It was boring, the plot made no sense and was impossible to follow, nothing really happens and they do nothing to get the audience to care about any of it. Very disappointing.
"I like simple pleasures like butter in my ass and lollipops in my mouth." - Floyd Gondolli
I just want to say that I totally agree. This film was an unmitigated disaster. I say that as a huge le Carré fan. I've read TTSS at least three times, watched the BBC adaption several times, read and loved all the other cold war novels, read A Perfect Spy twice and watched the BBC adaptation of that too.
I just didn't like this film. And some of the divergences from the world of the novels ... Smiley setting up shop in front of two huge open windows? Control leaving his work out in plain sight in his flat? Two absurdities, completely contrary to the highly secretive nature of the characters. Renaming Sam Collins to Westerby? Why?
The only thing this film did that was brilliant and new was having the British secret service drunkenly sing the Russian national anthem led by Santa Claus in a Lenin mask. That was perfect. Everything else about this movie is wrong.
There's a scene at the end where Smiley is debriefing Haydon; and Haydon, trying to mitigate his own evil, says, "I did get him back," referring to Prideaux. This is after Haydon has betrayed his former best friend and lover and sent Prideaux to the most horrible physical torture. And Smiley responds, "Yes, that was good of you." In the BBC adaptation, Alec Guinness delivers that line with powerful acid sarcasm, damning Haydon. In this film, Oldman just steps over the line and says it without emotion or meaning. It's one of the most powerful lines in the book and BBC version, just wasted in the film.
In the book, Prideaux kills Haydon with his bare hands. A far more suitable killing, considering the extremely personal nature of Haydon's betrayal. A long-distance rifle shot? Takes all the meaning out of that death.
Many other things in the book make no sense. Why kill Irina in front of Prideaux, he doesn't know her and has no idea who she is. Why does Karla have Tufty Thesinger killed? Makes no sense. Alleline played as a Scottish bulldog? The whole point of his character is that he's a classic upper class British twit, not one tenth as clever as he thinks he is.
The interrogation of Esterhase in front of that ridiculous airplane? Nonsense. Compare the corresponding BBC scene, in which that interrogation beautifully and clearly explains the entire plot to the audience. Of course explaining the plot to the audience is simply not a priority for the filmmakers. Le Carré always keeps you confused for a few hundred pages, and then pays you off with a perfect explanation that satisfies. This movie doesn't care enough about its audience to do that.
Honestly I could go on. I just hated the hell out of this movie.
Finally, not to put too fine a point on it, but Smiley is fat. From Call for the Dead: "Short, fat, and of a quiet disposition, he appeared to spend a lot of money on really bad clothes, which hung about his squat frame like skin on a shrunken toad." When I heard that Gary Oldman was playing Smiley, I knew this production was doomed.
Ok well that's my two cents. This movie really frosts my butt.
ps -- Why does it matter that Smiley is fat? Because his character parallels that of Roach. Without that, the existence of Roach makes no sense. And Prideaux angrily chastising Roach? Could never happen. Prideaux would break Haydon's neck with his bare hands; but he'd never be anything but gentle with Roach.
This film was an unmitigated disaster.That was a commercial and critical success.
This movie really frosts my butt.We're all friends here. What else are you aiming to talk about?🐭 share
> > This film was an unmitigated disaster.
That was a commercial and critical success.
I think he meant that it was an unmitigated disaster fromthe perspective of the viewer.Yes, but he didn't say that, so why suggest otherwise?
But yes, it is true that a number of people saw it ...Spoken like a true advocate of the downplay. In fact a lot of people saw it, and as I stated it was very much a critical and commercial success.
As for critics, they just praise what they don't understand, for fear of being thought stupid.LOL! Of course they all do! It's an almost universal conspiracy by them designed to upset pompous upstarts. You've just succeeded in validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.🐭 share
Yes, but he didn't say that, so why suggest otherwise?
Spoken like a true advocate of the downplay. In fact a lot of people saw it, and as I stated it was very much a critical and commercial success.
LOL! Of course they all do! It's an almost universal conspiracy by them designed to upset pompous upstarts.
I agree, it was flat and turgid, like so many of today's films. Felt very made for tv at times.
~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.
The plot got hard to follow in places but I liked the movie enough to want to read the book.
shareI didn't think it was too bad, it could have been a lot worse. For a film, it stuck reasonably closely to the original,story as far as I could tell.
shareI think a lot of the people in this thread need to stick to Bond and Bourne and leave the more complex films to the grown-ups.
share
I think a lot of the people in this thread need to stick to Bond and Bourne and leave the more complex films to the grown-ups.
Well the 1st 5 minutes I thought this might be an ok movie. The next 20 mins now im losing interest. 5 mins later now fast forward to the bird scene. 2 mins after bird scene, oh my it was just too boring, removing from list.
Most BBC or British movies are good, but I guess you get one rotten apple in the bunch, once in a while.