One of my all time favorites.

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

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

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

OK, I saw this movie only once and it was ages ago.It is one of those that, while I didn't particularly like it, left a lasting impression.First and foremost, it is a London movie -every bit as much as 'The Long Good Friday' (1980), 'Pool Of London' (1951) and so many more, where the city is really the star. I am a sucker for London films!Secondly, it belongs to a loose-knit family (genre?) of films that seem to have their origins in that time (late 1980s). The principal characteristic of them is that they take the standard 'noir' elements and run them 'all the way up to 11' , until they become saturated with a nightmare sense of impending evil and conspiracy. EVERYTHING takes on a threatening aspect; each word, action, step and object becomes laden with menace. 'Defence Of The Realm'(1986) pulled off a very similar trick, as did the contemporary TV series 'Edge Of Darkness'. Into the 1990s and Noughties this kind of 'X-Files Paranoia' thing became more prolific, for example 'The Forgotten'(2004).However, that vibe is something that Poliakoff was trading in long before then: his TV play 'Caught On A Train' (1980) nicely exemplifies it. Maybe he started it all! That said, 'Hidden City' doesn't come off all that well. I think the problem is chiefly with the casting, and the rather soft drawing of the central characters. I can't really believe Charles Dance as academic turned-action hero (Islington Jones?), capable actor though he is it seems a daft way to go, and at odds with the rest of the thing. The gimmick of weighing him down with the stereotypical 'feisty single mum and infant' combo in tow adds another surreal touch to the melodrama, one that could have sprung from the iBook of Doris Lessing on an average day (and I can't help thinking that she may have done a better job here). The plot is an absolute mess. Set in the (1980s) present, It concerns Dance's character being led a merry erm, dance piecing together the story of some obscure government conspiracy that occurred just after WWII. The only evidence of this exists in perplexing bits of 'extra' footage at the end of various ancient Public Information Film reels. No sweat, then!Time-worn hazards and difficulties are then laid on with a trowel: sinister spook-types, obstructive officials, characters whose sole purpose seems to be as unnecessarily cryptic as possible: all the usual suspects.After much too long, he produces a worrying jig-saw of a top-secret (presumably nuclear) project going badly pear-shaped, and the bizarre extent to which the powers that be (or were) resorted to in burying the truth along with the casualties. And anyone who had anything to do with them. And anyone who had anything to do with anyone...you see where this is going.You could file this under 'deservedly overlooked', but there are some very fine scenes: Bill Paterson (always good value), having a superbly unreal conversation with Dance while a disturbing shadow-show plays out on the opaque room-divider behind him, is delightful ("...I think that's so-and-so...") so by all means have a look.Best not dwell on any underlying diatribe about the nature and corrupting power of secrets, the celluloid image, or the sad fact that history is whatever 'they' want it to be. That is all plastered over as effectively as the remains of 'Project Magnificat', and just as ill- fated.Finally, there is what I assume to be a little twist-ette right at the very end, where the ancient footage Dance has been analysing briefly reveals the face of the cameraman: Jumpin' Crickets, he look just like Adolf Hitler! Go figure...

What a strange movie. The story is amazingly thought-provoking and intriguing. Think of all the hidden secrets a city like London hides beneath it's surface? All the archives of wartime experiments, government mysteries, documents and information never meant for public eye.You have a young woman trying to convince a statistician (?) played by Charles Dance that there are hidden messages or clues of a bigger picture in some wartime archive films.The story sadly never quite uses all of it's potential. It's interesting all the way, but you're never really sure what is going on until the very end and the motivations of the characters are left a bit unknown. They're basically just intrigued and driven by pure interest rather than a real cause.What makes the movie a bit messy and difficult to follow, is the fact that there are a few separate leads they're following, the archived films and a few documents they find at a waste dump. You also have people trying to catch them, but you're not really sure why. At least I was left a bit puzzled of what's going on at times, but maybe that was the point. You never know what you find, if you just look carefully.Definitely an interesting story, but the execution is a bit flawed and dated. It's got a very strong late 80s vibe to it and it's a bit of an artsy one. Someone might call this a "strange one", but definitely worthwhile if you catch it somewhere.

One of the better British films of the last 20 years and criminally neglected - it doesn't appear to be currently available on video let alone DVD.Intriguing (and somewhat unsettling) plot. Sensible portrayals - no overacting, Unusual settings - a London rarely seen either in life or on screen. Well constructed - the atmosphere builds beautifully. All in all, it puts so much of recent British cinema to shame.And we go and bury it.

I loved this film for two reasons.Firstly, it was well written and the direction was strong which is something often lacking in a British film.Secondly, the scenes of London were fantastic; especially those parts of the city not always open to the public eye.