Liitlased (2016) Online

I had high hopes for this movie because of Robert Zemeckis, Brad Pitt, and Marion Cotillard. I definitely went into it prepared for a WWII movie, full of action and special effects. And to be clear, this movie certainly DOES have action and special effects (what Zemeckis film doesn't?), but it goes beyond that.

The actions scenes, when they do happen, are well choreographed and fun to watch. They also earn the movie it's rating, and are brutal but not overbearing. Marion and Brad are both convincing, proving to the audience that they are well- trained spies who don't hesitate to kill.

Something I found very interesting about this movie is that while it's not primarily a war film, it did provide a very interesting look at what life was like for people. This was a time when people partied like the world was ending. Drinks, drugs, sex, etc. But this was also a time when people sometimes watched planes get shot out of the sky. It's a fascinatingly personal way of portraying the war, and the people living through it.

The special effects are stunning, Zemeckis seamlessly blending reality and effects. Many scenes are simply breathtaking. It's puzzling how the movie manages to be both classic and modern.

As I mentioned though, this movie is more than just war and special effects. By the end, there are a few clear themes; putting what's best for those you love above your own needs, and trying your hardest to believe the best of/trust those closest to you. Even if it means you have to break some rules, or even put your own life on the line.

The ending, which some say is overly-sentimental, hit a chord that worked for me. It showed the lengths people go to to protect their family. However people complain about the Forest Gump ending, and that one makes me cry almost every time I see it. So if I'm in the minority here, I'm not at all surprised.

One last thing that I thought this movie did very well, was showing just how difficult it would truly be for spies to fall in love. For the first half of the movie, the two are basically brought together and drawn to each other because of their abilities. They live, supposedly, very similar lives. They are evenly matched. They fit together in every sense because of their mastery of espionage. And yet, once the twist comes along, that same mastery of espionage is what tears them apart. Marion's ability to lie, once a great asset, is now their greatest enemy. It's a wonderful way to weave the story together, and makes for some excellent tension as well as irony.

Overall, Allied is absolutely a mix. It has espionage, it has war, it has assassinations, it has parties, it has family, it has romantic/steamy (quite steamy, might I add) moments, it has costumes and scenery, it has a mystery to be solved, etc. And some of these things it does magnificently. Some of these things it does just well-enough. But it does it all. Which is more than can be said for most movies these days.

This movie certainly deserves the R rating. There is nudity, multiple sex scenes, a decent amount of violence, language, drugs.

If you are a fan of classic movies, watch it. Is it perfect? No, it certainly has weak points and flaws. But overall I was thoroughly entertained by it. It kept me on the edge of my seat, and I will definitely be buying this on Blu-Ray, hopefully with lots of insight into how this film was made and what technologies Zemeckis used.

'Allied' has garnered a mixed reaction, on IMDb and with critics in general. This is completely understandable, and the mixed reaction and the reasoning for it mirrors my own feelings for the film. 'Allied' is not a bad film, but from seeing the trailers (which strongly suggested a film that would be more epic, more moving and more thrilling) to be honest was expecting a lot more.

There is a lot to like about 'Allied'. Visually, it is a gorgeous film. The cinematography is rich in atmosphere and colour and is quite poetic too, while the sets, scenery and costumes are evocative and eye-catching. The music by Alan Silvestri is neither too intrusive or too low-key, instead stirring when it needs to be and understated again when needed. There are some thrilling and harrowing moments as well as some poignant ones in the more intimate scenes, personally thought the controversial ending was quite emotional but can definitely see why it won't work for some.

Marion Cotillard gives a nuanced and deeply felt turn, nothing short of sensational. Brad Pitt's performance has been criticised (as well as defended), to me it was appropriately stoic, despite his character being nowhere near as meaty as Cotillard's, and he was a worthy partner for Cotillard, a little cold in places but mostly fiery. The supporting cast are fine.

On the other hand, the script and pacing are uneven. The script is 'Allied's' biggest flaw, lacking plausibility in places, especially in the mission scenes, having too much padding that's overlong and adds little to nothing and some of the parts intended to be emotional laid it on too thick with the treacle and sentimentality. Much more could have been done with the psychological subtext, which would have made Pitt's character more interesting and given the story more consistent suspense and thrills.

Pacing does drag badly frequently, primarily due to having superfluous scenes that lacked momentum and went on too long and also due to Robert Zemeckis' quite disappointing direction. There are moments, but it is a case of getting the job done but in a workmanlike and tame fashion, not the thrills and cleverness one expects from Zemeckis that is present in the best of his work.

In summary, had potential to be epic as a wartime romance, but doesn't quite make it. Many great things, but a few big things that got in the way of fulfilling full potential. 6/10 Bethany Cox

I always thought of Robert Zemeckis as a hit or miss director. I hated Beowulf but I loved Death Becomes Her for instance. Allied falls right in the middle. An old fashion WWII drama and when I say old fashion I mean, musty, tired. Mr and Mrs Smith territory but with the major plus of Marion Cottillard. She is wonderful. Brad Pitt, who I love, looked like a special effect and being in a Robert Zemeckis movie I thought that he might be. Very strange. The simple premise of discovering that your spouse is not who you thought she was, opens a world of dramatic opportunities but there is something about Robert Zemeckis that makes me think he doesn't really care about the human interaction, no. he seems, always, much more focus in the special effects. Allies is no exception and in fact it has a couple of breathtaking visual coups. Unfortunately the actual drama left me completely cold.

In 1942, during the World War II, the Canadian spy Max Vatan (Brad Pitt) goes parachuting to the French Morocco to meet the French spy Marianne Beauséjour (Marion Cotillard) that is posing of his wife in Casablanca. Their mission is to assassinate the German Ambassador in a reception. They live together for a couple of days and soon they fall in love with each other. When Max returns to his base in London, he brings Marianne and marries her. One year later, they have the baby daughter Anna during a bombing. One day, Max is summoned for a meeting in the feared V Section with his commander officer Frank Heslop (Jared Harris) and a secret service agent that tells that they suspect Marianne is a German Spy. Further, they will give a fake order to him to confirm whether Marianne is a spy or not. If she is, Max shall execute his beloved wife; otherwise they will be both executed. What will Max do?

"Allied" is a good film directed by Robert Zemeckis with a story with lots of action, romance and drama. The awesome performances of Marion Cotillard and Brad Pitt with magnificent support cast give credibility to the story. The beauty of Marion Cotillard is perfect for a story in the 40's. The scenes are very well balanced with intense action, romance and drama. The journey of Max Vatan to find whether his wife is a German spy or not is outstanding and the conclusion is magnificent. My vote is seven.

Titles (Brazil): "Aliados" ("Allied")

A Franco/Canadian secret mission is an unusual twist for a WWII story. This and the setting of the first part of "Allied" reminded me of "The English Patient". Canadian Max (Pitt) is sent to Casablanca for a dangerous mission. Marianne (Cotillard) is the French agent already in place to help him.

Out of the desert and in London, "Allied" moves into a different territory, albeit still with plenty of style. Max and Marianne's wartime romance in exotic settings turns into a real family, but doubts arise about Marianne's identity.

London during the war as the main setting for two thirds of the movie looked very realistic. I did not mind what could be the historical inaccuracy of the Blitz, because the bombing added a layer of drama to the story.

I particularly liked the scene during the party, with Sing, Sing Sing playing in the background. It is a slightly menacing tune and it complemented perfectly the atmosphere of tension, suspicion and slight desperation.

Even if I have never been a Brad Pitt fan, he did a good job playing quiet Max, a man of a few words who sees his new world disintegrating. One can easily imagine him as a long-term bachelor falling for the beautiful, brave French partisan. Cotillard was also convincing as the ambiguous "femme fatale". Contrary to what some reviewers wrote, plenty of chemistry between the two, but also tenderness.

If you like movies with a solid plot, linear storytelling, believable characters, difficult choices, great costumes and soundtrack, then you should like this.

P.S. couple of remarks: Pitt's French was not the best and no way he could have passed for Parisian, but that did not bother me too much. The final scene is a couple of minutes too long, but again, not a major problem. However, what a relief to follow a good plot without the zig- zagging in time, overused but often useless editing style.

You may have seen the preview for this movie; I would say that that does not fully prepare you for the actual movie. It is a movie that will appeal to adults, both men and women, and it includes romance, sacrifice, and plenty of action and spy hi jinks.

A very good script, with some great plot turns, and superior acting from both Marion Cotillard and Brad Pitt in complex, challenging roles. My favorite bit: when they make love in a car in the Moroccan desert with a sandstorm going on all around them. It is a good metaphor for their love story in the midst of the great chaos of World War II. And it has a realistic feel, for the most part--for the sets in Casablanca (some good homage to the Bogart film, I would say also some Brando homage in parts of Pitt's performance), and the time back in the UK (second favorite bit is during a party in London). One does get the sense of the all-out effort demanded to win the war, something we do well to commemorate in these days when the last veterans of that most epic event in history are at death's door.

It is a Zemeckis film, from the school of film-making of Steven Spielberg, and that means your emotions are subject to the whim and whimsy of the director's manipulation. Sometimes you are aware of that, but oftentimes you are not, and that makes it better (than, say, Forrest Gump).

I will take the movie as a whole and suggest Oscar nominations for original screenplay and both leading roles.

The Academy Award-winning 1942 motion picture Casablanca has become a legend of filmmaking, almost a part of folklore, by being as perfect a movie as is possible. A triumph of cohesion, not a scene or a line of dialogue is wasted—every single word and frame of film points to the climactic scene in which most of the the cast is present, all plot lines are resolved, and all the picture's mysteries solved…and which many film fans have memorized and can recite, word-for-word.

Robert Zemeckis, the director of Paramount's Allied, apparently believes that by fashioning his film on Casablanca, some of the magic of the 1942 picture will rub off on his. It doesn't. And that's a shame, because if the picture were truly a sum of its parts, Allied would be a wonderful experience.

But unlike Casablanca, the individual scenes of Allied do not add up to a complete picture. Rather, the diverse parts of the movie look as if they've been snipped from other, better pictures, and cobbled together by screenwriter Steven Knight for Zemeckis to direct.

Zemeckis, originally a Steven Spielberg protégé and an acknowledged expert on older movies, gets into the spirit of Knight's script by designing and positioning his shots in a manner reminiscent of scenes from other popular movies. As a director, Robert Zemeckis has always been more derivative than innovative, and any viewer who's seen Algiers or The English Patient, or even Out of Africa or Gone With the Wind, will likely leave Allied with a sense of déjà vu, a nagging suspicion that he or she has seen has seen the picture somewhere else.

In Allied, a crack Canadian counterintelligence agent played by Brad Pitt parachutes into French Morocco during the early days of World War II and makes his way to Casablanca to rendezvous with a member of the French resistance, played by Marion Cotillard. Their mission is to do some spy stuff together and then scoot back to London. Naturally they fall in love. And that's just the beginning of a picture which stretches credibility more and more with each of its passing 124 minutes.

Allied is a triumph of production design and costuming, but that's really not saying all that much. Pitt and Cotillard are attractive people and they look swell in the picture. When you dress them up in the smartest retro-chic wardrobe and set them loose in the trendiest wartime nightclubs in Casablanca, they look as if they just stepped from the pages of the Giorgio Armani catalog…although during the daytime scenes they sport elaborate sunglasses which almost scream Hey, we're spies!

Which leads to another difficulty with Allied: The anachronisms. In any motion picture, authenticity is essential to maintaining a successful illusion. In Allied, that's where the seams really begin to show. Key sequences take place during nighttime German bombing raids over London in 1942 through 1944—yes, the movie does cover some ground. But nobody seems to realize that the last major German bombing raids on London occurred fairly early in 1941, before Hitler turned east and attacked the Soviet Union.

But that's incidental to a picture in which World War II is little more than a plot device to enable the characters to participate illogically in exciting adventures. At one point, for narrow personal reasons Pitt's character steals an RAF airplane and dashes off to occupied France, and then promptly upon arrival accidentally instigates a melee between the French resistance and German soldiers.

In the very next scene, Pitt astonishingly appears back in London looking somewhat the worse for wear—exhausted and stylishly disheveled, but without an explanation of what happened to his companions in France or how he got back to England in such a big fat hurry. In reality, had the officer made it back alive he'd undoubtedly have been court-martialed. Pitt's character apparently works for an especially casual branch of the wartime military.

And in fact, Pitt's performance begins and ends with his physical appearance and his costuming. The actor looks properly dapper and dashing in his military uniform, and his formal attire and civilian clothing are stylish. But any real attempt at characterization seems to have been left behind either in Pitt's dressing room or in the supermarket tabloids.

Marion Cotillard, a genuinely talented actress who received an Academy Award for her performance as Edith Piaf in 2007's La Vie en Rose, reads her lines—especially the occasional subtitled French-language dialogue—with spirit and conviction. But she seems distracted, as if she's trying to remember somewhere else she's supposed to be.

In one early scene, Pitt's character is described by Cotillard as a poker-playing expert. As a test, a German agent gives Pitt a deck of cards to shuffle. After a brief pause to gain suspense—Can he do it?—Pitt's character spends the next minute or two performing card maneuvers mesmerizing enough to make Houdini proud.

But the filmmakers don't even bother to create the illusion that it's Pitt performing the tricks. Only in the last shot of the scene, in which the actor himself performs one clumsy little shuffle, does Pitt's face appear in the same shot as the cards.

That scene can serve as a metaphor for the entire picture. Essentially Allied is a clumsy diversion, a sleight-of-hand trick to distract the viewer from the fact that he's seen it all before, in better movies. Allied is a dumb movie masquerading as a smart one. If you want to see attractive people in stylish clothes and colorful situations, this is the movie for you. But if you want to see a compelling, believable drama about wartime romance, skip it.

Or better yet, just watch Casablanca again.

There was no plot twist although there were several places for a plot twist. If you saw the trailer, you saw the movie. Also, the break from the period setting to give modern values with no point. The introduction of a sister to Brad Pitt's character, who is openly a lesbian. This would NEVER happen in the 1940s as homosexuality was against the law and they were greatly disdained by the public. It is a completely pointless distraction from the period setting. Another goof, German Army officers wearing Nazi armbands. I was beginning to think Quinton Tarantino made this movie. Another example of how Hollywood cannot make a period movie without sabotaging their own production.

Overall,it's a pretty good movie.

I just love the style of the picture. Generally that World War 2 era has that glamorous style to it, and leave it to Robert Zemeckis to add that extra kick.

Although I've Seen better costumes but this maybe because Canada did not have the best uniforms out of the WWII crowd.

And that made this movie strangely interesting. The 1st movie I ever seen about Canada's involvement in the War. Maybe I have seen others but it's so rare that it makes this movie seem unique that the story is about a Canadian wing commander who falls in love and builds a life with a woman who may not be all that she claims.

Speaking of which, The best part of the movie is that drama. Though I love the art direction as it puts me in That WWII setting, the visual effects do a good job of placing you right there, but the drama coming from Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard's connection on camera. It's this connection that's the most important and makes the movie what it is, and the emotion baggage is well worth it.

So not much of a war epic or an espionage movie as I went to see if for but it's a great love story set perfectly and beautifully in a different time and place worthy of checking out.

This movie has it's entertaining moments but is generally pretty bad. Totally lacking any tension the scenes are predictable and don't connect well to each other. The script is awful, almost laughable. The stereotypical British characters are embarrassing in a 4 weddings + funeral kinda way. The lesbian couple are pointless and seem to be thrown in there for PC reasons. Why does Brad Pitt turn into a mannequin every time he is introduced to people? The plot is full of holes...why did the German officer rush off to make a phone call instead of arresting Max Vatan?...why would 2 dynamic and ruthless killers be allowed to lounge around London for a couple of years? Surely they could have been useful in North Africa or Italy!...How was Beausejour allowed enter Britain, only for the British to later discover she was dead? So much for their Gibraltar station!...why, upon discovery, was she not used as a double agent, bearing in mind it was 2 months before D- Day? Now that could have been interesting!

Director Robert Zemeckis gives us some breathtaking moments in "Allied" from 2015. The film stars Brad Pitt and Marian Cotillard as Max and Marianne, two spies who meet on a joint assignment in France and fall in love. Mission accomplished, Max proposes. She is allowed to come to England and marry him, and they have a beautiful daughter.

One day Max's bosses call him in and say that they believe Marianne took the name of an executed resistance worker and is, in fact, a German spy. They order him to write down a fake message he will be given by phone, and if it shows up in transmissions the following Monday, they will know the truth. Then he must execute her. Max, however, has no intention of waiting until Monday to find out.

By no means is this a perfect film and yes, some parts are easy to guess. When you've seen 5000 films or more, it's not hard to know what's going to happen after certain scenes. The script could have been a little more interesting. I certainly didn't find it sentimental and goopy as someone described it. And what the heck is wrong with sentiment anyway? It was not, to me, overdone.

If I am being honest, I think the problem lay with the casting of Brad Pitt. He's a real honest-to-God movie star as they had in the old Hollywood, and I love him. But this is a role that should have been played by someone like Jason Isaacs or Tom Hardy or Tom Hiddleston. Pitt does not bring to the character the layers and depth which would have made this a richer film. He has the stoicism but little else. Also I found his face distracting - he's had injections in the bottom part of his face and it looks different.

Cotillard, on the other hand, gives a brilliant performance of an expert spy who falls in love with her temporary partner, sending her life into another trajectory.

Someone pointed out some modernizations that were off-putting. One was Max's sister as an out lesbian - highly doubtful in those days in England. The one I caught was the phrase "take it outside." It was like the Amelia Earhart movie with Diane Keaton where she says "cut the crap." Are these screenwriters kidding? A little more care needs to be taken when dealing with period pieces.

The special effects were fantastic and brought home the idea of how close in proximity the war was to the British people. The scene with the ambassador was excellent; but my favorite scene was the one in the desert with the car. Beautiful.

I recommend it. I thought it was well done and well acted, exciting in parts, and also poignant. To young people I say - don't be hardened to sentimentality at your age.

Greetings again from the darkness. Every writer, director and actor dreams of being part of the next Casablanca … a timeless movie beloved by so many. It's rare to see such a blatant homage to that classic, but director Robert Zemekis (Oscar winner for Forrest Gump) and writer Steven Knight (Dirty Pretty Things, Eastern Promises) deliver their version with an identical setting, nearly identical costumes, and the re-use of a song ("La Marseillaise") which played such a crucial role.

Spy movies typically fall into one of three categories: action (Bourne), flashy/stylish (Bond), or detailed and twisty (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy). This one has offers a dose of each blended with some romance and a vital "is she or isn't she" plot. The "she" in that last part is French Resistance fighter Marianne Beausejour played by Marion Cotillard. Her introduction here is a thing of beauty, as she floats across the room thrilled to be reuniting with her husband Max Vatan. Of course the catch is that Max is really a Canadian Agent and their marriage is a cover for their mission to assassinate a key Nazi. Yes, it's 1942 in Morocco.

The two agents work well together and it's no surprise when this escalates to a real romance between two beautiful and secretive people. It seems only natural that after killing Nazi's and making love in a car during a ferocious sandstorm that the next steps would be marriage, a move to London, and having a kid. It's at this point where viewers will be divided. Those loving the action-spy approach will find the London segment slows the movie to a crawl. Those who prefer intelligence gathering and intrigue may very well enjoy the second half more.

What if your assignment was to kill your beloved wife if she were deemed to be a double-agent? Max finds himself in this predicament, and since no one ever says what they mean in the community of spies, he isn't sure if the evidence is legit or if it's really a game to test his own loyalty. This second half loses sight of the larger picture of war, and narrows the focus on whether Max can prove the innocence of Marianne … of course without letting her know he knows something – or might know something.

Marion Cotillard is stellar in her role. She flashes a warm and beautiful smile that expertly masks her true persona. The nuance and subtlety of her performance is quite impressive. Mr. Pitt does a nice job as the desperate husband hiding his desperation, but his role doesn't require the intricacies of hers. Supporting work comes via Jared Harris, Lizzy Caplan, August Diehl, Marion Bailey, Simon McBurney, and Matthew Goode.

The Zemekis team is all in fine form here: Cinematographer Don Burgess captures the feel of the era, Composer Alan Silvestri never tries to overpower a scene, and Costume Designer Joanna Johnston is likely headed for an Oscar nomination. For a spy movie, the story is actually pretty simple and the tension is never over-bearing like we might expect. While watching the performance of Ms. Cotillard, keep in mind her most telling line of dialogue: "I keep the emotions real." It's a strategy that is a bit unusual in her world. How effective it is will be determined by the end of the movie.

This movie seems like a long montage, you never feel engaged with the characters or the story as it races through plot points then plods through others. The effects seem dated, in that it's noticeably fake, which often draws you out of the story. Cotillard is strong, Pitt less so. The story itself has been done and and done better. The writing is a little lazy and predictable. One strange inclusion is that it makes a point of introducing Pitt's character's sister. She seems to serve no point and it feels like something is missing. As a (Southern Hemisphere) summer "blockbuster" it will probably fare well but when compared to some of 2016's more tense and visually appealing movies, like Norturnal Animals, it falls flat.

This film has a powerful story, many stunning scenes, and Marion Cotillard. But it also has Brad Pitt. Big mistake. Not only does Pitt seem to have had his face worked on, so that it can show little emotion anymore, but he is also apparently not Brad Pitt anymore. Is this a zombie who has taken his place? He plays opposite Marion Cotillard in countless intimate scenes, she tries every device she can think of to wake him up, but still he slumbers. A cardboard cutout of the Brad Pitt we used to know would have been more effective. Considering that this is a film wholly dependent upon the relationship between Pitt and Cotillard, the result is a disaster. The chemistry between them is so far below absolute zero that we are in a deeply frozen universe. Meanwhile, an enormous crew and the director Robert Zemeckis (famous for FORREST GUMP and BACK TO THE FUTURE) struggle to hold back the Red Sea so that the entire cast do not drown in a sea of indifference. We have the excellent Jared Harris, beloved of all MAD MEN fans, adding his resonant voice which is as soothing as hot chocolate, but lacking closeups, so that we can barely see him. We have Gary Sinese, an old chum of Zemeckis. We even have Simon McBurney. But still there is no thaw. We have great scenes. There is sex inside an old car in the middle of a sandstorm in the desert (lacking however any continuity link to the succeeding scenes, which is both an editing and a directing lapse). There is a birth of a baby in the open in the middle of an air raid. There is a man landing on a sand dune by parachute, seen from the air as he descends (astonishing camera work) which is ostensibly in Morocco but was really filmed in the Canary Islands, where all the North African locations were simulated. (There are in any case no such sand dunes near Casablanca, just for the record.) And there is a plane coming straight at a house but which misses its roof by a whisker and crashes across the street. That street is Willow Road in London's Hampstead, where so much action takes place. I could not make out whether the house was meant to be that of my friend Rupert Sheldrake, but I must go have a look at his roof to see whether it is damaged. Later when we see baby Anna taking her first steps, with the wrecked German plane in the background, it is on a hill far from Willow Road, but then this is only a movie. This is a film which should have been fantastic. But it has no pace, it is in fact languid and lingering. It is meant to be a powerful thriller and intense personal drama, but where is the editing to keep it going, where are the intense angles, and above all, where is the hero? Sound asleep, of course. Yes, there are plenty of spectacular setups. Many people worked their butts off giving us great sets, great props, great clothes, wonderful period cars. There are searchlights and anti-aircraft guns slaving away for our benefit, there are Sten guns, Nazis, stern 'V Section' spooks, uniforms, pistols, the whole shebang. But where are the pace, the intensity, and the excitement? All the elements are there, but we wait in vain for it all to move us. This is a passionless film. I also think Steven Knight's screenplay was greatly lacking in any true cinematic sense, and that he is just not a natural writer for the screen, despite having numerous credits. What a waste of a wonderful opportunity this is. And all that money spent on it! Zemeckis rolls scene after scene onstage as if he were producing a variety show in a theatre, or reading from Steven Knight's shopping list, and expects them all to adhere. But they are episodic rather than unified. We go from one outstanding setup to another. But we do not do so quickly enough, there is not enough glue, and above all, the nearest thing to a meaningful Pitt which we see in this film, vaguely and in the distance, are the ones on Jared Harris's face, remembered from MAD MEN, where we all learned to find them endearing marks of his individuality. Marion Cotillard deserves an Oscar for trying. But she might as well be kissing a film poster, and even a rag doll would be more responsive to her embraces. All of her plentiful allure is just so much water thrown at the desert sands, disappearing instantly and leaving no trace. If one pretends all the flaws are not there, one can still just about enjoy this film because of its dramatic and tragic story. But its lack of vigour just makes it look so contrived.

Quite the duplicitous plot! Robert Zemeckis' Allied released by Paramount Pictures is a thrilling tale of espionage and love. We have certainly seen a few different "spy" movies over the last couple of years; some more about espionage and others more about the drama that ensues afterwards. Fortunately, Allied feels like a genuine spy movie that actually contains espionage. The production design and costumes are a beautiful throwback to the fabulous 40s. You'll find yourself reaching for a glass of champagne and swing dancing to Benny Goodman's timeless big band jazz hit Sing, Sing, Sing. There is one city synonymous with WWII, espionage, and romance and you will appropriately return to that iconic city of Casablanca in Allied. This is definitely not a reimagined Casablanca but there are indirect references to that movie sprinkled throughout this new story. Films like this one require top notch talent, and both Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard deliver outstanding performances to accompany this staple in film genres. Not limited to the love story between Pitt's and Cotillard's respective characters, the movie also includes some deadly shootout scenes and dangerously close encounters with the Nazis behind enemy lines.

Commander and intelligence officer Max Vatan (Pitt) is stationed in the famous city of Casablanca in French Morocco where he teams up with French resistance movement leader Marianne Beausejour (Cotillard). Impressed by her ability to so effectively blend in and create her authentic cover, Vatan soon finds himself falling in love with his partner. Following the assassination of a Nazi ambassador, Beausejour and Vatan flee to London to start their life together. Everything is going beautifully for the happy couple in their second year of marriage with a child when Vatan's superiors confront him with the suspicion that Marianne is in fact a Nazi spy. Refusing to believe it to be true, Max must now conduct his own investigation into his wife's history to protect the ones he loves so dearly.

I absolutely adored the look and feel of the film as it echoes the era of the Golden Age of Hollywood. Although this movie plays off a tad listless as a result of failing to elicit a strong emotional response from the audience, it is not without it outstanding elements. It benefits from solid acting and beautiful cinematography as well as some fantastic symbolism. Robert Zemeckis' talent for visual storytelling is clearly visible in this period film. The weakness in the ability to successfully leave a lasting emotional impact on the audience is in the writing and executive producership of Steven Knight (Eastern Promises). For films that are not as much about the spectacle as they are the drama between characters and the challenge faced therein, it is vitally important that the personal/interpersonal relationships transcend the screen and directly impact the audience. All the makings were there for a deeply moving cinematic story, but it just doesn't quite make that transition from the mostly superficial and distant.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall...(interesting fun fact: this misquoted line from Snow White is actually "magic mirror on the wall"). But, I digress. The strategic use of mirrors is an incredible use of visual storytelling and symbolism. For those who have studied film or literary rhetoric, the mirror is a classic means of conveying duplicity (two sides, faces, etc of a character). Even without knowing that this was a spy movie, I would have been able to infer that from how the mirrors are shot and placed within the composition of the 24 frames a second. When using powerful symbolism as part of the visual story, it conveys so much more meaning in a scene than words could actually describe. Mirrors have long sense been a powerful metaphor even before moving pictures. But motion pictures allow for a greater use of the importance it plays in a cinematic story. Not limited to duplicity, mirrors can also be used as a metaphor for self-reflection. Whether talking duplicity or reflection, the mirror aids in conveying so much to the audience in this movie.

Ordinarily, I am not a fan of classic films getting remakes; however, there are always exceptions when the core or essence of the film is held in tact but the production design, direction, and cinematography are brought up to speed with contemporary cinema. If you're a fan of WWII era films or the timeless spy movie, then you will definitely enjoy Allied. After witnessing the significance of Casablanca in this movie, I am actually looking forward to a remake if there ever is one. Provided. That the overall look and feel of the movie is in line with classical motion picture storytelling. I could definitely see Robert Zemeckis directing a remake of Casablanca. Occasionally there are directors who can strike the balance between classical cinematic storytelling told through contemporary technology, and Zemeckis definitely struck that balance in Allied.

Don't allow the weak writing to dissuade you from watching it; there is actually a lot to enjoy in this film. After the slow burn during the first act, acts II and III are full of intrigue and suspense.

I was curious as to how this movie would play out. I enjoyed the film, but I was disappointed with the ending. With a different ending, I could have overlooked a lot of the other flaws. (Obviously this will include spoilers).

The story is somewhat basic--two operatives on a mission fall in love and get married. Then, one of them is revealed to be a spy for the Germans, though a reluctant one at that. Half of the film is devoted to developing Pitt and Cotillard's relationship. It starts with a thrilling mission in Casablanca and ends with their eventual marriage, birth of their daughter, and Pitt's humdrum life as a desk officer in British intelligence. The second half of the movie revolves around Pitt being briefed that his wife is a German spy and that he must cooperate in a "blue dye" operation to know for sure. Over the course of three days, he must act normal and go along with the operation. Pitt is told that if she is found to be a spy, he must execute her immediately, or they will both be executed. But he loves his wife and he wants to prove her innocent, so he goes to great lengths to get information ... only to find out that she is indeed not the person she claimed she was. But she loves him and she was only cooperating with the Germans out of coercion. Pitt decides to spirit his family out of the country (in a single engine plane that couldn't have taken them anywhere useful, except maybe Ireland) but they are stopped and Cotillard, knowing her husband won't pull the trigger, shoots herself after confessing her love and telling Pitt that he must take care of their daughter. The end of the film is the verbal reading of a letter Cotillard wrote on her last day with her family (she knew she'd be caught).

This ending really left a hollow feeling in me. It would have been better if Cotillard had somehow been saved. Indeed, there is historical precedent that the movie ignored.

The whole "you must execute her on the spot!" thing was contrived. The British routinely turned German agents into double agents. Only the most hardened of spies who refused to turn would have been executed, and even then, most were imprisoned. Cotillard would have eagerly agreed to work as a double. It would have been a nice ending if she passed fraudulent reports to the Germans in the lead-up to D- Day, thus "saving the day."

In reality, by the time D-Day kicked off, all of Germany's spies in the UK had been rolled up (either executed, imprisoned, or turned), so the whole notion that Cotillard's character would have been working for a German network is pure fiction.

It's also fiction that Pitt (who is in his 50s) would be a "field man." At his age and with his rank, he would have been a senior officer working out of England, not parachuting into Morocco.

And if Cotillard was suspected as a spy, Pitt would have also been investigated. He would not have been told to go along with this scheme. Why? Because of what we saw in the film. He would have been emotionally compromised. Therefore, the first Pitt would have heard of this would have been when she was arrested and he along with her. They would have interrogated him and ensured that he wasn't a witting accomplice.

It was later stated in the film that the ambassador they assassinated in the beginning of a film was actually a dissident whom Hitler wanted killed. If so, Hitler would have just recalled the man and executed him in Berlin. He would not have allowed some long-odds intelligence operation to go forth in which he'd lose a number of SS and Abwehr officers. In short, there would be easier ways to get an agent into the British network.

Anyway, I wanted to like this film better. If they had given it a happier ending, I would have. I thought the whole "Allied" title might be a nod towards how a husband and wife are allied together.

This is the kind of film I go in to with a very forgiving attitude. Historical dramas are among my top choices and it was fantastic watching two of my all-time favorite stars trying to play multi-layered characters and doing pretty good. Then Zemeckis decided to add coke heads and other modern Hollywood projections in scenes of WW2 Britain. Not only was the language, behavior and attitude not historically accurate, it was so distracting and unnecessary in a period piece. Beautiful cinematography and set pieces and a good story all ruined by a need to desecrate old, traditional behavior and values. And by the way, people in the 40's rarely said F but here it was in every sentence. Sad and disappointing.

This is one of those movies you can not know what would happen until the very ending,the movie was very entertaining and full of switches the ending was unpredictable this was a great story and also a word class acting.

On paper, Allied should be a great movie. You have a bona fide movie star in Brad Pitt as the leading man and a bona fide movie star in Marion Cotillard as the leading lady. Robert Zemeckis is directing and the setting is one of the most interesting times in human history, WWII. Both play secret agents tasked with taking out a Nazi ambassador in one of the most beautiful cities in the world, Casablanca. Somehow this movie that has so many good things going for it finds ways to disappoint despite having a solid first half. This review is going to have a lot to do with the overall intention of a movie and how it relates to the scores I give out.

To begin the first half of the movie is not too bad. It shows how the main characters meet and react to each other with the difficult task ahead of them. There was some interesting tension and cinematic moments that can be appreciated. It was paced really well even with quite a few dialogue sections with some exposition but those moments were juxtaposed with some moments with real tension. For some reason the second half of the movie did not follow suit. I'm not sure if the overall plot got in the way or the studio got in the way but the third act was full of holes and felt on rails.

Robert Zemeckis has directed some of the biggest movies of his time, Back to the Future and Forrest Gump to name a few, but I think his age has caught up to him. Allied feels slow and unexciting, even in the high points of the action there seems to be a quick build up with an unexciting pay off. It is not a great looking movie, with some locations either being green screen or just terribly lit. The editing is also not helping but there is really nothing brought by the director that gets the viewer excited.

The performances of Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard are a bit all over the place if only because after that first half they don't spend much time on screen together. Both performances are fine but some of the reactions don't make perfect sense in the context of the story. Really all of the acting is fairly solid and if there is one thing about this movie that is a positive the acting is it.

Overall the writing is not terribly great. There are some high moments that like I have mentioned before mostly take place in the first half of the movie. There seem to be entire scenes that are useless and characters seem to constantly be doing things that left me shaking my head. The idea is a great one, two WWII spys who fall in love, who may be taking deep secrets into their post mission affairs is one I can get behind. What ends up playing out in the movie is in some cases infuriating. disappointment.

Allied, based on the people involved was supposed to be a huge hit and a possible Oscar contender. The movie comes nothing close to that and does not even fall into the "decent" spy thriller genre. Nothing about the characters brings much to be desired and other than the actors playing them are pretty forgettable. I wanted the movie to end up surprising me close to the end with something that would change my opinion of the movie at least a little bit but that moment never came. I don't think the ending of a movie should necessarily define how good a movie is but by the end of Allied I was begging for something off the all to make it all worth it. With quite a few movies being released this holiday season I would recommend you spend your time on something better.

I will not even bother to comment on the story line which could have been a very interesting and well made film if only the script were very interesting and well made. In a ham handed attempt to bring the reality of 1940's society into 2016 by streamlining a lesbian couple into the story line as if it would have been a perfectly normal and accepted situation to have a woman, Pitt's characters sister, in uniform at his wedding pawing all over her lesbian submissive lover, this is while sitting at the same table as the "V" Section Commander who doesn't seem to care that a military officer is engaged in a lesbian sexual encounter while under his command in an intelligence unit which would have required people who had absolutely no "weakness" which could have possibly been compromised. Then later in the film where their roles seem to reverse and she is the one being manhandled by her cellist lover. My complete disillusionment with this film isn't related to the idea that a Lesbian Couple was written into the script, it's how they were written into the script as if they were no longer living their lives in secrecy for the most part, and certainly not in the open within the British Military in 1940's Britain; the very idea is complete nonsense and a complete insult to those who lived alternative lifestyles prior to the societal acceptance of these alternative lifestyles. These people within the LGBT movement had worked decades for acceptance. This idiotic script totally discounts the years and the struggles which were so hard fought by so many. I am not a member of the LGBT community but I can't help but feel incensed by the dismissal of the actual trials which those who were living a Gay lifestyle during WWII. Then there is the lengths which Pitts character goes to in total disregard of his orders and the lives of a number of men behind enemy lines to have people look at his wife's picture; it is simply one of the dumbest story lines I have ever seen played out within a major motion picture that didn't include the launch of space craft full of Well Drilling pros which then land on a Comet headed for New York, and then are successful! That movie however was at least well done, which this wasn't. History is interesting and really doesn't require a "rewrite".

What is even happening?

How did this movie ever manage to grow into anything past an abstract idea hastily aborted for ringing so... drab?

Did any of the people involved want to be there?

As the unnatural movements, wooden acting, and Benjamin Button SFX face would suggest, was Brad Pitt even physically present while filming this or did he have to be entirely superimposed? Did something happen, like... he had previous engagements, had to have brunch with friends and couldn't make it, so they had to hire someone to play Pitt against a green screen or something? In which case, did they even try for Andy Serkis before they slapped those sensors onto a wholly disinterested, pregnant panda?

Is Matthew Goode even reading the contracts Hollywood is throwing his way before signing them?

Is Steven Knight ashamed of his fingers for actually following his brain's dictation into the completion of this... authorial embarrassment?

Was the editor full-on intoxicated for the duration of their task? Were they forced to edit with nothing but a pair of blunt scissors and two broken thumbs? Maybe the aforementioned bored, pregnant panda was asked to multitask?

Did Marion Cotillard finally got around to firing her agent after this?

Watching this nonsensical monstrosity completed for the first time, did Zemeckis at the very least have the decency to walk out in heavy, wet protest against this mortifyingly puzzling directorial disgrace?

I have questions. And a headache. But mostly questions.

I mean...

What is even happening?!?

The film started off well.....even though I knew there would be a plot development coming later regarding the possibility of the wife being a spy for the Nazis. I didn't mind the story of how the two leads got together and ended up in Hampstead in the middle of the war. I didn't mind waiting for the crisis to come up where Brad Pitt doesn't know if his wife is a spy or not. But once it does come up, Brad undertakes some pretty far fetched ventures that could undermine the Allies' security even in order to find out. I was even overlooking that. What finally tore it was the way Brad's wife played by Marion Cotillard handles her own dilemma and crisis. She could have sought help or guidance from Brad OR his superiors, totally versed in the very areas she was struggling with. It indicates that she did not trust her husband in spite of the lovey dovey marriage portrayed. Either that, or she was simply a wimp and a wuss. This made the whole movie rather unbelievable. As for the ending of the film with the letter to her daughter especially, that was superfluous and heavy on the treacle, a very obvious attempt to tug at heartstrings in case the audience doesn't already GET that she really loved her daughter. Last straw, by this time I really didn't care for the film.

There have been so many negative reviews I had to write what I feel is an accurate review. I really liked this film it had everything you would want in a ww2 thriller and love story,a nod to Casablanca and the English patient . The story is a girl meets guy during an espionage mission. They marry and move to England and there we are intrigued by their life and what happens next. Good script ,costumes and direction with great performances from Brad and Marion plus Simon birney and Jared Harris. It's really worth watching grabs you all the way through and leaves you with a feeling of having an experience which is rare these days.

Spoilers ** Spoilers **Spoilers ** below

Performances were good all around. Keep your hand on the FF button, unless you want to see gratuitous groping and moaning (I don't). Nice period piece. Brad, a highly-ranked espionage agent in World War II, with a pilot background, gets hooked up with the Marian Cotillard character, pulling a dangerous coup in Morocco, and then escaping to safety in Britain, where they marry. As you're aware, allegations are made to Brad that his bride (and the mother of a new child) is, in fact, a spy, planted in Africa by the Germans, as a replacement for a legit French freedom fighter who was executed. Brad has reason to suspect his mettle is just being tested.

** Don't read below unless you've seen it **

Spoilers ** Spoilers **Spoilers ** and plot questions

1> why didn't Marianne change sides, once she got to Britain? Confess, and switch sides? The Gestapo had less assets than the Brits in England, if things went sour -- she could have been a great double-agent, passing bad info onto the Gestapo. lived happily ever after. when she finally owned up, she showed that she was a self-serving schemer. Sorry - it's a hard world. There are prices to pay for lying--and betrayal.

2> she (finally) gives herself away by not being able to play the piano like the real person. No decent Espionage outfit would commit an oversight like that. The Gestapo would have gotten her lessons up front, or, maybe on the sly in U.K. once she settled there, in case the subject ever came up. With 3 weeks practice, I could play La Marseillaise convincingly. It ain't a recital at Albert Hall.

Apart from that, I am impressed that the production team didn't script a typical clichéd happy ending. Even if she goes for option 1 above, you could still deliver a tragic conclusion by having a German agent finally 'get to her' (lethally). It's just that her character didn't strike me as a German patriot - hence, I can't buy that she would jeopardize her new life, just to pass low grade info to the Axis side, which, by 1944, was obviously going to lose anyway.

A movie directed by Robert Zemeckis. Starring Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard. The movie tells us a story of agents who met on a mission to kill German Ambassador in Casablanca during World War II and fall in love. After returning to London their relationship is tested. It was boring and predictable movie. I couldn't see the chemistry between main characters. And I was feeling a lack of something in the whole movie. I was expecting a lot from it but I was disappointed.