Operation Mincemeat

Just watched Operation Mincemeat. Having recently read Ben McIntyre's book of Operation Mincemeat.

I hope the filmmakers read all the reviews, which basically say the same thing about ridiculous subplots If I want to watch a romantic movie, I will follow Bridget Jones. I prefer war movies.

Will filmmakers STOP mixing the two together, it does NOT appeal to a larger audience Equally, STOP trying to re invent the wheel, first we had the Jerky camera period, which no one liked, now we have the fad for showing the almost ending, then going back to...6 months earlier..etc The man who never was is a better film because of not including romantic fictional subplots I suggest filmmakers watch movies from the 1950s to see well crafted film making, Eg The Cockleshell Heroes or One of our planes is missing, both told in chronological time order.

On another note, if you want a massive box office hit, read The Black Ship, by Dudley Pope. A meticulously researched book about the "Bloodiest" Mutiny in the history of the Royal Navy But please make sure you observe correct military protocols, you do not salute improperly dressed officers, ie when not wearing their hat !

Operation Mincemeat is a film with very few bells and whistles.

It has an interesting story to tell, and it tells it well enough, however unnecessary romantic subplots make the whole thing 20 minutes too long.

I think the pacing is a little off as they place the focus too much on the establishment of the plan and not enough on how it pans out.

The performances are all fine. Nothing overly flashy. There is a good feel to the film, capturing the period well.

Overall a perfectly decent film, worth watching to learn about a remarkable and crucial military operation, but there's nothing particularly remarkable about the filmmaking.

A likeable film however I can't help but feel for the potential that it missed out on. The actors fulfilled their roles and we were able to get to know the characters.

The film often digressed from the main theme and and focused on far less relevant sub plots. Contrasting this some more interesting scenes felt to be cut short.

The film is overall above par, however I feel this could have been so much more.

There is a better film here but some unnecessary side plots - oh well, that romantic thing took the focus so many times - are really distracting.

Some very good moments, great acting, very tense on its third act, but the first was confusing and full of exposition. Good enough but I was expecting better.

It was enjoyable enough but I really wanted to enjoy this more than I did.

It seemed to unnecessarily labour several male characters fancying Kelly Macdonald's character. All the time taken up on this tiresome sub-plot would have been better spent on some of the main story. Also, a triple-agent character giving a hand job to someone just seemed unlikely and out of place.

One of several nods to James Bond was an unfeasibly high-powered buzzsaw watch as a throwaway gag (because of Ian Fleming being a character) was corny and distracting.

I somehow expected it would be more engaging, gritty and revealing than the 1956 film, but it seemed pretty typical and formulaic like many modern British WWII themed films with foiled wartime romances crow-barred in.

There are some great actors in the film but some of them seem to be overused in other similar roles the same era. It even seemed a little like a mini "Death of Stalin" reunion for Jason Isaacs and Simon Russell Beale.

Perhaps I'm being too unkind to the film, but I was looking forward to it and fell a little short of expectations.