I just saw this movie and I've got to say that I thought it was pretty good. It was a little different from what I was expecting.

The Nits:

1. With all the flashbacks the movie takes place over the course of about 20 years and the characters don't seem to age one bit.

2. When the Redford character is moving his money he tells the guy that he will pay whatever penalties it will cost. He ends up with $282,000. Later when the CIA guys see the ad for the retirement condo it is listed as costing $282,000. What an amazing coincidence that his life savings (after the penalties are deducted is that exact number)

3. Near the opening of the movie (set in the early 90s) the screen says "Hong Kong China". As I recall Hong Kong was not a part of china at the time. I was a colony of the British. Which leads us to..............

4. When talking about a local reporter they say that he's really MI-6s man in Hong Kong. Since MI-6 is the British intelligence agency, and Hong Kong is a British colony it seems strange to have one guy placed as "your man" in a city where your country appoints the government.

4. When talking about a local reporter they say that he's really MI-6s man in Hong Kong. Since MI-6 is the British intelligence agency, and Hong Kong is a British colony it seems strange to have one guy placed as "your man" in a city where your country appoints the government


Is it really so strange. A Bond film had a similiar idea. While Bond is a more 'fantastic' setting, it is possible.

Also, the Brits knew that eventually it *wouldn't* be a British colony. Thus, they wanted to establish him as a journalist before they got shut down.

Great movie, but at the end when the remaining CIA guys realize that there's something else going on, are we supposed to believe that the CIA can't just get Redford back to answer for what he's done. Sure he could go into hiding but he just left the parking garage.