57 replies to this topic

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Just watched that trailer on youtube. Looks like the film's going to be worth a watch and I get the impression the film is going to retain a strong sense of character like the TV series.

[Dustin]

Looks quite splendid. I suppose it beefs up some of the action only mentioned in passing, Tarr's backstory, the botched Operation Testify and Jim Prideaux's interrogation and exchange and so on. Seems to have evolved into a nice period piece, right decision not to update it, methinks. This is how things have been in the last century. Strange to see how it's also become a bit of a history lesson today. The seventies actually happened, you see?

At any rate fine to see the Circus is back in town. You have been missed.

[DamnCoffee]

Looks brilliant!

[marktmurphy]

Looks quite splendid. I suppose it beefs up some of the action only mentioned in passing, Tarr's backstory, the botched Operation Testify and Jim Prideaux's interrogation and exchange and so on. Seems to have evolved into a nice period piece, right decision not to update it, methinks.

I have no idea how you could update a Cold War story!

[Dustin]

Looks quite splendid. I suppose it beefs up some of the action only mentioned in passing, Tarr's backstory, the botched Operation Testify and Jim Prideaux's interrogation and exchange and so on. Seems to have evolved into a nice period piece, right decision not to update it, methinks.

I have no idea how you could update a Cold War story!

Neither have I. But one has heard truly horrifying ideas of moving it to the US and giving it modern Qaida/terrorist setting. I have no doubt leCarre would have withdrawn his name, but I also have no idea how much say he would still have had, if any. At any rate, great to see this seems to have avoided the obvious traps every big budget production seems to face today, explosions and shoot-outs aplenty.

[OmarB]

The trailer looks great. LeCarre is always a win. http://www.aintitcool.com/node/50215

[Jackanaples]

The trailer looks amazing. I've seen the 1980's miniseries with Alec Guinness and it's quite good. That said I think this movie has the possibility of telling the story in a much more dynamic fashion, while not scrimping even a little on the intrigue. And will you look at the cast? Pure class. The advance word is that this is very excellent indeed with Oldman shining in a career best performance.

[smudge76]

Looks quite splendid. I suppose it beefs up some of the action only mentioned in passing, Tarr's backstory, the botched Operation Testify and Jim Prideaux's interrogation and exchange and so on. Seems to have evolved into a nice period piece, right decision not to update it, methinks. This is how things have been in the last century. Strange to see how it's also become a bit of a history lesson today. The seventies actually happened, you see?

At any rate fine to see the Circus is back in town. You have been missed.

Yes this looks good. Looking forward to seeing Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong) going out for revenge

[right idea, wrong pussy]

While the trailer looks somewhat interesting (in the sense that this movie doesn't look like crap, unlike practically every other movie released so far this year), I won't be seeing this movie because I simply won't be able to accept anyone other than Alec Guinness as Smiley. I'm told that LeCarre stopped using the character (and moved from being an excellent Cold War novelist to a political hack) in large part because he felt he'd lost control of his own character. I sympathize (with LeCarre's predicament, not with his later writing - I think he's written the same book over and over since at least "The Constant Gardener").

Whenever I re-read "A Murder of Quality", "Call for the Dead" or the Karla Trilogy, I see Sir Alec in my head even when the illustrated cover on my ancient paperback shows a very different, pudgey-faced man.

And anyway, I loathe this remake culture we live in. Why do "Tinker Tailor" or "Smiley's People" need to be remade, given how superlative both miniseries were (and given their availability on DVD?)?

[Royal Dalton]

I'm not in favour of remakes, either. But I don't really have a problem with a new adaptation of a book.

Gary Oldman's make-up looks rather fake, though. From what I've seen of it, anyway.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I think it's ambitious to remake TTSP, given the quality of the original mini series. If it's a good film then an advantage would be to complete the trilogy, with adaptations of The Honourable Schoolboy and then Smiley's People. This would justify the remake.

[Jackanaples]

While the trailer looks somewhat interesting (in the sense that this movie doesn't look like crap, unlike practically every other movie released so far this year), I won't be seeing this movie because I simply won't be able to accept anyone other than Alec Guinness as Smiley. I'm told that LeCarre stopped using the character (and moved from being an excellent Cold War novelist to a political hack) in large part because he felt he'd lost control of his own character. I sympathize (with LeCarre's predicament, not with his later writing - I think he's written the same book over and over since at least "The Constant Gardener").

Whenever I re-read "A Murder of Quality", "Call for the Dead" or the Karla Trilogy, I see Sir Alec in my head even when the illustrated cover on my ancient paperback shows a very different, pudgey-faced man.

And anyway, I loathe this remake culture we live in. Why do "Tinker Tailor" or "Smiley's People" need to be remade, given how superlative both miniseries were (and given their availability on DVD?)?

It's not a remake of the 1980's miniseries, it's another adaptation of John Le Carre's novel. Thirty years since the BBC miniseries is more than enough time going by to warrant another dramatization of the material.

The cast for the movie is definitely superior in regards to the casting of Rikki Tarr and Jim Prideaux. Hywel Bennett as Tarr, a man with roguish charm who's irresistible to women seems a stretch to me. Tom Hardy on the other hand seems capable of making women ovulate at the mention of his name, so I think he'll be superior as Tarr. Ian Bannen's performance didn't convey just how dangerous a man Jim Prideaux is. In contrast Mark Strong is capable of exuding menace as easy as breathing.

As for Gary Oldman as George Smiley, I've a feeling I'm going to prefer his performance to Sir Alec's. I won't know until I've seen the movie of course, but I think Oldman will better convey Smiley's chessmaster intellect.

Edited by Jackanaples, 11 July 2011 - 07:24 PM.

[Single-O-Seven]

The newest trailer is now up:

http://www.comingsoo...ws.php?id=80689

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Wow, looks brilliant. Very excited about this now.

[Dustin]

Still have to get around Oldman as Smiley, Guinness has really made that part his own. Apart from that it looks nicely restrained and suspenseful.

[Jackanaples]

I'm almost certain that I will prefer Oldman's Smiley to Guinness'. Not that there's anything wrong with Sir Alec's performance, I just think Oldman will be better at conveying Smiley's sharp intellect.

[The Shark]

I'm almost certain that I will prefer Oldman's Smiley to Guinness'. Not that there's anything wrong with Sir Alec's performance, I just think Oldman will be better at conveying Smiley's sharp intellect.

Vice versa in regards to George Smiley's wit.

[DamnCoffee]

Total and utter win! Looking forward to this one!

[Jeff007]

I'm in.

[Santa]

Tom Hardy on the other hand seems capable of making women ovulate at the mention of his name

Ovulate? Don't know about that but he does make me come over all old-fashioned. Great choice for the part, better than Fassbender. I don't think Fassbender is sleazy enough for that part.

I can't wait for this. The cast is great - not the casting necessarily, but the cast. I wouldn't have been able to imagine some of these people in these particular parts had someone brought it up in conversation but this is looking extremely good and I trust them all to know what they're doing. This is my most eagerly anticipated film of the year, by far.

[Dustin]

Tom Harding plays Ricki Tarr, a scalphunter IIRC. Tarr used to be a gunrunner operating in Malaysia. He was conned by a couple of Belgian gunrunners and lost his girlfriend Rose to them. That's when Steve Mackelvore recruited him for the scalphunters. After returning from vetting and training in Sarrat his first mission is to wreck the operation of his former Belgian colleagues. He kills their contacts, shoots four Belgians - and Rose. I think Harding can convincingly depict such a character. There's a photo of him bare chested showing numerous tattoos and I wonder if they are real tattoos or an idea of the production. I actually think that's a detail perfectly fitting to Tarr, although perhaps the Union Jack is a little too telling.

Edited by Dustin, 06 August 2011 - 06:41 PM.

[robdread]

Le Carre is flat out one of my favorite writers regardless of genre. The trailer looks promising, the cast is very srong and I'm liking the idea of Oldman as Smiley.

Definitely looking forward to this one. Plus, it's scheduled for U.S. release a week-and-a-half after my birthday -- a nice present to myself.

Edited by robdread, 10 August 2011 - 11:37 AM.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Great new clip here (via Empire Magazine) with John Hurt as Control and Mark Strong as Prideaux.

[Jackanaples]

The Empire Magazine review is available to read here.

For those wanting to avoid any spoilers, they gave it ! Their review seems to bear out my suspicions of just how good this movie was going to be (and how excellent Gary Oldman will be in it). Very excited to see this movie, and equally frustrated that as an American I'll have to wait till December now to see it.

[marktmurphy]

I'm well up for this.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Yep, looks like t's going to be really good.

[robdread]

More strong reviews:
http://www.variety.c...968?refcatid=31

http://www.telegraph...rst-review.html

http://www.hollywood...y-venice-231215


Hate that I have to wait to December to see this one now.

[domnule alb]

Just so nobody gets TOO excited and starts attaching their Bond hopes to it, hope you all know its going to basically be blokes talking for two hours...

Very true. LeCarre takes a much more methodical, realist approach to espionage. It should be well written, but don't expect the fireworks and theatrics.