I am slightly disappointed that the storyline was trimmed so ruthlessly in the aim of fitting the original story into an 2 hour film, as some of my most-loved scene were altered or omitted. The cast, however, are excellent and absolutely fitting to the characters they play. The cinematography is stunning and well-matched to the atmosphere for each scene. The music used also added the heavy intensity of mood of each character.

It was good at what it was trying to be, but what it was trying to be was less than what I was hoping it to be. Can I hold that against it? Overall, phenomenal acting in a good but not great film.

Nice and slow. Slow and nice.

Would be a 0 if not for the Christmas party which puts the Soviet national anthem scene in The Hunt for Red October to shame.

this is a no frills espionage thriller, with a dense and murky plot. it is at times confusing if you don't dedicate your full attention and read between the lines, but i'll be damned if it's not one of the most rewarding spy movies i've ever seen.

Huge fan of John Le Carre, and this film was a great adaptation. Gary Oldman is fantastic, and I loved Tom Hardy and Benedict Cumberbatch's small roles. It's one of the few films I've ever finished and then turned around and rewatched immediately.

After 20 minutes of pure boredom, I gave up.

A minimalistic, noir approach to espionage that really works. Through the art direction and cinematography, the film shows instead of telling, commanding your attention as you try to keep up with an array of decidedly dubious characters.

slow and difficult to follow, but so was the book, and i dug it anyway. the cast is fantastic right down the line, editing is fantastic, music and cinematography are great. screenplay is a great and very elegant adaptation of the book. i wasn't big on let the right one in, but i'm definitely super psyched to see what tomas alfredson does after this.

It could have been so much better than what it ended up becoming. Certain middle parts feel boring, dragged out and inconclusive, yet others along the way are intriguing enough to keep one's attention for a time. Great hook of an opening, very satisfying conclusion, but the overall listlessness of the movie costs too much. Still, brilliant cast of quality actors who do not disappoint. It's the execution of the film that does that.

Slow and bland for the most part. The ensemble has many great names but almost all are underused and stiff. Tom Hardy injects a bit of much needed life and flavor into it, but he is in too little of the film to help it much.

"It was just as much an aesthetic choice" says Colin Firth at one point. Well the same goes for the whole movie. And it was just silly that you had to use half of the movie to figure out which codename fit which person...

This is something I feel might work better with another viewing. But the only reason this isn't in the 90s is because I had no fucking clue what was going on half the time. The movie introduces way too many characters, without properly explaining who they are, and then just kind of jumps ahead. Labyrinthine is correct, and in a negative way that really damages an otherwise great movie. You're going to need to pay extremely close attention just to know who's who and what's happening.

Such a claustrophobic, dreary pictorial of 70s Europe. We are left wondering whether we know any more than at the beginning, or if as hinted at by the symbolism whether this was a game. A jaded search for meaning that epitomises the human condition on its outer macrocosm. Inside the micro landscape is the rotting core of bureacracy and the "progress" of "intelligence." Compelling, if only for its obstinant way of being as opaque as possible.

I hate to admit this, but I really ran out of patience here. There's not a lot going on, and while I do enjoy a slow-building, thrilling mystery, I like it to build to something.. and then for something to happen. Maybe I missed the point, but I'm not convinced there was one.

If you are prepared for the slowest movie ever, there is greatness to be found here. The acting is the best part with a perfect Oldman in the lead. It is probably a deliberate choice to make the film this boring; perhaps it would have been amazing if the tempo was increased significantly.

A spy movie where no one gets blown up? What the hell is this? The best spy movie I've ever seen--real style, beautiful, moody cinematography, good editing, excellent, understated performances, intelligent writing, even a decent score (and as a musician I'm annoyed by movie scores more often than not). A suspense movie for thinking people: be prepared to do some.

Nothing new, boring.

It’s got a really solid cast, it looks fantastic and is very well-shot. However, I couldn’t really get into this one. I’m not sure this type of film is for me. The pacing was quite slow, yet I had a little bit of trouble understanding what was going on some of the time. It did have some really cool moments though, and I really liked the final sequence. I wouldn’t want to discourage anyone from seeing this, but I don’t think it’s for everyone.

It felt like a disservice to the material (i.e. the various subplots) that the film was only 2 hours long. There was more here to explore.

Too much content for so little time. I would love to hear what someone who has read the book or seen the old series has to say about this version. Too many unnecessary moments and a lot of missing details. Great cast though...

Occasionally murky and convoluted but overall impressive spy yarn, aided immeasurably by a gallery of fine British actors at the top of their game (starting with Oldman's uncanny imitation of Alec Guinness). Beautifully shot and perfectly captures the seedy atmosphere of international espionage. I'm confident a second viewing will clear up the apparent incoherencies in the screenplay.

Atmospheric, looks the part, and seems suitably spyish and mysterious... however it's so wound up in trying to be cryptic and enigmatic that it fails to find the time to be gripping or interesting. The characters... well they had potential, but just took so long to reveal themselves that I had lost interest long before any revelations or truths or endings. The characters' roles weren't defined adequately. Would have been better as a Wire-like TV series with subplots rather than a 2-hour film.

Good thriller, however it is too complex, must read the book for better understanding.

A noble snooze. Dry to the point of aridity and stubbornly opaque. Alfredson has (deliberately?) slurped all the joy out of what could have been a crackling, brainy thriller; this isn't just a spy movie for people who don't like spy movies, it's a spy movie for people who don't like movies. It's a well-meaning project, there are memorable bits here and there, and the cast certainly tries, but to say that we're kept at arm's length throughout is an understatement.

One of the (if not THE) year's coldest, driest, most dispassionate and emotionless moviegoing experiences. Rarely have I felt less thrilled during a nominal thriller. All this despite the murderer's row of terrific British actors, all of whom have put in work that's floored me in the past. It's deeply ironic to see Oldman finally get his first Oscar nomination for this, his least interesting performance to date.