The Company (2007) User Reviews (42)

2007 miniseries - a contradiction in terms

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 5 December 2010]

The miniseries went out of fashion when the networks started economizing, so it's nice to see this one from TNT. "The Company," which refers to the CIA, stars Chris O'Donnell, Alfred Molina, Michael Keaton, Rory Cochrane, Alessandro Nivola, and Natascha McElhone, along with a huge international cast.

The series purports to tell of some of the big events in which the CIA was involved throughout its history, woven in with the search for an elusive double agent, an American version of Kim Philby (who is also a character in the film, portrayed by Tom Hollander). The period covered is 40 years, from the start of the Cold War to the fall of the Soviet Union and focuses on the experiences of three fictional Yale grads, class of '54: Jack McCauliffe (O'Donnell), Leo Kritzky (Alessandro Nivola), and Yevgeny Tsipin (Rory Cochrane).

This is a very absorbing miniseries with some great, good, and blah acting, in my opinion. Though it's understood that Alfred Molina is an excellent actor, for me, his portrayal of Harvey, Jack's boss, was a little too stagy. Chris O'Donnell was okay, coming off as a lesser Leonardo di Caprio or Matt Damon. For me the two great portrayals were those of Michael Keaton as James Angleton, the real-life chief of the CIA's counterintelligence unit, and Alessandro Nivola, who is an accomplished stage actor and gives a strong performance.

Not surprisingly, this film came on the heels of the feature "The Good Shepherd," also about the CIA and starring Matt Damon. Because it has the luxury of being a miniseries, it's more detailed. Recommended.

Keaton's Performance

[mpag · 7/10 · 13 November 2009]

Michael Keaton's performance is spellbinding, astounding. I couldn't believe what I was watching. When he's on screen, he lifts the piece onto a wholly different level. Unreservedly worth watching for his screen time alone. The unnerving atmosphere he creates happily offsets the unfortunate mawkishness that marrs parts of the Berlin and Budapest stories. Alfred Molina also deserves praise for a strong, gutsy performance as a permanently booze-fueled, no nonsense old time field commander. Production values are pretty high for a television series - Ridley Scott's production presence no doubt helped on that front - and the post-war look and atmosphere of the Berlin sequences is particularly well realised. But this is unmistakably Keaton's tour-de-force.

Guile.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 21 February 2014]

A TV miniseries in six parts about spying on both sides of the Cold War. Kids, the term "Cold War" refers to the rivalry and occasional proxy wars between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, now known as Russia. Between 1945 and 1990, both sides poured enormous amounts of money, effort, blood, and general discomfort into espionage nd counter-espionage. Our agency was the CIA and the USSR had the KGB. We finally won, partly by forcing the USSR to spend itself into oblivion. Both sides played pretty dirty. "We made a lot of mistakes along the way," muses the central CIA figure, Christ O'Donnell. "We won, didn't we?", replies his pragmatic colleague, Alfred Molina.

I see no point in going into the forty-five year history of the Cold War, but I have to say that the film reminded me of Herman Wouk's massive works, "The Winds of War" and "War and Remembrance." Somehow or other, O'Donnell finds himself in the middle of just about every important incident in which the CIA was involved, like the Hungarian uprising of 1956 and the Bay of Pigs in 1961. Nothing about Chile and Allende because that was less of a mistake and more like a CIA-backed assassination.

It's a reasonably good show. The production values are high and the historical details seem accurate enough for most purposes. Shooting locations included Ontario, Puerto Rico, and Budapest. The acting for the most part is professional, with standout performances by Michael Keaton, unusually subdued and convincing as a determined bulldog sniffing through mountains of data and hanging on to his conclusions, and by Rory Cochrane, who has the pudgy face of a comic and the deep growl of Russel Crowe. Both do fine work here.

As in Wouk's works there are a couple of romances sprinkled through the story but it's far from a soap opera. Most of the time is spent on ferreting out double agents known as "moles" within the CIA, which is known as "the company." The Romanian actress Alexandra Maria Lara is cast as a ballerina who is O'Donnel's contact behind the Iron Curtain and becomes his main squeeze, despite firm instruction against it. She's attractive and an appealing character. Less appealing (as a character) is Natascha McElhone, whose big, bulging eyes and bony nose are beautiful in their own way.

Chris O'Donnell as Jack McCauliffe, the sometimes doubtful protagonist, looks and acts more like a male model out of the pages of Gentleman's Quarterly or the New York Times Magazine. He's the weakest link in the story, more handsome and more bland than Kent Smith, and if it weren't for all the tension and mystery, he might easily have torpedoed it.

And it IS a good story. The first two hours of exposition are a bit slow as we must be introduced to three Yalies who go their separate ways after graduation. Thereafter, the pace picks up. At times, the action we witness is particularly brutal. People get the crap beat out of them or are shot while begging for their lives. It's a dirty business all around. Yet, with all the intrigue and enigmas, the tale is never really confusing. It takes some concentration but we can follow the characters in their peregrinations.

A very entertaining spy spoof

[KAYOWAS · 10/10 · 30 August 2007]

This is no James bond.This has nothing to do with superheroes and supervillans(except the part with GOOD USA vs. EVIL SOVIET UNION).Its a gripping spy drama for the masses and the same time for the history buffs.The performances are very good on the behalf of Alfred Molina,Chris ODonnel and Rory Cochrane.Alessandro Nivola seems a bit out of pace.The real treat comes from Michael Keaton who goes stainless in his role.The action sequences and special effects are some of the best quality and i rate it just after band of brothers in the series branch.The show has a plus for the moments where the language of certain nationals is respected(the Russians speak Russian ,the Hungarians speak the Hungarian and the mobsters are so Sicilians).The big budget of the series is put to good use and the places you see in the movies are the ones where the things actually happened.There are little flaws for an epic of such proportions.I sense no TV feel in the image,sets,performances etc. so i must give this show a 10!job well done!

Great Mini Series Finally Portraying A Part Of U.S. History That Is Rarely Used As A Basis For Film!!

[goldygal12 · 10/10 · 20 August 2007]

I thought that The Company was brilliant!! I enjoyed all 6 hours of the mini series!! When was the last time a movie(series) revolved around such an event as The Bay Of Pigs?? I know I haven't, and it's probably because it was a huge flop as a tactic and made the U.S and JFK look foolish. Plus the series doesn't just focus on one aspect of U.S. and world history, it focuses on the CIA's involvement in The Cold War from just after WWII, until the early 1990's, which entails a huge portion of 20th century history. The Company involved so many important world events that it in my opinion, it far surpassed any other movie/series of its kind. These days all of the movies are about much more physical wars such as Pearl Harbor, Letters From Iwo Jima, Saving Private Ryan, etc. It's just really refreshing to see a movie/series that is not just so unique in it's composure, but also shows the opinions of the "war" from both sides.

Truly entertaining!!!! Romantic Thriller, Action Thriller and Espionage Thriller in 3 parts! Great!!!!

[merlind-mueller · 10/10 · 7 August 2007]

What I like especially about THE COMPANY is, that the three episodes are very well paced and that each reflects a different movie genre.

The first episode is a romantic thriller in which the main character falls in love with a German ballet dancer that provides the CIA with information. However, as often in spy movies, this love can't last and will haunt the protagonist until the end of his life. The second part is again involving romantic relationships, however this time the story is much more action dominated - this part I would say is an action thriller. I was fascinated by the way the filmmakers narrated the Hungarian Revolution and also how they were able to capture the emotions of the people involved in Cuba in such a short time. The third part then again is a first class espionage thriller that concentrates on deception amongst trusted allies and how betrayal can make a man loose trust in his own instincts.

I loved every second of the preview I was lucky to attend!

More than satisfying!

[caroledelm · 10/10 · 20 August 2007]

Having read the book, I feel that the screenwriter did a magnificent job in conveying the story & characters. Almost 900 pages of a very complex novel were captured in a clear, understandable way. Michael Keaton's performance in particular, was as my husband said, "Awesome". This is no surprise to us because he has always been so versatile. I noticed that although some of the scenes in the book could have been shown as they were written, very graphic & difficult to watch, they instead played to our imagination, which for me, is enough, & pointed out the Class of this presentation. Too many stories on TV are played for sensationalism, without regard for the viewers' sensibilities. I can see Emmys in this series' future.

Cold War Revisited

[xylokopos · 7/10 · 4 August 2008]

The Company is a pretty decent mini-series about the CIA and the Cold War; I found it informative and well put together, even though a number of crucial CIA moments were absent. The cast was uniformly good, and even though no amount of make-up and prosthetics can make Chris o'Donnell look older than 22, I thought he was OK.

Make no mistake, this is not John Le Carre stuff: it is not drenched in nihilism, pointlessness and failure, even though it does not seem to be James Bond Universe either. More than anything, one is left with the impression that all little treasons and nonsense aside, there is some sort of idealization and nostalgia for the Cold War, when you knew who threatened you and why and why you had to fight ( even thought both CIA and KGB pictured themselves as the good guys and protectors of the common folk). Molina's character near the end summarizes a view of the cold war that seems to be prevalent these days, that the side who screwed up less won and that the USSR looked pretty good on paper but was really flawed.

If you consider that it's only been 17 years since the demise of the Soviet Union, this detachment is pretty impressive. But then it goes to show how different the world has become today.

Great presentation, even better the second time...

[canuckteach · 9/10 · 30 August 2010]

This is a wonderful performance piece, for Cold-War, Tom Clancy/John Le Carré lovers alike. Spying was a dangerous, heart-breaking and lonely game, and the principle characters on both sides gave up much in the way of personal life - this slowly tumbles out as the story unfolds over 4 decades.

I credit the Director with NOT revealing too much the first time you view it - I found myself wondering at certain points if the Script contained gaps -- not so. An example is the involvement of the notorious Kim Philby, a clever KGB double-agent. Everyone who has read 'Man Called Intrepid' knows who Philby is - if he breezed into this story as KIM PHILBY, we'd know what to expect. Cleverly, the character is not identified until the story is well-under way. By that time, you are as fooled as was his friend, the famous CIA counterespionage guru, James Angleton, played here with craft by Michael Keaton.

Other performers shine, and the action scenes for Hungary, and the Bay of Pigs are startling. Part 3 packed a real punch as, again, we get treated to what the counterintelligence fellas had to go through to nail suspected double-agents.

The second time through, I connected all the dots--so, the mini-series DVD has been well worth the investment. (Glad I missed it on TV with commercials).

The Sword and The Shield

[jzydlo · 31 December 2007]

There is a book by the name of "The Sword and The Shield," which details all the historical gaps that this movie may leave out. I haven't read the book titled "The Company," which this film is based on. However, this book (The Company) and the likewise named mini-series will probably be the best telling of the historical account in video format. For any Cold War buff and espionage fanatic who is familiar with the true workings of the NKVD to the KGB, they will be pleased.

This film is no James Bond type cold war thriller. After all, could you really detail the exploits of 50 some years of history in a 2 hour spy film? The main plot and character's names of this mini-series are on par with the facts that history reveals to us. To anyone who is intimately familiar with the Cold War and the espionage struggles between the Soviet Union and the USA, you will find this mini-series extremely accurate. But more so, you will find this mini-series entertaining.

The bottom line is that, this is an entertaining production that holds true to a majority of the facts. If the Cold War and real spy stories are entertaining to you, then it's suggested that you view this mini-series. Not only will the "uninformed" viewer enjoy this mini-series, but the historian will also enjoy how this mini-series doesn't vary far from the truth. This is definitely a recommended mini-series on the real spy games of the Cold War!

Well done show, but is it biased?

[RVBUILDER · 7/10 · 17 August 2007]

At the time of this writing, I have seen 2 of the 3 episodes in this miniseries. I am enjoying it because of the historical value and the possible insight into events that occurred during my childhood. However, I am wondering if the show's creators aren't concentrating on debacles involving the CIA instead of their successes. For example, we are treated to long episodes concerning the Hungarian revolution and the Bay of Pigs, two blots on the Unites States in that we promised help to freedom fighters and then left them hanging out to dry. We also didn't comport ourselves too well in Berlin, but I don't know if those events actually happened or not. I did appreciate Alfred Molina threatening his Russian counterpart with death if they didn't tell the Hungarians to release the captured CIA agent.

To get nit-picky, there was one scene that was supposed to take place in 1954, but there was a 50-state flag in the room. Huh? In another scene, they characters discussed attorney general Bobby Kennedy, but then the date was shown as November, 1960. JFK wasn't elected until November of 1960, and wasn't inaugurated until January of 1961. Therefore, Bobby Kennedy was not the attorney general at that point.

I look forward to the third and final episode to see if they once again portray the CIA in a bad light. Historical fiction is still fiction, but I feel it should be true to the events (I think this was), but it would be nice if it showed both sides of the story.

Critque on first episode

[legoloso2 · 9/10 · 5 August 2007]

Where to begin. The performances in the show are quite good the action is established and the historical aspect of the show is right on in most respects. The cast includes a few veteran actors and a few younger actors. Rory Cochrane from CSI Miami, and Chris O'Donnell from the Batman* movies and the Bachelor are cast in very good roles. Followed by Alfred Molina and Michael Keaton taking on the leading roles, who I might add fit there roles perfectly. Having only seen the first of the three episodes and watching the preview for the next two I see that the show will go on only to get better with the addition of even more actors and cameo's from some of my personal favorites the outlook is good. In my opinion espionage has never looked so good.

Entertaining, but an almost complete fantasy

[thevandahl · 6/10 · 10 January 2008]

This is entertaining, but cinema. I happened to be reading Tim Weiners "Legacy of Ashes" when this came on television, and can say that some "artistic liberties" have been taken. Take episode 3, where supposedly an American agent was in contact with the rebels; according to Weiner, who've had access to the archives, the CIA knew next to nothing about what was going on during the uprising, no more than it read in the papers. This man McAuliffe, which supposedly was apprehended by the Hungarian secret police, is not mentioned in he book. That does not automatically mean that he didn't exist, but if this is to be an accurate account, it means the filmmakers had better access to information than the Pulitzer-prize winning author who've written a 700 page book about the history of the CIA. To me, that seems rather unlikely. Much more probable, in my opinion, is that they preferred exciting over accurate, and made something which isn't historically correct at all, other than the names of some of the people involved.

Perhaps not a complete fib, but "history-lovers" have me excused. This is not history, but fantasy. I give it 6 for entertainment value.

A mere shadow of a very great novel

[fred-houpt · 5/10 · 25 May 2010]

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.

Get lost in the wilderness of mirrors

[TKDLion8 · 10/10 · 25 May 2012]

This is a brilliantly executed and really satisfying miniseries. They did a great job casting this series; every actor and actress gives a performance truthful to the character they are playing. The look of each time period was captured quite well. The locations and sets look really good.

I bought this after watching the Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy miniseries (which is vastly superior to the recent movie) and was hungry for more fiction about intelligence agencies. If you like spy stuff along the line of John le Carre then you will like this miniseries.

If you like cold war history then you will like this miniseries. This miniseries takes you through pretty much the entire cold war. It was really enjoyable to watch a program about the things that had just been covered in my latest history class.

It is a bit biased perhaps but don't let that bother you. After all, it is told from the perspective of CIA agents.

I am very satisfied with my purchase and I am sure that I will watch this series again in the future.

superb movie

[jeffersonmccoy · 10/10 · 11 November 2007]

As a lover of history and good cinema, this movie was most enjoyable. I am not knowledgeable enough to speak about the historical accuracy of the entire work; however, I know that it is based on historical fact.

I'm totally fascinated by the history of the CIA; especially in the time period covered in this film. I greatly admire the vast majority of the members of the CIA with whom I have read books, articles, and seen movies portraying their life.

As far as the enjoyment level of this as a film, I am very pleased with the balance of history, information, substance, action, military footage, personal life info, etc. WELL DONE! I would love to see this series added to as time goes on (though I realize that is not likely). I'm not familiar with the original book nor the author; however, I will immediately investigate both.

The Company- from a former AFIO member

[inu-qien-ankh · 8/10 · 8 February 2015]

Overall, it is a fair, balanced movie. A couple of things. The man who attempted to poison Fidel Castro Ruz was NOT made to drink the poisoned concoction. In fact the packet which held the poison FROZE to the refrigeration pipes at the Hotel Habana Libre (formerly Havana Hilton-they only say "Libre" in the movie) before the hotel's restaurant worker had a chance to put it into Castro's 'milk shake' (batido). The G2 already new of the plan before hand. The restaurant worker's name was Santos de la Caridad Perez, and he was sentenced to a very long prison term, which he completed, and he was able to come to Miami, Florida,and there join his wife and 2 grown sons, who had been waiting for him in Caracas, Venezuela. Santos de la Caridad Perez was left to his own devices and wound up working minimum wage jobs in Miami, Florida, into his 80s. No compensation for his compromised mission, and his 14 years spent in Castro's prisons was ever paid. Thanks, 'Campanela' you a-hole!.

Next, it was not prop-driven 'Sea Furies' which shot down the CIA contract pilots' B26s, but T33 JETS. To the best of my recollection, NO CIA Officers came ashore with Brigade 2506. It's a travesty that only a passing mention was made of the 117th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing, Alabama Air National Guard pilots, who were contract employees, and disobeyed direct orders to lend air support to our Cuban allies. The names of these brave men were: Leo Baker, Wade Gray, Riley Shamburger, and Thomas "Pet" Ray. The B26s they flew had no tail guns so they could accommodate more fuel. They were easy prey for Castro's jets. Some of us will remember their sacrifice with eternal gratitude, respect, admiration, and will mourn them as long as we live. G_d rest them and comfort their surviving loved ones.

Other than this, it was a pretty balanced movie, but I defer to those who may have first hand knowledge of what actually went down in the Hungarian uprising. G_d bless that nation's fallen martyrs and their survivors as well.

Riveting -- but inaccurate

[Ghillie_Forrest · 8/10 · 25 November 2021]

This is a compelling watch, one of the best I have ever seen on this subject, and I have seen many. The performances are wonderful, especially the three Yale friends who take divergent paths. Alfred Molina is great, as ever. I especially liked Ted Atherton as Frank Wizner.

But did anyone ever call Kim Philby "Adrian"? Maybe James Jesus Angleton: he was just weird enough. (Weird, also, to see him portrayed by Tom Hollander, who played Burgess in Cambridge Spies). And while Angleton suspected Philby, he did not send him tearing off to Moscow -- Philby returned to London, where he was interrogated by effectively cleared (by Harold MacMillan, among others) and on later to Beirut, as a journalist, which allowed him to return to working for MI6 and, presumably, the KGB. It was his MI6 friend Nicholas Elliott who finally broke him, prompting Philby to flee to Moscow in 1962. From Beirut.

But the fictional elements work well enough to make this a very watchable mini-series. And they have an artistic truth that factual manipulations do not spoil.

I dispute the comments that find the series to be anti-American. Some Americans apparently still believe that their country is without fault. There is no reasoning with such people. Having Chris O'Donnell's Jack query how "good" the "good guys" were is just realism, honesty and moral principle: it only takes two words to show that the USA is not always interested in right: Salvador Allende.

As the Hungarian revolutionary Arpad tells Jack in Budapest in 1956, revolutions are fought for three reasons: honour, fear and self-interest. He claims the first two for himself and his comrades. He shrewdly assesses the third as the principal rationale of the US. And who can honestly say otherwise? This programme, as well as Jack, endorses that view.

Outstanding performance by Keaton

[corrado-prizzi · 6/10 · 22 August 2015]

This is a master class by Michael Keaton. Though I never knew James Angleton, I've read plenty about him and Keaton absolutely nailed it.

This little mini-series was OK. A bit unlikely with the love-interest parts and highly unlikely with the re-union scene in Austria. The CIA's involvements in certain major events are simply left out. I'm thinking East Asia, South America, running drugs etc, but hey, let's not get too uncomfortable.

Was it worth watching? Yes. Would I watch it again? No. It's nowhere near the BBC's original Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy, but worth it for Keaton's Angleton.

great spy show

[danabowe · 10/10 · 27 February 2009]

This show does things with the history of the CIA that movies like the good shephard could only dream of. Great story, wonderful acting this is one of the best mini-series i've seen. It is the spy show equivalent of what band of brothers was for war shows. The way the show is filmed to show the history of what we didn't get to see during the cold war is brilliant. Alfred Molina is one of the most underrated actors around. Everyone forgot also how great of actors Michael Keaton and Chris O'Donnell are. Their performances are great especially Keaton who plays the ever stubborn MOTHER very well. This to me is one of the great mini-series made right up there with band of brothers and generation kill. A must see.

enjoyable but flawed series

[nestaft · 22 March 2009]

I've just watched this series in the UK where we've got it on the BBC for some reason 18 months after it premiered in the US. For lovers of historically based fiction and it how it relates to our modern world it was certainly enjoyable and dramatic in places. I enjoyed some of the acting particularly from Michael Keaton , Rory Cochrane and Tom Hollander. If these 3 men were more photogenic, or we did'nt live in such a superficial world , I 'm sure these fantastic actors would have a lot more exposure than they have had done and bagged a lot more high profile roles , instead of the ludicrously over-hyped likes of Brad Pitt and Leonardo Di Caprio. Also this series gave us a look at some of the espionage machinations and seminal events shaping the Cold War.

However it had numerous rather large flaws. Firstly the series insulted the intelligence of the viewer by being too overly pro CIA in viewpoint in places. The CIA were portrayed as basically good guys laying it on the line to defend capitalism, valiantly soldiering on despite betrayal by self serving politicians and shady moles. This overlooks the numerous morally questionable and some might say ultimately self defeating operations and strategies of the CIA during the cold war, which anyone with a reasonably inquisitive mind can find out about. It is of course a good thing that America "won" the cold war, and on balance even with all its flaws , democratic capitalism was and is a superior system to totalitarian communism. However the filmmakers should have trusted the viewers to come to that conclusion themselves without overly trying to force it. The film The Good Sheperd which covers some of the same ground as this series was far more effective in highlighting some of the shady ethical ground America covered in trying to win the Cold war

Secondly I think the series was too ambitious in trying to deal with such an important and long period of history in such a small running time. The Mini series should have been longer and this I think would have given us a more nuanced and detailed look at the time in history

it covered. Also some details of the storyline were incredulous and have been mentioned on other posts. Finally I think Chris O'Donnell was a wrong choice to play the main character of the series. His limited acting range lessened the impact of several key dramatic scenes he was involved in . He was just about adequate in the role but there are much better character actors who could have been brought in instead of a past his best film star( nothing personal Chris ) . So in all a decent series , but if you want to learn about the cold war , your best bet remains a wide range of books from your local library or bookshop.

Uneven But Somewhat Eventful

[LeonLouisRicci · 6/10 · 14 September 2013]

A Made-For-Cable Mini-Series that is a sprawling, stagy peek into the Espionage World of the Cold War. A Spy (CIA) vs Spy (KGB) bundle of nerves that went on for Decades and anyone intimately involved needed the "patience of a Saint" to endure.

Many did last it out with failures and successes as the lines were constantly being blurred as to what was the right thing to do and what was not. It all seems like a lot of guesswork and best guesswork with a make it up as you go play-book. The consequences were Deadly and it was all in the hands of some barely stable People.

But that's what there was and this long TV affair captures some of the dark and gloomy proceedings with some authentic feel, but some of it seems clunky and artificial. The Bay of Pigs and the Hungarian Revolution while providing the "Action" for the Series are the weakest parts and drag the thing down from what it does best and that is the up close and personal one on one matches and battles of Wits.

Overall, worth a watch but it is an uneven Event that misfires as much as it doesn't and there is more Stagecraft than Trade Craft.

Lingers Long After Viewing

[VeritasV · 10/10 · 8 January 2008]

This is an excellent 3 part mini-series. I watched it in one sitting which took about 6 hours including a couple of quick breaks. The pacing is slow and the movie has an overall darkness in terms of color but the characters are so engaging that I remained fascinated from the first screen shot to the last. Chris O'Donnell, Michael Keaton, Alfred Molina and Alessandro Nivola all gave terrific performances. Actually all of the actors were excellent in their roles. The Russian accents were commendable.

I liked this very much. While Molina's character says that the world is black and white, good guys and bad guys, O'Donnell's character illuminates the grays for us and ultimately this is what lingers long after the DVD is over. Buy it, rent it, but definitely see it.

Robert Little wrote the original book of 900 pages on which this mini-series is based. The book and the DVD differ in some aspects. I've not read the book, but I plan to. Apparently he's written a number of cold war spy novels another of which was made into a movie, "The Amateur".

THE COMPANY -- BETRAYED BY Hollywood

[vitaleralphlouis · 6/10 · 20 November 2007]

In many ways this movie is excellent, but in many other ways it is not.

To begin with, the movie is too long; going on and on to use up time for a 5 part mini-series. It could have been a good 2 hour movie.

The excellent photography and on location filming combine with truly interesting coverage of the Uprising in Hungary in 1956 crushed by the Communists and later the Bay of Pigs Invasion where thousands of Cubans were encouraged and enabled to fight Fidel Castro by the Kennedy administration only to have the Kennedy brothers betray the operation letting them get slaughtered.

Ultimately, this five hour movie is undercut --- just as the Bay of Pigs was undercut -- in the final moments. We are then led to believe that the CIA agent who took us through 40 years of the Cold War was so clueless and so empty-American that he finally did not know whether America or Russia were the good guys. Well, gee whiz! The Russians enslaved Eastern Europe, erected the Berlin Wall, killed millions including more Jews than the Nazi's, had no concept whatever of human dignity and freedom. Ridley Scott and Tony Scott, the filmmakers, ought to move to Russia and be honest about their rancid viewpoint.

Disappointing adaptation

[SKG-2 · 5/10 · 4 July 2011]

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.