Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

BasicLogic I felt not quite patient to watch this 3 parts series, it's too romantic, it's too obvious who was(were) the mole(s). All the lectures and big words for patriotism on both sides simply rang false, contrite and dramatized like the dialogue delivered on a theater stage. The most serious problem of this series is the DIALOGUE, on and on, every segment in this series, we had to hear, listen to and suffer those not ordinary words spoke out of the regular mouths of common people, what we got were purified, beautified, dramatized unrealistic big words or small talks. Were all these spooks that stupid so they couldn't find the mole(s) among them, just because they worked too close in a confined environment? The traitors among them were just too obvious in this series, the trade crafts of the so-called espionage all seemed to be too elementary and easy with very phony staging simplification. I'm in the middle of reading the original novel now to accommodate with this short series. It's a thick and wordy book, but I do hope it would not turn out too romantic, too poetically unreal.This series was well produced but the staging feeling was also very strong, the tempo was also too slow, dragged on with a overly romantic score, the music didn't give you any tension. All the key roles in it also felt extremely dramatized, acted with exaggerated body language guided by the horrible dialog, making this mole hunt looked and felt like a laughable child play. Because if we viewers could see who's who right away, then it's obvious not too suspenseful to us. We have to tolerate the script developed in a very slow motion speed to catch up our predictions.

Sean Gallagher I haven't read enough of Robert Littell's novels to know if he's the American version of Frederick Forsyth, Graham Greene, or my personal favorite, John le Carre, but I've liked the novels of his I've read, and one day, I hope someone makes a good adaptation of one of them. THE AMATEUR, filmed in 1981, was faithful to the plot of the novel for the most part, but was done in a plodding, mechanical style and further hampered by a one-note performance by John Savage in the lead role; only Christopher Plummer's wry turn as the head of the Czech Secret Service (he also poses as a professor) was worth watching. This made-for-TNT miniseries isn't as bad as THE AMATEUR, but it also falls short of the novel.Littell's novel was an epic roman a clef about the history of the CIA, with the usual blending of factual and fictional characters, and while it traveled well-worn territory (and not quite as substantial in that regard as le Carre's novels are), it's still an entertaining read. Obviously, when filming a long novel, even for a miniseries like this, some things have to go, but it's disappointing when great material is here, and the adapters (director Mikael Solomon and writer Ken Nolan) don't bring it to life on screen.Part of the problem is it seems like a greatest-hits version of the novel. You get the various incidents, like the Hungary uprising in 1956, and the Bay of Pigs, but there's no flow to the story. Solomon and Littell also cut out the humor of the novel - the character of Yevgeny, the Russian agent, for example, has a great fatalism about him (in the book, when asked what one of the principles of Marxism (I think) is, he replies, "A spy in hand is worth two in the bush?"), and Rory Cochrane could have played it as such, yet he does absolutely nothing with the part (he's certainly capable of it, so I'd like to think it's not his fault). Also a lot of the subplots are given to the character of Jack MacAuliffe, and Chris O'Donnell simply isn't equipped to handle them all. Speaking of O'Donnell, another problem is while the scope of the story is for 40 years, none of the characters really age, with the possible exception of Alfred Molina (as Harvey, code-named "The Sorcerer") and Michael Keaton (as real-life deputy director of counter-intelligence James Angleton). O'Donnell just looks like O'Donnell with a gray wig. The only actors who make much of an impression are Molina and Keaton. Overall, "The Company", while not terrible, definitely could have been a lot better.

fred-houpt After having read Robert Littell's masterpiece (can you believe that only 6 people have given their opinion on the book over at Amazon???) I was already set up with very low expectations for a film version. I have been more disappointed than satisfied with the film versions of good novels and this was just one more flop.The novel is very long (896 pages) but is as deep as it is wide from the point of view of a plot that grabs you from the outset and doesn't let you go until the very last page. The story he weaves is a believable pattern of interconnecting stories that are borrowed from real Cold War history and fictions crafted from the vapours of that real history. If you know your history well then Littel's craft shines; I mean, without that knowledge you would not be able to differentiate where the real and the imaginary part ways or merge.The film version, in my view, suffers from several weak points and I'll describe them. Much is made of Michael Keaton, one of my favourite American actors, known for his versatility in both dramas and comedy (see: Clean & Sober, Beetlejuice and Multiplicity). He gets the mannerisms and physical gestures of Angleton down pat. What works against him and I know that I am being very picky, are his looks. Keaton looks like what he is: a very healthy and squeaky clean guy. Angelton was a chain smoking and borderline alcoholic whose many decades of this lifestyle left him looking like a train wreck. Keaton looked too healthy. John Turturo would have been a better choice. Alfred Molina is a terrific and very physical actor but for me he drew too much attention and gave me the impression of over acting but without the inner turmoil that his character possessed. His role would have been better captured by a younger Gene Hackman or Charles Durning. Molina was not believable as the man depicted in the novel. Next is Chris O'Donnell, someone I have yet to like in any movie. I think he was completely miscast as Jack McCauliffe. His boyish good looks worked against him. His character would have done better with Jude Law or Colin Farrel.I found Rory Cochrane to be a delight, giving a finely honed and substantial performance. His responses were periodically obscure as if his attention had wandered and I think that the writers/director could have given his character more time....which the book certainly does. The woman actors were all fine and I had no problems with them.All in all I think that one would be better off reading the book as its power far eclipses this film.

Brian Rokosz Besides Band of Brothers, this is the best miniseries I've ever seen. When I picked this up at the video store I had no clue what it was about and wow was I impressed. I watched all 3 parts in one sitting without being bored atall...for me, act 3 is the best and Michael Keaton is without a doubt the best actor in it. Spanning decades and featuring twists I never saw coming I hope everyone picks this one up. Amazon is selling it for dirt cheap considering how great of a product this is so forget spending 6 bucks on the rental and just buy it, you will not be disappointed. I had a few problems with act 1's dialog, thinking it was kinda cheesy but all that was fixed after about 20 minutes...from then on it really makes you want to watch every spy movie you can get ur hands on...the book it was loosely based on is about as long as the Bible and my dad flew through it. This also makes a great Father's Day gift if ur dad likes anything from Bond to Godfather.