An excellent espionage thriller, Breach tells the story of FBI agent Robert Hanssen, who passed secrets to the Russians for over 20 years. Chris Cooper is mesmerising as Hanssen; he portrays a man who is highly intelligent with a powerful personality, who presented a religiously puritanical persona to the world whilst being amoral in his private life. Unfortunately the film suffers when Cooper is not onscreen. Ryan Phillippe is the younger agent assigned to Hanssen's office, and the storyline involving his recent marriage and homelife is far less engaging. Laura Linney does provide excellent support as always though as the officer leading the investigation to find the mole. The film is directed by Billy Ray, and is paced slowly but well; the tension gradually increases as the net closes around the spy. Recommended.

Billy Ray directed the brilliant "Shattered Glass," that showcased equally phenomenal performances from Hayden Christensen and Peter Sarsgaard, and now with his sophomore effort he once again delivers a based on true events story with two superb lead actors taking centre stage.

The themes of betrayal and trust that interlace throughout events are almost reminiscent of "Donnie Brasco," Chris Cooper and Ryan Phillipe's mentor/pupil relationship echoing feelings of Mike Newell's gangster masterpiece. Again both stories cohere to real life inspirations and highlight the painful nuances of character, but more in particular the bond of two men, one betrayer, the other betrayed. Only in this instance, Chris Cooper plays Robert Hanssen who was a man who betrayed the loyalty of his government, but then of course was ultimately betrayed by his clerk and confidante Eric O'Neill, played by Phillipe. Cooper is magnificent in this, totally capturing the pain and sinister ambiguity of a man torn between his faith, patriotism and ego. The man should win another Oscar. Save Best Supporting for Ryan as well, for he truly holds his own next to Cooper, entirely involving us in his struggle to balance his sense of duty to his work and country, and his slowly eroding relationship with his wife. Plaudits too for the solid support from Laura Linney (who so far has not put a foot wrong in her career) and the always dignified presence of the brilliant Dennis Haysbert. Billy Ray has a way with actors no question about it.

These actors are blessed by a script that covers events with an incredible focus for dramatic detail, never pandering to the cheap thrill of the espionage thriller genre. It achieves a handful of perfectly pitched moments of tension without straining credibility or stretching narrative integrity. This is in effect a gripping character study, or to be more specific; the study of two men with similar ideals and beliefs thrown together in a compact space of time, one a master of his realm, the other aspiring to follow in those same footsteps someday.

The dramatic pace is expertly handled and the grasp of characterization and setting are tackled with needle point precision. This is superior adult entertainment, made with an eye for the same audiences who would have enjoyed Ray's previous work on "Shattered Glass." Everything from the beautifully subtle score, to the stark winter compositions and the fine quality playing from a first rate cast hits the right mark, and the final scene is so raw in its psychological complexity it left me feeling incredibly unsettled. The ambiguity of the emotional coda is masterful; should we empathise with Robert Hanssen or condemn him for all time? Either way, it stays with you. Hands down one of the best films of the year!

Powerful performances by Cooper and Phillippe bring this rather intense film to life. Based on a true story, it offers a glimpse at the behind-the-scenes operation to catch one of the most dangerous spies in recent history.

When Eric O'Neill (Phillippe) is assigned the job of spying on his new boss Robert Hanssen (Cooper), he at first believes that he is digging up the dirt on the man's deviant tendencies, but eventually learns that Hanssen is in fact a spy for the Soviet Union, and later Russia for the last fifteen years.

Cooper is extremely believable as the devout Catholic FBI double agent who is transferred to headquarters on the pretext that he is heading a department to ensure the confidentiality of classified information. O'Neill and Hanssen eventually develop a mutual respect, but when the latter gets up close and personal with O'Neill's personal life, O'Neill finds himself taking the heat both at home and at the office.

Recommended for fans of espionage movies and thrillers, but may be a little slow for action/adventure buffs.

Here's a summary to the tune of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" by The Beatles

Picture O'Neill as a mole on a mission
With off the rack suits and nondescript ties
FBI calls him, he answers quite slowly
His role's to go ferret out spies

Surveillance cameras always on the scene
Panning right over his head
Look to the boss for the secrets he hides
But there's none

Hanssen is a spy for Russia
Hanssen is a spy for Russia
Hanssen is a spy for Russia

Follow him down to a church with a steeple
Where Hanssen communes with deities high
Everyone smiles as he meets with the family
There's no way this guy is a spy

Agent Kate Burroughs appears at the door
Takes him and shows him the way
Goes in the room with his head full of clouds
Now they're gone

Hanssen is a spy for Russia
Hanssen is a spy for Russia
Hanssen is a spy for Russia

Picture O'Neill with his role in the mission
With downloaded folders from palm pilot files
Suddenly Hanssen suspects that it's over
Gets ready to say his goodbyes

Hanssen is a spy for Russia
Hanssen is a spy for Russia
Hanssen is a spy for Russia



Amanda Richards

This well-acted movie held my interest throughout, but it somehow left me dissatisfied. I feel that the writers fudged by not offering any insight on Hannsen's motives for betraying his country. He does not seem to have done so for reasons of ideology. The scriptwriters' thrice-repeated portrayal of the Hannsen character as saying: "The 'why' doesn't tell us anything!" seems to me to be a cop-out for not offering a plausible explanation, even though such an explanation might be merely speculation. Are we really supposed to think that Hannsen spied for the Soviet Union because of a nasty father? Or because Hannsen sent racy tapes of himself and his wife to his best friend? Or, even less plausibly, because Hannsen was, according to the film, a devoted member of Opus Dei? Or because he nobly took only $100,000 for his services (as opposed to the millions taken by Ames)? For that matter, does Hannsen even deserve the title of 'mole,' since that term, as coined by John Le Carr??, refers to someone who was recruited by the Soviets (as were the Cambridge Spies, who, incidentally, took no money) to penetrate an agency on a long-term basis, becoming active only at the behest of his handlers? Hannsen was already in place in a position of importance; a mole does not usually volunteer his services for hire!

Be that as it may, I believe that the film, which, it must be reiterated, was well acted and entertaining, would have become far more intriguing and complex had the authors offered some insight into the character of their antagonist, who, in the film, for the most part, seems to have been merely obnoxious.

This well-acted movie held my interest throughout, but it somehow left me dissatisfied. I feel that the writers fudged by not offering any insight on Hannsen's motives for betraying his country. He does not seem to have done so for reasons of ideology. The scriptwriters' thrice-repeated portrayal of the Hannsen character as saying: "The 'why' doesn't tell us anything!" seems to me to be a cop-out for not offering a plausible explanation, even though such an explanation might be merely speculation. Are we really supposed to think that Hannsen spied for the Soviet Union because of a nasty father? Or because Hannsen sent racy tapes of himself and his wife to his best friend? Or, even less plausibly, because Hannsen was, according to the film, a devoted member of Opus Dei? Or because he nobly took only $100,000 for his services (as opposed to the millions taken by Ames)? For that matter, does Hannsen even deserve the title of 'mole,' since that term, as coined by John Le Carr??, refers to someone who was recruited by the Soviets (as were the Cambridge Spies, who, incidentally, took no money) to penetrate an agency on a long-term basis, becoming active only at the behest of his handlers? Hannsen was already in place in a position of importance; a mole does not usually volunteer his services for hire!

Be that as it may, I believe that the film, which, it must be reiterated, was well acted and entertaining, would have become far more intriguing and complex had the authors offered some insight into the character of their antagonist, who, in the film, for the most part, seems to have been merely obnoxious.