimately captured Gregoriev who is tortured to reveal his French espionage contact. The rush to finish at the end of the film is breathtaking and heartbreaking. There is a conversation between Froment and the US Feeney (Willem Dafoe) that places the soul of the Cold War years in perspective.
Every aspect of this film is involving - the acting is first rate from everyone involved, the pacing is in the fashion edge of the seat direction, and the sharing of the innermost secrets of espionage is information we all should study. A reenactment of the Reagan/Gorbachev era as well defined as any film has dared to show us. Not only is this excellent filmmaking, but it is also information about a man's (Sergei Gregoriev) sacrifice that deserve honor.
Grady Harp
The story is somewhat convoluted, a fact that makes it even more revealing of the nature of espionage work at the time. Sergei Gregoriev (Emir Kusturica) passes secret documents to French spy Pierre Froment (Guillaume Canet) living in Moscow with his wife (Alexandra Maria Lara), documents so important that Froment must take extraordinary risks to pass them to the US Government. In the US President Reagan (Fred Ward) must balance the importance of these documents with the balance of relationships with the French government under François Mitterrand (Philippe Magnan) it is a tense struggle for power and at the crux of it is Froment and the ultimately captured Gregoriev who is tortured to reveal his French espionage contact. The rush to finish at the end of the film is breathtaking and heartbreaking. There is a conversation between Froment and the US Feeney (Willem Dafoe) that places the soul of the Cold War years in perspective.
Every aspect of this film is involving - the acting is first rate from everyone involved, the pacing is in the fashion edge of the seat direction, and the sharing of the innermost secrets of espionage is information we all should study. A reenactment of the Reagan/Gorbachev era as well defined as any film has dared to show us. Not only is this excellent filmmaking, but it is also information about a man's (Sergei Gregoriev) sacrifice that deserve honor.
Grady Harp
- gelman@attglobal.net
- Jul 30, 2011
- Permalink
FAREWELL is an elegant depiction of Cold War espionage based on true events that proved catalytic to the demise of the Soviet Union. Pierre Froment (Guillame Canet), a French businessman who is 'above suspicion' due to his amateur status, is compelled to deliver high level intelligence from reckless, disillusioned KGB veteran Sergei Grigoriev (Emir Kusturica) to Reagan's cabinet via François Mitterrand, thereby crippling Soviet intelligence.
Whilst Froment and Grigoriev convincingly resemble weary bureaucrats, scenes in the White House lack credibility - perhaps an attempt at satire by Carion, they are nevertheless rendered redundant by the sombre refinement of the film. Cultural boundaries between East and West deliver brief comic reprieve, and signal the imminent disintegration of an already stagnant regime.
Suffused with nostalgia, we observe Brezhnev-era Moscow cast in the lurid yellow light of street-lamps, or bleached white by lens flare, with an effortless attention to detail - Muscovites stand in endless queues on street corners as Soviet vehicles roam empty boulevards flanked by Socialist realist statues. Subterranean scenes add a noir aesthetic, reflecting the shades of deception throughout - in the words of Grigoriev; "I live in lies and solitude".
Kusturica gives a shatteringly affecting performance, conveying Grigoriev's wistful patriotism and hope for his son's future with a rare eloquence. Carion creates real suspense and accommodates subtle plot twists, but there are no cheap thrills here- the film defies the brash conventions of its genre. Understated, fluid camera-work and dedicated performances deliver a film of classic style and depth. 5 out of 5
Cambridge Film Festival Daily
Whilst Froment and Grigoriev convincingly resemble weary bureaucrats, scenes in the White House lack credibility - perhaps an attempt at satire by Carion, they are nevertheless rendered redundant by the sombre refinement of the film. Cultural boundaries between East and West deliver brief comic reprieve, and signal the imminent disintegration of an already stagnant regime.
Suffused with nostalgia, we observe Brezhnev-era Moscow cast in the lurid yellow light of street-lamps, or bleached white by lens flare, with an effortless attention to detail - Muscovites stand in endless queues on street corners as Soviet vehicles roam empty boulevards flanked by Socialist realist statues. Subterranean scenes add a noir aesthetic, reflecting the shades of deception throughout - in the words of Grigoriev; "I live in lies and solitude".
Kusturica gives a shatteringly affecting performance, conveying Grigoriev's wistful patriotism and hope for his son's future with a rare eloquence. Carion creates real suspense and accommodates subtle plot twists, but there are no cheap thrills here- the film defies the brash conventions of its genre. Understated, fluid camera-work and dedicated performances deliver a film of classic style and depth. 5 out of 5
Cambridge Film Festival Daily
- cambridgefilmfest
- Sep 27, 2010
- Permalink
It's 1981 in Moscow. Pierre Froment (Guillaume Canet) is low level French diplomat who meets Soviet colonel Sergei Gregoriev (Emir Kusturica). Sergei is dismissive of the young diplomat at first. He has a rebellious son at home. He wants to change the world, change the USSR, and sees himself as a patriot. He has an affair with a colleague. Mitterrand keeps the information closely guarded using the information as currency with American president Reagan. Sergei is given the code name 'Farewell'.
Based on a book, this has the sound of truth and that's what so compelling. It's not a Bond movie or even a gritty convoluted spy thriller. The meetings are so mundane and so easy. It's not a movie high in tension except for the ending. This is a spy movie with the feel of the real world. It's about a flawed human being but he's never inhuman. There are many changes to the real story. All I know is that it has a sense of the real world.
Based on a book, this has the sound of truth and that's what so compelling. It's not a Bond movie or even a gritty convoluted spy thriller. The meetings are so mundane and so easy. It's not a movie high in tension except for the ending. This is a spy movie with the feel of the real world. It's about a flawed human being but he's never inhuman. There are many changes to the real story. All I know is that it has a sense of the real world.
- SnoopyStyle
- Aug 1, 2014
- Permalink
My film group and I saw "Farewell" at Rendez-Vous with French Cinema at Lincoln Center in New York. We all loved it. I do hope it will have a commercial release soon so more people can see it. The acting was superb, the screenplay riveting. We did not know the story so we were kept on the edges of our seats. I gained a lot of insights into what was going on in the cold war and emerged with a very different take on what had happened and increased appreciation for the leaders of France and the U. S. and appreciation for the brave Russian agent and what he did for the world. I am looking forward to reading the book on which the film was based. The opening and closing were so beautiful and meaningful -- the meaning only grasped at the end. I will never forget them.
- dorothyjdavis
- May 18, 2010
- Permalink
A good if a bit talky spy thriller from France that fictionalizes the real case of Vladimir Vetrov, a high ranking spy from the KGB who in the early 1980s and under the code name Farewell gave to the DST, the French internal security service, a massive dossier of files that showed how the Soviets were stealing massively Western technology. The French decided to pass the files to the United States, a convenient thing to do since the Reagan Administration was very suspicious of president François Mitterrand having several communist ministers in his cabinet (Fred Ward has a funny cameo in the movie as Ronald Reagan; Willem Dafoe appears as the CIA director).
In the movie Vetrov is called Grigoriev and is played by the famous Serbian director Emir Kusturica. For dramatic reasons, the importance of these files is exaggerated in the movie; they are said to include all sort of things, even diplomatic codes which they did not and the dossier is somehow connected with the decision to announce the Star Wars weapons program. In the film, and since embassy personnel was under surveillance from the KGB, the DST decides to use as a contact with Grigoriev a French engineer working in Moscow for the Thomson firm (who is played by Guillaume Canet as a nervous Woody Allen type guy; Alexandra Maria Lara plays his wife who is obviously shocked when she learns her nerdy husband moonlights as a spy).
Directed by Christian Carion, who made the very good World War I drama Joyeux Noel the film is especially fine in the reconstruction of the early 1980s and especially the Soviet Union at the time (Moscow is shown here as surprisingly sunny; if a movie based on this case have been made during the Cold War, Moscow would have looked surely much more gloomy and sinister). A good effort.
In the movie Vetrov is called Grigoriev and is played by the famous Serbian director Emir Kusturica. For dramatic reasons, the importance of these files is exaggerated in the movie; they are said to include all sort of things, even diplomatic codes which they did not and the dossier is somehow connected with the decision to announce the Star Wars weapons program. In the film, and since embassy personnel was under surveillance from the KGB, the DST decides to use as a contact with Grigoriev a French engineer working in Moscow for the Thomson firm (who is played by Guillaume Canet as a nervous Woody Allen type guy; Alexandra Maria Lara plays his wife who is obviously shocked when she learns her nerdy husband moonlights as a spy).
Directed by Christian Carion, who made the very good World War I drama Joyeux Noel the film is especially fine in the reconstruction of the early 1980s and especially the Soviet Union at the time (Moscow is shown here as surprisingly sunny; if a movie based on this case have been made during the Cold War, Moscow would have looked surely much more gloomy and sinister). A good effort.
- Chris Knipp
- Mar 1, 2010
- Permalink
- leplatypus
- Sep 25, 2009
- Permalink
This is a very empowering, true-story about one man, Sergei Gregoriev, who probably did more to bring down the Communist government in Russia - and end the cold war - than any other person who ever lived! This man should be honored by a postage stamp in every Western country in the world and in every high school history textbook! What an incredibly brave human being!
I gained a lot of insights from watching this amazing film. The Russians lost an estimated 26 million people during World War 2. That's 1 in 3 people that died in all of World War 2 did so within the borders of the Soviet Union! I can only imagine the trauma and paranoia that was inflicted on the survivors who later then came to power. It didn't help either that a monster was at the head of government (Stalin) from 1924 to 1953. And, you wonder why the Soviets had a such a mind-boggling intelligence apparatus established throughout the United States? Once this network of spies was dismantled, the Soviet leadership was blind! Out of fear they bankrupted themselves on military spending because they could no longer accurately assess what actual threats the United States posed to them!
Sergei Gregoriev, knew how his government would react to such a threat and he sacrificed everything to make it happen. I don't think he would be happy with the gangster capitalism that took Communism's place. But at least there are no more brutal wars fought in desperately poor countries, which have cost millions of lives because of the Cold War! Future generations will thank you for your sacrifice, Sergei Gregoriev!
I gained a lot of insights from watching this amazing film. The Russians lost an estimated 26 million people during World War 2. That's 1 in 3 people that died in all of World War 2 did so within the borders of the Soviet Union! I can only imagine the trauma and paranoia that was inflicted on the survivors who later then came to power. It didn't help either that a monster was at the head of government (Stalin) from 1924 to 1953. And, you wonder why the Soviets had a such a mind-boggling intelligence apparatus established throughout the United States? Once this network of spies was dismantled, the Soviet leadership was blind! Out of fear they bankrupted themselves on military spending because they could no longer accurately assess what actual threats the United States posed to them!
Sergei Gregoriev, knew how his government would react to such a threat and he sacrificed everything to make it happen. I don't think he would be happy with the gangster capitalism that took Communism's place. But at least there are no more brutal wars fought in desperately poor countries, which have cost millions of lives because of the Cold War! Future generations will thank you for your sacrifice, Sergei Gregoriev!
- liberalgems
- Sep 4, 2010
- Permalink
What a brilliant movie. Spies, lies,twisted mind games. No explosions, no bullets, no exciting background music, no old hat tricks. Inspite of that, or better, because of that, tense, suspenseful and original movie. Real spies are not superheroes, flying through the air, ducking hundreds of bullets, overpowering dozens of villains with their martial arts skills unparalleled in the universe. Most of the time they happen to be, timid or coerced or dedicated to a cause. Their job is not glamorous, they scurry like rats in a dark alley, they sweat and smell,sometimes they live, most of the time they die. Finally the real spy movie, deep and harsh, leaving the sickening feeling. As usual the decent, courageous people get shoved aside or get killed for a higher cause- saving some ambitious creep's ass.
- sergepesic
- Jun 10, 2012
- Permalink
I couldn't convince my friends to keep watching the film with me, and me myself, I ended up watching it just to complete it with no great expectations after the first half.
Historical facts are not such revealing as we would like, sure there are a couple of facts of great impact, but still I was hoping for more.
The acting of the main characters was decent, although Fremont was kind of cheesy; but the acting from the American side, especially Dafoe, was awful, so lame I didn't want to hear their part. Reagan was kind of over-portrayed.
The end was as dull as the rest of the film.
Just because it is an extraordinary story (rea life one) it deserves up to 5 stars.
Historical facts are not such revealing as we would like, sure there are a couple of facts of great impact, but still I was hoping for more.
The acting of the main characters was decent, although Fremont was kind of cheesy; but the acting from the American side, especially Dafoe, was awful, so lame I didn't want to hear their part. Reagan was kind of over-portrayed.
The end was as dull as the rest of the film.
Just because it is an extraordinary story (rea life one) it deserves up to 5 stars.
- ercarvajal
- Jul 23, 2011
- Permalink
We just returned from seeing this film as part of the Annual French Film Festival at Boston's Museum of Fine Arts, 7/10/10. In the U.S., we have an expression sometimes used to express one's admiration for a certain talented actor/actress who is riveting to watch on screen.I will use this expression here w/ regards to the lead actor, " I could watch Emir Kusturica read the phone book". It is his performance more than any other single factor, that causes me to think very highly of this film.It is a rare thing to watch a film about a real life hero without seeing a film that is also maudlin, clichéd or too simplistic.
But in "Farewell" I felt that the story was compelling,and the screenplay was well written,economical, completely believable and well acted.There were no unnecessary scenes and the whole thing mostly made sense, as sad as that sense was.The cinematography was crummy, but you can't have everything.Besides,I was so mesmerized by K's performance that I didn't really care that much about the cinematography, because my eyes were always focused in on him.As I exited the theater I felt like I had just been hit by a truck, and I am still feeling this film.
But in "Farewell" I felt that the story was compelling,and the screenplay was well written,economical, completely believable and well acted.There were no unnecessary scenes and the whole thing mostly made sense, as sad as that sense was.The cinematography was crummy, but you can't have everything.Besides,I was so mesmerized by K's performance that I didn't really care that much about the cinematography, because my eyes were always focused in on him.As I exited the theater I felt like I had just been hit by a truck, and I am still feeling this film.
- film_ophile
- Jul 9, 2010
- Permalink
Farewell is a French film in French, English and Russian, but with English subtitles. The film is based on the book Bonjour Farewell by Serguei Kostine. The film takes place in the early 1980's and is about a Russian internal security officer named Sergei, who is fed up with the current communist government and decides to take Soviet documents and secret information to the government of France, under President Mitterrand, who himself is a socialist, but is working in coalition with the communists. Sergei hopes that by doing this he could bring about a change in the Soviet Union. Sergei realizes that he can not do it alone, so he gets the help of a French engineer named Pierre Froment, who is based out of Moscow, to help him with his mission. During the film both men will come under suspicion of family members and those around them and at times they even doubt each other, but Sergei is bound and determined to succeed with his mission. Before, I saw Farewell, I knew very little about it, but had seen and read some of the great reviews it had been receiving. It took me a little while to sort of get caught up with the characters and all the events that were going on during the film, but in the end I found myself loving the film. I am glad that I decided to go see Farewell, instead of skipping it altogether. I think the fact that it was about espionage worried me, because I really am not a fan of the usual James Bond type espionage and spy films. Farewell thankfully turned out to be something different. Instead of a lot of action, car chases and the usual high tech gimmicks and story lines that are pumped out in the American versions of these type of films (and I guess the British, seeing as they created James Bond), we are instead taken down a different route, where we are introduced to these two men and we really get to know the two of them well during the length of the film and we even start to care about them. We see them go about their daily lives with things going on at home and raising families, but these two also are passionate people and they are doing what they are doing for what they consider to be the best thing for them and their country and families. This film took a more personal approach by letting us get to know these two men and giving us good character development and sets a good pace for the film and also helps us to understand why they are doing what they are doing and the end results and choices they end up making. The dialogue between the characters is all very good here and the acting from the two leads and basically the whole cast is terrific. The film once you get to know what is going on, moves at a good pace and at times is thrilling and at other times we are in deep fascination to see what will happen in the character's personal lives as well as what will happen with the mission they are working on. As, I said we really do get to know these characters well with their heroic qualities and even their flaws and we still admire them both and get to care for them. Some of the best scenes of the film have nothing to do with the espionage mission at all, but instead seeing how they interact with their families and how they go about their daily lives. It may not be action packed, but it feels realistic and human and more believable this way. Farewell is a really captivating film with it's story which is brought to great justice by a great script, direction and performances. I also appreciated seeing a European view on the events and matters that take place during the film instead of a typical and perhaps biased American version. I could respect and see what they were trying to get across in this version of the story and I am glad they did not change anything to be more commercial, or to sell more tickets. Farewell is a terrific film and definitely one of the best of 2010.
- cultfilmfan
- Nov 17, 2010
- Permalink
From the brilliant cinematography of the opening scene, this movie declares itself as a masterpiece. I watched it at the edge my seat till the end, laughing and crying for Emir Kusturica's Sergei, a bear of a man and hating my beloved Willem Defoe's blood curdling CIA chief Finn. Guillaume Canet as Pierre Froment is also very good, maddeningly naive and equally lovable; in fact movie is full of living and breathing real characters, although unfortunately all women are slightly shadowy compared to men. I loved the exquisite detail to the period with clothes, hair, glasses and atmosphere, particularly in Moscow. The story was grippingly interesting and every single scene, every bit of dialogue believable. I feel enriched for having watched L'affaire Farewell, Merci Christian Carion.
Totally enjoyed this movie and it was a piece of history I did not know about. If you like the movie and want to know more I would highly recommend that you read the book. The names are changed in the movie.
I'm reading the book now and I'm about 80% done.
If you remember the events with Reagan and Gorbachev and the discussion around SDI, this movie and book will fill in some blanks as to why the conversation and decisions were possible on both sides.
This is the story of a man who deperately wanted to be important and was determined to make his impact on the world in one way or another.
This is my 10th line of text (kind of a dumb IMDb rule).
I'm reading the book now and I'm about 80% done.
If you remember the events with Reagan and Gorbachev and the discussion around SDI, this movie and book will fill in some blanks as to why the conversation and decisions were possible on both sides.
This is the story of a man who deperately wanted to be important and was determined to make his impact on the world in one way or another.
This is my 10th line of text (kind of a dumb IMDb rule).