7 January 2018 | ptone-93207
For your cerebral eyes only?
The problem may be that we've had too many Bourne and Bond movies of late. Or perhaps it's also a younger audience (most probably men) who prefer easily telegraphed plot points alongside the beautifully (and expensively) choreographed action scenes. Maybe they've never checked out Alec Guinness in his portrayal of George Smiley, or better yet, the Le Carré novels to understand how actual tradecraft operates.
I'm not saying that this whole series works flawlessly; there are plot loopholes and legitimate complaints about not fleshing out Worricker character sufficiently. One could argue that Johnny is so terribly flawed (and the films do make that perfectly clear that he is flawed) that he remains a cypher to even those closest to him. And would that not serve him well as a spy? However, we don't see a backstory of him operating in the field, only as an office-bound intelligence analyst. I understand other quibbles that reviewers cite. But overall, this series bears repeated viewings to fully grasp the nuances and the ulterior motives of the main protagonists. It is in these readjustments of thought and action where the films excel, along with brilliant (if sometimes too elliptical) dialogue and fine acting.
And speaking of acting, this series provides several substantive roles for women, and not just young, attractive women. No review I've read calls attention to that.
Having said that, I find it disappointing that ratings on the IMDB are so low, since this series deserves to be seen. But you will have to pay close attention, and by doing so you will fully appreciate the issues raised, most of which are still with us years later.
Oh, and I do like the best of the Bond and Bourne films; but they are a different animal all together and thus should not be the subject of comparisons.