Restless
Metascore
75

Generally favorable reviews - based on 12 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 12
  2. Mixed: 3 out of 12
  3. Negative: 0 out of 12
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Buy on

Critic Reviews

  1. New York Post
    Reviewed by: Linda Stasi
    Dec 6, 2012
    100
    By the second part of this excellent thriller you won't know who are the bad guys and who are the really bad guys, which is how it's supposed to be.
  2. Entertainment Weekly
    Reviewed by: Jessica Shaw
    Dec 5, 2012
    83
    The twisty tale tries to tackle more than it can handle in the suspense department, but the remarkable acting keeps you sucked in till the very last confusing second.
  3. Los Angeles Times
    Reviewed by: Mary McNamara
    Dec 7, 2012
    80
    In both time frames, the period is richly evoked, and the performances are universally fine.
  5. New York Daily News
    Reviewed by: David Hinckley
    Dec 7, 2012
    80
    As the plot simmers and thickens, Restless keeps its focus on the core story, avoiding the temptation to become a war epic. This serves viewers well. Call it December's best-bet sleeper.
  6. The Hollywood Reporter
    Reviewed by: Tim Goodman
    Dec 7, 2012
    80
    It never flags in pace, and all the performances, even the smaller ones (like Gambon's), are enthralling.
  7. Wall Street Journal
    Reviewed by: Dorothy Rabinowitz
    Dec 7, 2012
    80
    It's a testament to the crackling intelligence of the script (written by Mr. Boyd) that the nature of that menace hangs elusively in the air until the end.
  8. Miami Herald
    Reviewed by: Glenn Garvin
    Dec 6, 2012
    80
    The uncommon acuity of Boyd's script is immeasurably bolstered by an outstanding female cast.
  9. Newsday
    Reviewed by: Verne Gay
    Dec 5, 2012
    75
    Good performances, good period details, good payoff. But Restless would've worked better as a two-hour film.
  10. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    Reviewed by: Rob Owen
    Dec 5, 2012
    70
    Restless could benefit from a little more development of the characters Eva works with--it would make their stories more meaningful and poignant--but overall this four-hour miniseries is a strong entry.
  11. The New York Times
    Reviewed by: Mike Hale
    Dec 6, 2012
    60
    Unfortunately, the three hours of the show, while they include chases, sexual entrapment, grisly murders and lots of spycraft, never exceed the tension in those quiet opening scenes.
  12. Variety
    Reviewed by: Brian Lowry
    Dec 5, 2012
    60
    The second chapter isn't much more eventful than the first.
  13. Boston Herald
    Reviewed by: Mark A. Perigard
    Dec 7, 2012
    50
    The background music works muscularly to pump up interest, but the story's pacing is ponderous.

Awards & Rankings

32
#32 Best TV Season of 2012
98
#98 Most Discussed TV Season of 2012
58
#58 Most Shared TV Season of 2012

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
6.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 8 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 8
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 8
  3. Negative: 2 out of 8
  1. tgny
    Feb 1, 2013
    7
    I enjoyed this a good deal; I think it was well-plotted, and I'm always a sucker for the 1930s and 40s. But I was hugely bothered by theI enjoyed this a good deal; I think it was well-plotted, and I'm always a sucker for the 1930s and 40s. But I was hugely bothered by the impossibility of Hayley Atwell becoming Charlotte Rampling not only because their characters seem so radically different in style and tone, but because Charlotte Rampling has piercing, pale eyes, and Hayley Attwell has deep brown eyes. How could a director overlook such a prominent detail? There are any number of close-ups; this just seemed to underscore the disconnect between the young Eva and the older Eva. What an error in directorial judgment!… Full Review »
  2. MDK36
    Jan 20, 2013
    2
    Although the actors try, their efforts are undermined by improbable plot twists and plodding script that is far below the standards of BritishAlthough the actors try, their efforts are undermined by improbable plot twists and plodding script that is far below the standards of British Television. (See State of Play, The Hour, MI-5.) The premise that an elderly spy would still be pursued thirty or so years after WWII is tenuous. Moreover, the story lacks relevance for our time. Those craving 1940's ambiance would be better off watching the Third Man, Maltese Falcon, etc. for a second, third or fourth time rather than wasting their time on Restless. If you hanker after British spy craft, then watch MI-5 (Spooks in the UK) or see the latest Bond flick.… Full Review »
  3. foxgrove
    Jan 12, 2013
    3
    Restless is a tedious and dull spy drama that outstays its three hour running time by a considerable margin. Red herrings abound, but it isRestless is a tedious and dull spy drama that outstays its three hour running time by a considerable margin. Red herrings abound, but it is obvious very early on who the villain is. That in itself is fine, but the screenplay is so confused and lacking in credibility that one loses interest very quickly. Spy dramas can be excellent (Think 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' which was rewardingly complex) but they need to make sense and keep one guessing, or at least be engaged. This does neither. A few sequences ignite with some promised tension, but the film feels a bit like being on a roller coaster where it takes ages to get to the top only to have the exciting drop over in seconds. It is to the credit of Charlotte Rampling that her performance is actually very good and survives its setting.… Full Review »
See all user reviews »