Interesteg What makes it different from others?

ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

classicalsteve In 1963, 75 km (46 miles) north of London, about 17 blokes pinched a train with a coach containing millions of pounds of cash being transported via Her Majesty's Royal Mail. It was the biggest heist in British history in which the perpetrators lifted about £2.6 million (about £50 million in today's money or $80 million). Because of the amount of money which was taken from the British government instead of a private party, an all-out investigation ensued. Eventually, about 2/3rds of the members were arrested and sent to prison. Since the heist many films and references to the heist have appeared in popular culture, including a line in the Beatles' film "Help" in which Lennon asks a Scotland Yard detective how the heist investigation is coming.The current film, a made-for-television miniseries in 2013, is probably the best screen adaption of the heist, presenting the events in two parts. The first is from the point-of-view of the criminals, called "A Robber's Tale", and the second from the view of the investigators called "A Copper's Tale". Both segments are equally compelling with outstanding actors showing us how the crime is viewed from different sides of the railroad tracks, so to speak. Two sets of casts are used for each segment, until the very end of the second segment in which characters from both segments begin interacting.Bruce Reynolds (Luke Evans) is the mastermind and leader of the heist. Their first large job, an airport heist in 1962, yields not nearly as much in cash as they had hoped, around £65,000 (about £1.25 million or $2 million today, which seems like a lot of money!). They were hoping for a bigger payoff. Through a tip, they discover a train bound for London from Glasgow, Scotland, contains a coach designated as Her Majesty's Royal Mail. In addition to the typical mail, the car also contains sacks of cash, pound notes probably being taken out of circulation. Reynolds resolves to pilfer the sacks of cash and puts together a team to engage the heist, including someone who claims he can stop trains. They find an old abandoned farm as a temporary hideout. As events play out, the teams hits unexpected twists in their plan, including the amount of money which turns out, like the airport heist, not to be what was expected...The second part then chronicles the investigation and eventual arrests of members of the heist gang. Tommy Butler (Jim Broadbent) leads the Scotland Yard investigation. Butler is not only shrewd but uncompromising. He decides the best means for a successful apprehension of the criminals is to keep information close to his chest as his second-in-command Frank Williams (Robert Glenister) points out. He also forces his team to work long hours with little rest. Then the upper echelons of Scotland Yard, probably due to pressure from members of Parliament, decide to release the names and photos of the known perpetrators to the public, much to the objections of Butler and Williams. The releasing of information, as Butler and Williams predicts, leads to disastrous results, further compromising the investigation.A very enjoyable and well-acted series. Evans makes a good Reynolds, who is not exactly a ruthless criminal but definitely uses rationalization to justify the heist. Broadbent makes a fine Butler, whose aloofness may compromise the success of the investigation. He's tempered by Robert Glenister as Frank Williams who seems the primary voice of reason during the investigation. If you like heist films, this is a real one, and it demonstrates these crimes as not nearly as easy to pull off as you would imagine if you've seen "Ocean's 11".

Tribble 76 (Kray_Kray) Put me down for another Yank who ranks it a solid 7 I thought the three hours were tightly edited with no wasted scenes. What critical info, if any, was left out I do not know, as I watched this as a preliminary to reading about the robbery. Altho I can't comment on the period detail to the extent other posters here have ("the license plate serials actually didn't change til six month later" - WOW), I think the setting, styles, and lingo were all of a piece with other 60's London films and recreations.So I enjoyed this quite a bit, including the levity - self-proclaimed "wanker boss", "key up me jacksie", Butler's smile on Thursday mornings, etc, which "offset Broadbent's stern gravity and Evans's Jon Hamm like 60's charm offensive.I especially liked the portrayal of the Butler-Williams relationship and how despite Butler's fears his underling would give more away to his "snouts" than he got, Williams' contacts did lead to at least some grassing.The final Heat-style "confrontation" with Reynolds claiming a "victimless" crime leading to such enormous sentences (yet, he was out in nine) would lead to the much greater use of guns in robberies seemed egregiously revisionist, but I suppose among the many contributing factors to that sad development was the sentencing in this case. Goody apparently was straight out framed (Paul Anderson in another wonderful performance.) Certainly in hindsight a crime committed by 15 men with at least half a dozen accomplices and netting so much cash was fated to go bust. But that Butler had to delay retirement for so long was a testimony not just to his vocation, but also to the robbers' use of that critical "luck" factor. The fact Butler left a mess for Nipper Read and had allowed Williams to go way too far off the reservation is subject matter for other films.Still, film has to make an emotional as well as an informational mark, and I'm left wanting to chalk this one up for the bad boys. Mix south London and Brighton firms and you apparently got a very lively lot. "Dreaming big", and establishing the same bond of camaraderie the Flying Squad unit did evidently trumped even the millions. Or so this engrossing film would have us believe.

jc-osms At the time, the Great Train Robbery was the biggest theft in British criminal history and was as much a part of 1963 here as the Profumo Scandal and the emergence of the Beatles. With the fiftieth anniversary of significant events in that year being commemorated right left and centre (the making of the first Beatles album, the first Dr Who TV show, of course the Kennedy assassination), I guess this notorious occurrence was also too big to miss.With a large cast consisting of some of the best of British male acting talent (female characters hardly get a look-in), painstakingly accurate set design not to mention the actual train itself, the component parts were all there and waiting to be assembled into place. The imaginative decision to break it into two films, the first part concerning the planning and execution of the crime itself and focusing on the criminal gangs which came together to do the misdeed, the second, the aftermath, concentrating on the police investigation run by Jim Broadbent's tough-as-old-boots D.I Tommy Butler, was, on paper, a good one and for the first half certainly successful.In part one, we see the scheme being formulated by Luke Fisher's bespectacled (obviously marking him out as the brains) Bruce Reynolds the coordinator of the operation, including the recruitment of the necessary personnel, implementation of the crime and the plan on how to escape the law after the robbery. Pacily directed and well-acted by the whole group, the viewer is completely taken into the criminal world and despite myself, caught up in the anticipation and even excitement as they set about their dirty work. I must admit my distaste at the scene where they realise the enormity of what they've done and celebrate with abandon, even though I knew they didn't get away with it for long.Which leads onto part two, which I felt was altogether less successful. The narrative changes tack and now follows the police investigation into the crime with Broadbent and his weary men one by one picking off the assembled pictures of the perpetrators on their incident-room notice board. Unfortunately at this point the director decides that Broadbent and his team are the UK equivalent of The Untouchables so that we get endless shots of Broadbent grimly gazing at the camera and when they walk, it's in De Palma-esque slow-motion. All the artifice that was stripped away in the impressive first 90 minutes is overloaded into the second one and while there's still drama in watching all the villains get their come-uppance, you completely lose the sense of authenticity built up thus far. The soundtrack was confusing too, quite why 50's Frank Sinatra songs proliferate, I can't tell and for some reason the great Spencer Davis Group song "I'm A Man", cut in 1966 gets played as the background to events from three years before. The use of Nina Simone songs, especially "Sinner Man" did work better but again, like the overall production, they only got this part half-right too.I almost thought that the two parts must have been directed by two different directors but no, it was just poor execution of a good plan, sort of like how the robbers handled their getaway.

Alan Baker The dramatic elements of this production were not to bad but it was spoilt by the lack of attention to period detail right from the start. We are shown a robbery in November 1962 at a fairly unconvincing London Airport (complete with CGI piston engined airliner taking off, most airlines were using jets by that time). Unfortunately, both getaway cars have "A" suffix registration plates, not introduced until January 1963. Scenes in London show Ford Zephyrs being used as police cars whereas the Met used Wolseley 6/110s almost exclusively. A senior Detecive Chief Superintendent would not be driven around in an old Mk.1 Jaguar, more likely to have had a Humber Super Snipe. When Reynolds is arrested at the end of part 2, he is taken away in a white Jaguar Mk.2 which has a Webasto sun roof, hardly likely on a police car! The railway aspects of the production are particularly poor. For a start, the locomotive used is a Class 37, not a class 40 (painting the correct number on the side does not make it a convincing stand in). The production was clearly using a preserved railway which obviously could not provide the correct four track main line (let alone electrification masts and catenary which had been installed but were not yet in use in 1963). The train is shown on what appears to be a two track railway, but is running on the wrong track, in Britain trains run on the left hand line. The ground level signal shown is a shunting signal and would not be found out on the main line. The station sign at "Glasgow" should read Glasgow Central as there were at the time three other Glasgow Termini (St. Enoch, Buchanan Street and Queen Street).No doubt others might be able to add to the list.