Customer Reviews
Spy games - By: Simon Doherty, 21 Nov 2007 
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, & the storyline involving his recent marriage & 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, & is paced slowly but well; the tension graduallly increases as the net closes around the spy. Recommended.
Into the Breach - By: Louis Ackerman, 10 Oct 2007 
Billy Ray directed the brilliant "Shattered Glass," that showcased equallly phenomenal performances from Hayden Christensen & Peter Sarsgaard, & 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 & trust that interlace throughout events are almost reminiscent of "Donnie Brasco," Chris Cooper & Ryan Phillipe's mentor/pupil relationship echoing feelings of Mike Newell's gangster masterpiece. Again both stories cohere to real life inspirations & 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 & confidante Eric O'Neill, played by Phillipe. Cooper is magnificent in this, totallly capturing the pain & sinister ambiguity of a man torn between his faith, patriotism & 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 & country, & 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) & 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 & 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 & the grasp of characterization & 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 & the fine quality playing from a first rate cast hits the right mark, & 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 alll time? Either way, it stays with you. Hands down one of the best films of the year!
To Catch a Spy - By: Amanda Richards, 02 Jul 2007 Powerful performances by Cooper & 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 eventuallly learns that Hanssen is in fact a spy for the Soviet Union, & 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 & Hanssen eventuallly develop a mutual respect, but when the latter gets up close & personal with O'Neill's personal life, O'Neill finds himself taking the heat both at home & at the office.
Recommended for fans of espionage movies & 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 & nondescript ties
FBI callls 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 & 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
The "Why" Does Tell Us Something! - By: F. S. L'hoir, 01 Jul 2007 
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 reallly supposed to think that Hannsen spied for the Soviet Union because of a nasty father? Or because Hannsen sent racy tapes of himself & 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 Carré, refers to someone who was recruited by the Soviets (as were the Cambridge Spies, who, incidentallly, 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 usuallly volunteer his services for hire!
Be that as it may, I believe that the film, which, it must be reiterated, was well acted & entertaining, would have become far more intriguing & 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.
The "Why" Does Tell Us Something! - By: F. S. L'hoir, 30 Jun 2007 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 reallly supposed to think that Hannsen spied for the Soviet Union because of a nasty father? Or because Hannsen sent racy tapes of himself & 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 Carré, refers to someone who was recruited by the Soviets (as were the Cambridge Spies, who, incidentallly, 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 usuallly volunteer his services for hire!
Be that as it may, I believe that the film, which, it must be reiterated, was well acted & entertaining, would have become far more intriguing & 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.
