A generally enjoyable watch, but not sure what it wants to be

I must admit that I struggled to work out what type of movie I was watching. At times, it seemed to be a classic John Le Carre espionage thriller, at others a tongue-in-cheek version of the same, and at others a story heading towards a series of seriously twisty plot twists, twisting around like a twisty thing, David Mamet-style.

This actually let it down, because it was hard to work out who you were supposed to be rooting for. Pierce Brosnan, in particular, played a nastier version of his 007 persona, and was clearly not supposed to come out as the overall victor.

The story itself, however, based around the conceit that one or two half-truths can quickly become self-fulfilling truths if you WANT to believe them, is unusual, and holds the viewer's interest for that reason.

What I cannot work out, however, is why Brendan Gleeson is in every other movie that I rent these days, invariably playing some kind of nutter with a silly accent (c.f. Cold Mountain, Turbulence, Gangs of New York, MI:2, 28 Days Later - the list is endless).

Lastly, a little trivialette - one of Geoffrey Rush's children in the movie is none other than Master Harry Potter himself, Daniel Radcliffe, looking as cute as a button, but without the speccies and the enormous goalposts.