I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

I can't help drawing parallels between Eye of the Needle and the Da Vinci Code, though the stories are as different as possible. In both cases I made the mistake of reading the book before watching the movie.In Eye of the Needle the different storyline parts are way wrong. The ending of the book – from when "Faber" arrives at the island, takes up about half of the movie. As a result of this, all the good stuff from the book is pretty much cut away or have been reduced to short scenes, where some elements have been altered, and not for the good.As for Donald Sutherland in this movie, well he comes of as just as wrong for the part as Tom Hanks was as Robert Langdon in the Da Vinci Code. Because of this the movie loses a lot of the good elements from Ken Follett's book. Have you seen this movie ones, it is pretty unlikely that you will ever see it again or remember it the day after, as there is more or less nothing in it that stays in your mind. So my advice for people who have read the book, don't watch the movie. For those who haven't, well you can still find something better to watch.

Though the story stretches the limits of credibility, "Eye of the Needle" is so well played, it's easy to go along with this joy ride. There's lots of suspense, especially in the second half when it all comes down to a classic stormy night with a mad killer on the loose. The contrivance to get to that point is thoughtfully conceived, well executed and quite convincing. In the role of "The Needle," Donald Sutherland is in his element as a menacing psychopath, who turns out to have a tiny soft spot. Kate Nelligan shows lots of range as the lonely, frustrated and ultimately heroic keeper of the kingdom. Nicely directed by Richard Marquand ("Jagged Edge"," another taut thriller) with enough jolts throughout to keep us on the edge of our seats. Beautiful scenery of the Scottish coast helps set the mood. Also notable is one of the final scores by the great Miklos Rozsa – nothing groundbreaking, but Rozsa sure knew how to add impact with music. This is a fine film that can be enjoyed by those who don't even like war movies.

The movie Eye of the Needle is one of the most exciting pictures I've ever seen - in 40 years of being a movie buff. The historical setting of England at the start of World War II, and the remote channel island puts you in another world. As in other movies, where we often side with the villain, we find a German Admiral played by Donald Sutherland, a spy operating in England. His dedication to his assignment causes him to work tirelessly, and at times ruthlessly for Germany. You might hope that things could end differently, because it involves a heartbreaking romance with Kate Nelligan in an outstanding performance. If you haven't seen this movie, I suggest you make an effort to do so.

I loved the first 100 minutes of the film. This is an old-school war movie, back in the days where there was a truly unavoidable war and the belief in a higher cause. Personal dramas take second place to the consequences of losing the war and the responsibility that entails on both sides. But people are people and no matter how noble or cold-blooded, there is always that conflict between duty and desire.For the most part, the film is a taut yet believable thriller. Everything that Donald Sutherland does is completely in character, as are the reactions of those around him. The historical details are fairly accurate (except for the hyperbole about losing the war if the D-Day site were known) which is something rare these days. The triangle is believable, as are the conflicts that develop as we learn about our protagonists.But then we get to the climactic scene at the end. The actions of our confused heroine as she flees from Sutherland are a bit annoying but explainable - and it all could have worked except for the presence of the child. I might believe that Sutherland would leave her alive (though it might have worked better had she not cut off his fingers..). I might possibly believe that she could fall in love with a man enough in two days to forget that he killed her husband, and murdered her shepherd friend. I just can't believe that after this man threatens her child that she would feel that strongly for him. She's not *that* weak especially after she had just shocked herself in an attempt to prevent him from completing his mission. So the entire stumbling sequence to get to the scene at the end where they gaze into each others eyes is *so* contrived. While such weak plot devices are everywhere these days, the lazy scripting is an insult to the rest of the film.But if you ignore that bit - it's very good.