User Reviews

The setup for the plot is brilliant: former same sex lover of a now married man suffers a stroke and is now cared for by the former lover's wife. Rupert Everett as the stroke victim has almost no dialogue, but effectively conveys the hopelessness and depression when his former lover refuses to see him, even though they are both under the same roof.

I am mystified by the barbs thrown in other reviews at Harry Styles, who is natural and convincing in the difficult role of the younger version of Everett's character, Tom. Emma Corrin is charming in a subtle performance as the younger Marion, while Gina McKee somewhat underplays the elderly Marion.

The film highlights the challenges facing gay people in earlier times without being overly preachy or didactic. If some film goers find this picture does not resonate with them, there is nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't reflect a lack of quality in the movie itself. Highly recommended!

Featuring a great music score and with some lovely scenery, this is an affecting tale of three people who meet in the late 1950s but, because of the laws against homosexuality at the time, the ones who should be together cannot be.

Very well acted by all six people playing the young and old versions of these characters. I was impressed by Harry Styles in this serious role.

I'd like to have learned more about how these characters' lives played out in the years in between the late 50s and the 2000s shown here, but I have to say that the last few moments of this film moved me to tears. How times have changed, and you could only hope that these three damaged people would finally find real happiness as the film ended.

I feel I need to be critical of My Policeman but not as vituperative as some who unnecessarily have fixated on the acting which didn't bother me at all.

I like how we see the three main characters as middle-aged in the 90's and then flashback to the 50's where they evolve and end up completely transformed in the present time.

Immediately there's a real mystery confronting us: the middle-aged woman Marion (Gina McKee) has taken in stroke victim Patrick (Rupert Everett) into her home and in an act of great self-sacrifice agreed to care for this man who can't even bathe himself. Meanwhile Marion's husband Tom (Linus Roache) refuses to even be in the same room as Patrick.

As we flashback to when these three characters were young the mystery is gradually resolved. Young Patrick (David Dawson), a museum curator in Brighton, England, meets Young Tom (Harry Styles)-the policeman referred to in the title-and a romantic, physical relationship develops between them.

To Patrick's surprise, Tom is not the "usual" policeman he has encountered in the past. Tom is not only sensitive but welcomes Patrick as a mentor of sorts who satisfies his thirst for both intellectual and cultural pursuits.

Enter Young Marion (Emma Corrin), a schoolteacher, who befriends both Tom and Patrick. She appears a bit naïve but falls for Tom who is conflicted about his sexuality. Pressured by his police officer superiors, Tom reasons it's a good idea to get married so he and Marion tie the knot.

But Tom can't suppress his feelings for Patrick and the central conflict of the narrative becomes apparent when Marion ends up consumed with jealousy and decides to put an end to their relationship with disastrous consequences.

One of the problems with melodramatic writing such as this is that the characters become subordinate to the overarching story. As one internet poster complained Tom and Patrick are seen mostly in physical embraces and we never get to know them as regular people engaging in normal, everyday conversations.

Hence there is something superficial about the characters of Tom and Patrick. They could be fleshed out better. They are there however to illustrate the theme of the narrative--be true to yourself.

In Director Michael Grandage's view Tom is bisexual in name only. He is denying his homosexuality which is the source of his continuing angst (a familiar trope in gay "coming of age" stories of this type).

Despite the lack of character development regarding the protagonists, a melodrama can still be successful if it develops a strong antagonist or scenes showing the consequences of an antagonist's actions. As it turns out we don't discover who the actual antagonist is until the end of the film.

Instead, it's that letter written to Patrick's boss at the museum that exposes his homosexuality and leads to his trial, conviction, and imprisonment. This is probably the best part of the picture as it reminds us of the extreme prejudice gay people faced prior to the gay liberation movement of the 1970's. You can practically cry when we watch how a sensitive soul such as Patrick is beaten to a pulp while incarcerated!

This brings us to whether Marion's actions in turning Patrick in are believable. On one hand it's hard to believe that a basically nice person like Marion would do such a thing. After all Patrick was a good friend of hers. During Marion's confession to Tom toward the end of the film admitting she mailed the letter, Marion maintained she immediately regretted her actions.

Was she that stupid not to foresee what would happen not only to Patrick but Tom too? After all he lost his job as a police officer (symbolized by the burning of his uniform). The jury is out whether the "good" Marion would have been so insensitive and cruel to do such a thing to a good friend like Patrick.

Ironically Marion becomes the "villain of the piece." Some might even argue there's some unconscious misogyny going on here casting Marion as the dastardly antagonist (despite her remorse).

Still, I'm willing to suspend my disbelief about all things Marion and move on to the subject of Tom. Here, unfortunately, I cannot and will not buy the film's dishonest climax in which Tom waits years before speaking to Patrick and then capitulates following Marion's decision to leave him.

I can very well see how Tom needed to cut ties with Patrick in the aftermath of his sordid prosecution. After all he had already undergone quite a bit of ostracization due to the revelations of his homosexuality which were revealed when entries from Patrick's diary were read in court.

But at a certain point (and this was not brought out in the film), the public's attitude toward gay people had changed. Gay people were no longer pariahs and physical relations between them were decriminalized.

There is no reason why Tom had to keep his distance from Patrick from the 1970's to the 1990's, the present time period of the narrative. What's more why couldn't he just have a frank discussion with Marion, separate amicably and go back to Patrick way before the reconciliation depicted as the film's climax?

There is no reason why Tom should remain so angry with Patrick; after all he must realize they were both victims of an unjust and unfeeling society. By the 90's Tom can no longer blame "staying in the closet" on "society" for society had changed.

My Policeman is a heartfelt look back on the difficulties of being gay before gay liberation. Not all of the story works but it will keep your interest.

The previews for this film were vague at best. When I saw it, I just knew it was a movie set in the 1950s and that Linus Roache and Harry Styles were in it. It is so much more than that. It is a tale of forbidden love in England when it was illegal for same sex couples to date or be in love. Way before gay marriage. Back then you were literally risking your career, freedom and possibly your own life to fall in love with someone of the same sex. It is especially difficult as one of the men in our story is a police officer. He is unable to live his life openly so he marries a young woman who is also a friend of his love.

I praise the acting, cinematography, direction, and premise. Not enough interplay between different times (two phases exist for main characters) to make it effective. It's fairly serious but not depressing. I like the issues of how to deal with past loves when you are older.

It's a great portrayal of life in the 1950s, contrasted with modern attitudes using a time shift, accentuating what we chose when young versus real middle age, and the troublesome agony of issues we find relevant now. Sometimes I wonder, did people care back then about the issues we face now - and why not?

Overall a very safe film. Fair and nice soundtrack, lovely scenery.