As much as I like the film the series is in my opinion a television masterpiece. Everything feels properly earnt. The follow up 'Smiley's People' is equally brilliant if not even darker. We really do get to see Smiley's cold & ruthless side.

@hblanche

3 жыл бұрын

I too prefer the TV series but I think they did an excellent adaption of the source material in the movie considering the length of the film. And there are definitely a few moments in the movie that I really, really like. For example, Cumberbatch's enthusiastic reaction when Smiley enters the Circus at the end is infectious.

@chickenswampable

3 жыл бұрын

Chris Johnson,you saved me typing more words than necessary. Spot on mate.

@edtallman7264

2 жыл бұрын

I fault the director for the film's failings I'm sure that when the final cuts were made everyone involved knew they had a turkey on their hands. And why does loyal, heroic Peter Guillam, a notorious womanizer in Le Carre's novel have to be gay in the film version? Oh, because the Alec Guinness BBC production is from the caveman era of 50 long years ago.

@robertgiles9124

Жыл бұрын

In modern-day usage the only accepted spelling is earned in all forms of English.

My favorite Alec Guinness story is how, in 1985, he was in Germany shooting a movie when he ran into a young TV editor (also a Brit) who was staying at the same hotel. The editor was all starstruck and blurted out that he wanted to direct, and Guinness, on the spot, offered to act in his directorial debut if he ever got around to it. The editor asked Guinness if he could shoot a quick, 30-second cameo right then and there, and Guinness said he'd love to, but had to leave on a plane the next morning and had already had his bags taken to the airport. So, the editor asked if they could shoot his cameo in the airport carpark the next morning. He agreed, and the next morning the editor went there, never expecting Guinness to turn up. Only, he did. And they shot the scene. And it sat on a shelf for over a decade before the editor finally got to use it in his directorial debut, a horror movie called MUTE WITNESS. Incidentally, it ended up being Guinness' final film role, ever.

@drjwww

3 жыл бұрын

True-- and AG didn't know he was in the movie and didn't find out until after its release. He's credited as "Special Mystery Guest Star" playing "The Reaper." Guinness only learned of his appearance when journos began asking him about it.

@JamesTobiasStewart

Жыл бұрын

​@@drjwww I hear that him going uncredited was the result of Guinness' only condition. He'd shoot the cameo and do it for free, but in return he wasn't to be credited. Waller would subsequently resist the urge to use Guinness' name for publicity and kept his promise, leaving Guinness uncredited and leaving him out of the trailers and off the poster. And since it was before the widespread use of the Internet, people in 1995 would have been genuinely shocked when 'The Reaper' showed up to speak with his subordinates and they beheld Alex Gunness in the back of the limo.

It must be a generation thing. The cast of the tv series was, in it's time, completely stellar. Beryl Reid, Bernard Hebdon, Joss Ackland, Hywl Bennett. Beryl Reid is gold in this. How she lifts her glass with her rheumatoid hands. Her complexion of steroid induced porcelain. The film is just a film. The tv series is the pinnacle of its form. Nuff said.

@philippankhurst6680

2 жыл бұрын

Not quite enough said. Ian Bannen's Jim is heartbreaking, particularly in the school assembly scene. Agreed that this is the finest TV drama series ever made.

@Marvin-dg8vj

Жыл бұрын

I am of the generation that watched and enjoyed the 1979 series although I only really understood it properly in the mid 1980s. I thought the 2011 film was excellent with a great cast .It didn't talk down to the audience . The 79 cast were great as well . watching 2011 reminds everyone how hard acting is .If anything I thought 2011 was a bit ahead on acting

@situated4

Жыл бұрын

Gold, not chicken feed, I see what you did there.

@michaelg.3351

Жыл бұрын

I'm not so sure whether this is a generation thing. I - probably beeing more or less from the reviewers generation - would totally agree with your preference for the series. And I guess many from my generation would share this preference...

@concernedcitizen5053

Жыл бұрын

​@@philippankhurst6680 I am one episode in and I much preferred seeing Jim being shot in Brno in the forest than in the arcade scene. It was fantastic. RIP Ian Bannen.

The mini-series was simply amazing.

A further asset that the series has is astonishing music. Nunc Dimittis at the end of each episode is absolutely stunning.

@michaelgove9349

8 ай бұрын

Agreed. Not just great music, but it totally nails that kind of Oxbridge / public school background of a lot of the characters.

@peterm2353

4 ай бұрын

Absolutely. I was listening to Nunc Dimittis once more yesterday - which is why I ended up commenting here on this review post today. 😂

I think the Alec Guinness version is an absolute masterpiece and one of the best pieces of TV ever made. I thought the film was very good, but it just couldn't measure up for me personally.

@CDMVIDZ

3 жыл бұрын

Agreed, 100%. The Beeb version is an absolute masterpiece, start to finish. The single best le Carré adaptation put to film, bar none.

@situated4

Жыл бұрын

Regards to Anne.

@philippankhurst6680

Жыл бұрын

@@situated4 Love to Anne.... everybody's love to Anne.

@BernardSolomon

Ай бұрын

I think based on the amount of reel time permitted, the film is pretty okay.

That _La Mer_ montage is heartbreaking. The film version although rattling through dense plot at a very difficult pace really nails its theme of lives lived with regret and unfulfilled desires.

@fruzsimih7214

5 ай бұрын

I also love the La Mer montage, even though I find the film underwhelming otherwise. Gary Oldman was brilliant in it!

@calumstephens9000

3 ай бұрын

That's the only thing the film has over the series.

It’s obvious, before he got to admitting it after a long-winded review, that the reviewer hadn’t actually read Le Carre’s novel. The BBC series closely follows the novel without completely distorting the plot and its carefully woven nuance - the essence of Le Carre. I can’t say the same for the celebrity feature film. The BBC series was beautifully put together with relatively minor distortion of the novel by one of the best novelists of the second half of the 20th century. The actors were outstanding and absolutely in character with the plot - the reviewer perhaps can be forgiven for not understanding their true quality but perhaps could have gleaned it from the series itself. That said he got to the right answer - the BBC series is vastly superior to the box-office oriented screenplay and household name actors of the Oldman film. Try watching Smiley’s people too.

@kenoliver8913

8 ай бұрын

I agree the TV series is more faithful to the book in both plot and character but that is mostly about the nature of the productions. The way a story told in a film HAS to be quite different from the way the story would be told in a book. On the upside "show don't tell" is easier on film - even a great book needs lots more exposition just from the medium. A good film exploits that, and this one did. On the downside, a really convoluted plot (and LeCarre's are nothing if not convoluted) does not come across nearly as well on film as in a book. Here the much longer run time of the TV series helped - the film had to leave out developments and subplots that the TV series didn't, adding depth to the characters (especially the minor ones). That said, I think Guiness captured the lack of self-assurance and the solitude of Smiley better than Oldman - in both performances Smiley is the smartest man in the room, but Guinness' (and LeCarre's) Smiley is far less aware of that.

@martoto77

5 ай бұрын

I'd hardly call the screenplay for the film version "box office oriented".

I love both versions - in fact, I sometimes forget which scenes go with which version! That said, Alec Guinness as Smiley is unparalleled - especially in that climactic scene at the end. He's been restrained and genteel the whole time we've seen him, but when he takes that gun out he really looks like he's ready to kill someone. I was also a bit disappointed that a lot of the Oxford stuff was taken out of the new version - the class dynamics, and the fact that so many of the characters were 'selected' straight out of university, is so important to their personalities and rivalries.

@kenoliver8913

8 ай бұрын

That last is a good point. The TV series captured the ENGLISHNESS of the Circus much better than the film; not surprising considering when and where it was made. The importance of class and nuances of accent (poor Roy Bland and Toby Esterhasy weren't going anywhere), the mournng for lost Empire, the way the public (ie private) school system marked people for life. In that respect it more faithfully captured the books.

@davefloyd9443

7 ай бұрын

Guinness spent an hour on his own with the gun prop, learning how it felt, 'getting to know it' as he put it. Comes out on film, when he pulls it out, it looks like he's remembering an old friend.

@packard5682

7 ай бұрын

Also left out of the movie and was very briefly inferred to in the tv series is the relationship between Bill Haydon and Jim Prideaux when they were in college, in that they may have been romantically involved. In the tv series at the end when Bill was in custody and Jim met him secretly for the last time, Jim kissed Bill on the head, then Jim killed Bill.

@fruzsimih7214

5 ай бұрын

Yes, the filmmakers were Swedish and didn't unterstand the importance of the English class system AT ALL.

Has to be the TV series! The depth of the mystery is in proportion to the depth of plot detail. I felt the movie was inevitably rushed, it just couldn't contain the required labyrinthine quality. Also Alec Guinness just is Smiley. ☺

I’ve seen the 2011 film a number of times and I think it gets better with every rewatch. Much like Alfredson’s Let the Right One In, it’s a film less about espionage and more about loneliness. It’s about a bunch of men who are past their prime and the one common thing they all share is that they’re all exceptionally lonely and idealistically broken due to the job. It’s the little details in Alfredson’s film that make it exceptional. The Christmas part sequence he keeps cutting back to. The amped up sexuality of it all. The little glances here and there. It’s a film that relies so heavily on the visuals and small shifts in body language. See I invested in it quite a bit because of that. I love that it’s a film that doesn’t bludgeon you with its plot. It does work and make sense so long as you’re paying attention. It’s a film that simply ask you to pay full undivided attention to it. I actually like Gary Oldman’s Smiley. He never struck me as unlikable. I like both the TV and film version. I think both do an admirable job at telling this story. Sure, the TV series has more room to breathe given the run time, but the film version nails the claustrophobic atmosphere so perfectly. And it nails the core of the story. It and The Spy Who Came In From The Cold remain two of my all time favourite espionage films. I love both versions. Also, it’s interesting to note that Le Carre said “please don’t remake the BBC miniseries. Tell something different” when they started production on the feature film. That’s actually why I like the feature film. It is its own take on the same material and still manages to feel true to the spirit of the book. I think they both stand very well on their own feet and don’t need to be compared.

@johnwhelan9663

Жыл бұрын

For me, the 2011 film gets worse every time I watch it. It is fascinating though, for its deliberate emptiness, meaninglessness and opacity. The impossibility of comprehension is the point of its existence.

@martoto77

5 ай бұрын

Impossible for you maybe.

I adore the 2011 version. You're right that it isn't intended to be entertaining and exhilarating. It's about atmosphere more than anything else.

@philippankhurst6680

Жыл бұрын

For my generation the film completely lacked genuine atmosphere whereas the series was shot in the real locations not long after the period of the book and at a time before London changed. I worked in those 'Circus' buildings briefly and I can still smell them...

The television series had more character and realism about it for me especially on location . Unforgettably unique.

One of the advantages of the series was the all TV star cast. They were able to get whoever they wanted even for small parts because everyone wanted to work with Guinness who hadm't done TV before. Bernard Hepton who plays Toby is very good as Smiley in the radio version of Tinker.

@paulklee5790

2 жыл бұрын

It’s a generation thing, to people my age the TV version is full of actors we grew up with... on another note my girlfriend has learnt to say ‘sure George’ exactly like Toby Esterase, which I find entirely delightful.

The closing credits music on the series is I think the best credits music ever. It’s a setting of an English version of the Nunc Dimittis, and was also performed at the funeral of its composer, Geoffrey Burgon.

I love the 2011 film so much. The acting, the writing, the crushing sense of paranoia and dread that envelops the whole movie, it's just terrific.

@kimberlycrichton2932

7 ай бұрын

The film is almost a silent movie, which means the glorious dialogue from the TV series - which drew directly from the book - is lost.

If you read the book you will understand how much information is fatally missing from the film. Which is why most people are left scratching their heads about many of the plot points, not to mention the characters and their motives.

I still watch the series once a year and have done for years. The best thing ever made for tele.

I gotta see this again. Couldn’t get into it at first but it deserves a second chance from me.

@calvindyson

3 жыл бұрын

I'd definitely recommend the series over the film!

Guinness was THE Smiley. Mild-mannered, shy in a way, but also with a sharp mind and capable of ruthlessness.

The TV series is a masterpiece but I loved the movie too. John Le Carre books and tv Series are generally excellent. If you found TTSS difficult to follow then try the follow up Smiley’s People. A few other good spy movies are the Ipcress File, the Odessa File and the Fourth Protocol (starring Pierce Brosnan).

The TV series was and is a masterpiece. As it’s also my favourite book of all time the movie frustrates me by the merging of characters and the simplified plot. The genius of LeCarres writing and the original series is in the brilliant way that the pomposity of the ‘ruling classes’ was depicted. Guiness was incredible and all of the players were identifiable at the time. The series is also has amazing quotable lines. If there is anybody who can’t appreciate the original then, as Roy Bland would say, “let him rotate!”. Love your Bond work and looking forward to the next one

For those of us who watched back in 79 when it originally aired all the faces were familiar TV faces so losing track of who was who was not a problem. I thought it was amazing then and still do now and far,, I mean far,, superior to the in my opinion boring 2011 version. Guinness’s ability to do so little while still “saying” so much is priceless.

@thursoberwick1948

3 жыл бұрын

It also got repeated throughout the eighties. When I watched it back in the noughties again, I was struck by the glacial pace, even though the cast was good. Ian Bannen's attempt at Czech was awful too!

@jamiem8680

3 жыл бұрын

@@thursoberwick1948 funnily enough I have just rewatched smileys people and found the “Glacial” pace quite refreshing compared to today’s crash bang wallop style.

@thursoberwick1948

3 жыл бұрын

@@jamiem8680 I'm a fast reader so it was actually slower than the book for me...

What’s wild (to me at least) is that le Carré was alive to see BOTH versions

The 2011 movie is my favourite movie of all time, and that is why I'm really hesitant to start watching the series. I can't really point to any one thing that makes the movie so great, because every single aspect contributes to it. If I were to explain why I find it to be a masterpiece in the fewest words possible, it'd be that it made me feel completely immersed in the world it created. Every single short or scene or character has tons of details that aren't strictly necessary, but just heightens the experience. Little things that makes the world feel so huge, detailed and real. It also has the secundary effect of making me feel like a spy myself. I notice new things every tme I rewatch it and it's not just easter eggs or the aforementioned details, but small things that actually makes the story and the characters better. Things like: The first scene at the Christmas Party when they're all singing "The Second best Secret Agent". It's funny, because, of course this is what a secret intelligence agency would play at a party, but you can also infer that it's about George Smiley, the nerdy, more realistic agent who never gets the credit compared to someone like James Bond. But it can also apply to how his wife views him as the literal second best agent, since she has an affair with another agent. But that means it can also refer to Jim, since Bill is now cheating on him. Then there's also the fun detail of Toby being the only one who has to read the lyrics while singing, which is in tune with how he's an expat who tries to fit in his new environment...similarly to how he adapts to the situation after Control is fired by not helping him, despite Control saving him out of a tough situation.

@achitophel5852

11 ай бұрын

You'll have a treat in store when you start watching the series. Guiness was Smiley. The cast was stellar, Britain's best.

@chrisst8922

7 ай бұрын

I think that the Christmas party scene is the best bit of the film. You know le Carre's in it don't you.

"A Murder of Quality" starring Denholm Elliott as Smiley is a great watch. It also has a very early appearance of Christian Bale. If you get around to watching Smiley's People be aware that there is a version that has more footage in it that is better in my opinion... More Curd Jurgens and Michael Lonsdale ain't a bad thing to be sure...

I adore both, honestly. One of the best miniseries ever made, and a favourite film of mine.

I also had a lot of issues connecting with the 2011 version. Maybe it's expectation management, but I really felt that I lacked any suspense, which was a shame, because the story is very suspenseful on paper, without being flashy.

@calvindyson

3 жыл бұрын

Completely agree, Gabrielle!

Good analysis. Just discovered the TV series and loving it. RIP John Le Carre.

The film was handicapped by having to re-enact the 1970's when the TV series could just run with the present day. Oldmann's Smiley also felt like a re-enactment rather than a real person. That said, the unforgivable sin of the film was showing a critical death on screen instead of the news being reported - even though none of the protagonists were present. It breaks the cardinal rule - which is that the audience is never permitted to see what Smiley himself cannot.

When most video entertainment today is fast food crap, these two masterpieces are to be savored.

In the capture scene, I noticed that Smiley’s gun in the series is a Baretta and in the movie it’s a Walther PPK. Another nod to the Bond lore. I like to think so. I enjoyed both, with each having unique ways to tell the story.

@chrisst8922

7 ай бұрын

You might already know but there is a Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy section in the Internet Movie Firearms Database website.

one of the greatest tv series of all time. the film did an admirable job of condensing the story into a feature film length, but the story really deserved what the tv version provided, enough time to tell it properly. it's glacial pace will be challenging for some younger viewers with short attention spans. if that offends anyone, sorry, prove me wrong and watch it. it's brilliant, it simmers, and the payoffs when exciting moments happen is that much more rewarding. the understated subtlety of Sir Alec's performance is just incredible.

@kenoliver8913

8 ай бұрын

On pacing, yes. It is like Test cricket - it seems the whole thing is just drifting for long periods and then all of a sudden - wham!. Whereupon you realise that the suspense of the drifting was what made the sudden action so gripping and engaging. But I fear we are in a minority thinking like that; after all my favourite Kubrick movie is Barry Lyndon - far and away his slowest.

Interesting to hear the observations of someone from a different generation. I am a Boomer who first saw TTSS on PBS in America. I had been a spy-genre and LeCarre fan already and I thought the TV series was the best thing ever on the small screen. Back in the pre-internet era, I liked it so much i travelled to London and bought a PAL VHS tape and had it converted to NTSC so I could watch it at home. So glad it is now available here on KZread (along with Smiley's People). Not being familiar with British actors, I was not distracted by the casting and I didn't have any problem following the different characters in the TV series. I subsequently recognized several of them in other British TV appearances including another favorite spy series "Game, Set, Match" (also available here on KZread). I rarely attend movie/cinema theatres, but I travelled downtown in anticipation of seeing the TTSS movie in first-run. Gary Oldman has always scared me with his portrayal of creepy bad guys and I found it difficult to see him as George Smiley. And the very short movie format couldn't possibly capture a fraction of the detail of the TV mini-series, much less the detail of the original novel. Not even a competition, The TTSS movie can't hope to compare with the TV series and Sir Alec Guinness. The TV series music by Geoffrey Burgon is brilliant as well. Just hearing the opening phrase of a music cue evokes each of the key moments of the story.

In terms of the film version, I really admire the way the director respects the viewer. A lot of films tend to hold the viewer's hand like you have mentioned. I found it refreshing that attention was paid to the small details and it wasn't spelled out in the script

Anything with Alec Guinness in it is incomparable better than anything else

Great video. Overall I agree with your opinions, Guinness’ Smiley is more approachable and in turn this is an asset since he is meant to be interrogating people with a silk glove. However, Oldman’s Smiley should not be entirely dismissed since when it comes to the scenes of him deducting and sleuthing, he scores hands down. The series has the aesthetic of the novel IMO. I totally agree, you can almost smell the stench of drab, mould and tobacco that was small rental accommodations in late 70s London, and of course the series fleshes out the characters and events due to its run time. However the film does its best, but ultimately fails in that area, Cieran Hinds’ Roy Bland hardly does anything in the film (he does get his moment in the deleted scenes though) But despite this hiccup, the film does improve in one area where the series fails, and that is when Smiley recounts his meeting with Karla, in the series it is told in flashback, but in the film it is recounted as a memory and IMO it works better in the film due to Oldman’s performance and the score. Guinness and Oldman are both phenomenal actors and they both give their own brilliant interpretations of Smiley, however they both run the risk of being outshone by one of their co stars. In the series when Smiley goes to talk to Jim Prideaux, the great Ian Bannen almost steals the show in that one scene, whilst in the film Tom Hardy’s Ricky Tarr almost steals the scene from Oldman’s Smiley. Both are great IMO. However when it comes to spy films and Le Carre adaptations, IMO not one holds a candle to The Spy Who Came In From The Cold.

@situated4

Жыл бұрын

TLDR

The difference between Gary Oldman and Alec Guinness as George Smiley is that Oldman has to "act" what he feels (and it comes off as acting!), while Guinness inhabits Smiley so completely that you feel you can see his emotional state in the instant before the bland mask comes down-the look of sympathy when Jim Prideaux runs to the bathroom to throw up, or the icy anger when Control accuses him of being part of Percy Alleline's cabal. When Smiley needs to show more than bland amiability is when he's truly frightening, because he turns into a being a Headmaster crossed with an Executioner. You can see the difference in the scenes where Smiley's remembering meeting Karla: in the BBC version, we get a master class in acting with two actors expert in "doing less" for maximum effect-Alec Guinness doing all the talking, while Patrick Stewart just sits there and watches him. This was long about a decade before anybody really knew who Patrick Stewart was, but going back you can see just how good he is-and he doesn't even have to cut loose with one of those wonderfully sonorous speeches he gave as Captain Picard! Contrast that with Oldman telling us about his one-sided conversation with Karla, which may as well have "FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION" flashing underneath him as he talks.

"I've got a story to tell you: it's all about spies. And if it's true - which I think it is - you boys are going to need a whole new organisation.". I really liked the film, but the TV series is full of great actors burning the screen down. I think Guinness has a fraction more vulnerability - the betrayal seems to hit harder for Guinness - just seeping around the mask. Also, Beryl Reid is incredible. Both are well worth watching, and I'd love to see a Oldman-Smiley's People.

@greenmonsterprod

3 жыл бұрын

Re: your opening sentence, that's one reason I prefer the TV series. Hywel Bennet is great as a snarkier, less respectful Tarr, with a lot of barely-suppressed anger.

@droppedontheclimb7019

3 жыл бұрын

@@greenmonsterprod That line, and all of the acting from Bennett and Guinness makes me shiver. It's so good.

The cast of the TV series was the cream of that acting generation. Film is superb too. Cathy Burke's alter ego in the series was Beryl Reid who was a comic actor as well. I prefer the TV series but the film is superb and I'd love to see a remake of Smiley's People.

Sweet a new Calvineous Dysoneous video

Series, also Smiley's People are good.

The TV series starts with that wonderful scene where nobody speaks for well over a minute. Each character is set up during that intro through their interactions with each other. Toby Esterhazy closing the door after Bill Hayden's entrance is a case in point. A bold decision on John Irvin's part. Guiness understood Smiley. The damaged 2nd World War and Cold War warrior, forced into then out of retirement. Guiness could turn from avuncular to stoic to cold as ice in a heart beat.A compelling performance. I don't mind the film but it pales in comparison.

TV series was British drama at its best. Brilliant story that was brilliantly acted and produced. The music was great too. The Bernard Hepton and Alec Guinness interaction towers over the film.

Hey Calvin. I highly recommend the BBC miniseries The Game (2014). It got no attention and it was actually a really good miniseries.

For me, the BBC production can never be improved upon by any remake. I appreciate the recent film adaptation, but the BBC cast members and their performances are simply iconic. I will always see Alec Guinness as George Smiley, and his cast mates are ingrained in my consciousness as well: Ian Hamilton is Bill Haydon; Alexander Knox is Control; Ian Bannen is Jim Prideaux; Bernard Hepton is Tobe Esterhase; Hywel Bennett is Ricky Tarr; Michael Jayston is Peter Guillam--each cast member embodies their characters. The film version can never equal the BBC production, and partly that's due to the limitations on films that tend to be 2-hour productions; in stark contrast, a BBC production can utilize as many hours as deemed necessary to adapt a literary work. The BBC has a history of wonderful literary adaptations, including I, Claudius, Brideshead Revisited, Love for Lydia, and Moll Flanders.

I adore the novel (Le Carré's best in my opinion) and I did enjoy the film. I really need to watch the series. Alec Guiness is one of my favourite actors and you just convinced me I have to watch him play Smiley ASAP

The BBC series was televised during the era that such things were happening and seemed spot on for the times. The later film was unable to capture the authentic feel of the era.

The TTSS & Smiley's People BBC Ministries are the greatest ever. The part was just perfect for Guinness. I watch each once a month. Just superb.

You're not wrong Calvin, the film is excellent but the series is as others have described in the moments here a masterpiece. It truly is able to flesh the story out and as someone who has read the Smiley novels the series definitely does far greater justice to its source material.

Might I suggest another great serious spy film? Consider “the spy who came in from the cold “.

Some stories deserve more time than a couple of hours.

In 2023, I watched the series and thought it was really excellent, the performances, the intrigue and the spy thrills. I think the longer running time gave the quite complicated story far more time to breath so that when the conclusion unfolds it is more satisfying. Watching with my mum, she knew who quite a few of the actors were so by in 1979, some of these people were big British a actors.

I loved both the TV series and the movie. As you said, the whole story must be condensed in 127 minutes in the movie so something must be left inevitably but it's awesome, too. P.S. I could smell the smoke in Control's apartment.

Thanks for the review! Good job! I’ve actually always wanted to see both of these adaptations and never have so it was good there was no spoilers. And of course there’s no beating Alec Guinness!

@calvindyson

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks very much :) glad you enjoyed it! HIGHLY recommend the series as your first port of call also by the way if you're completely unspoiled story-wise. It's a VERY slow burn but the better of the two I'd say.

@bondjamesbondsandiego0075

3 жыл бұрын

@@calvindyson Thanks again Calvin for all the great content you create for us!

Hey man, my dad used to show me the bond films when I was young and I loved it. Then I sort of lost interest in bond having watched most movies. I found ur channel and I’ve immediately got back into bond. So thank you so much love the content.

@calvindyson

3 жыл бұрын

Hey, thanks for sharing this! I’m really pleased these videos could help rekindle some Bond-fandom! It’s a great series and the escapism it provides has been especially great this past year so I hope it’s done the same for you. Thanks very much again! 😁😁

@tom47883

3 жыл бұрын

@@calvindyson OMG I didn’t think you would reply! Massive fan, keep up the good work 👍

The shipping containers. They were real , they were rooms it was impossible for electric surveillance, or people in the office outside , like a modem server farm , key information iis stored and analysed there..they were common in intelligence and private security firms . ( like a farraday cage ) .

I’m actually writing a book set in 1918 about the rescue of princess Anastasia and basically 2 spies team up in the 2 spies are basically George Smilley and James Bond And with the third guy who is basically the muscle

@josemaria8177

3 жыл бұрын

Sounds like a very interesting project. Looking forward to see it published one day. Best of luck writing!

@spaceodds1985

3 жыл бұрын

Nice. Please let me know the title so I can look forward to reading it one day. Best of luck with the writing.

@JOONBUGFILMS

3 жыл бұрын

@@spaceodds1985 it’s called Escaping Revolution

@jamesatkinsonja

3 жыл бұрын

Sounds a great premise, especially during the Russian Civil war. Good luck with it.

Maybe when he finally grows up he may then gain an appreciation for spy drama. One can only hope.

Thanks for another great review - enjoy both versions 😀

The BBC blew the movie out of the water. Alec Guinness was George Similie, the movie guy was trying to be Alec Guinness.

Thanks for this Calvin, utterly superb, you have hit the nail on the head fully. I love the series it’s extremely well acted. The film is astounding.

The problem with the film version for me was that it felt designed by people who didn't really *get* Britain. The whole public school / Oxbridge background is foundational to the thing, and it's not really explored in the film. Also, as Calvin notes, everything just looks too *slick* in the film. They apparently did loads of depth research into costumes - styles, colours, textures etc - but all the suits look too *new* , too well-maintained. The hairstyles are too neat. The interiors are too stylish. The drabness of the mini-series just captures the vibe for me - despite the excellent British cast, the film version *feels* too Hollywood.

@kenoliver8913

8 ай бұрын

Agree absolutely. Late 60s/early 70s London was poor, crowded and dirty and had never really recovered from WW2. Civil service offices (including MI6) and rented flats were drab, drear and overcrowded. The series had no trouble capturing this because it was shot near the time and place, but the (presumably LA) set and costume designers 30 years leter just did not "get" this.

Hi Calvin! Love your work,i can see the great effort you put in each of your videos and you helped me a lot get into Bond. Greetings from Italy!

@calvindyson

3 жыл бұрын

Hi Ricardo, thanks very much for this! Appreciate it. The videos do take a good deal of time to put together but it’s very much my hobby so it’s almost a form of meditation for me at this point! 😆😆 greetings from the UK! Hope you’re keeping safe and healthy

I like both, but the TV series has the edge. The spy game isn't James Bond. Its dingy rooms in run down areas. Lonely old spys with marriage and alcohol problem. The charactors were so real, the script and cast supurb. I go back and watch it and Smiley's People frequently

Love your reviews Calvin

Well compared to how Oldman normally over acts, he was quite good in TTSS.

Michael Jayston (Peter Guillam in the TV series) was considered for Bond in "For Your Eyes Only".

@MobiusBandwidth

2 жыл бұрын

he would have made a great Bond! how interesting.

Book, series, movie, in that order. All great! All recommended. Also check out Smiley's People. I wish that The Honourable Schoolboy wasn't so challenging to put on screen.

Is there a sing-a-long to "Mr. Wu's a Window Cleaner Now" in the series?

@jamesatkinsonja

3 жыл бұрын

Sadly no!

Hey Calvin, with IO Interactive being granted the licence to make the first new Bond video game in several years, do you think you'll ever make a video about IOI's recent World Of Assassination trilogy (beginning with 2016's HITMAN and ending with 2021's HITMAN 3)? There are lots of parallels in the WoA to the Bond franchise (including some very clear homages to Bond at various moments in the games), and I'd love to see you share your thoughts on this trilogy and what we might expect from Project 007 as a result.

I love the movie and the TV series, and both Alec Guinness' and Gary Oldman's portrayals. The only criticism I have of the movie is that it's a story that can't effectively be condensed down into a 2 hour movie, without losing what made the story so great in the first place. I think they did an admirable job though, as it could have been a hot mess.

I wish there was interest in making a movie versions of the next two books

@richard7crowley

9 ай бұрын

The third book of the trillogy, "Smiley's People" was also made as a BBC mini-series. Available here on KZread. RECOMMENDED!!! But the second book "The Honourable Schoolboy" was probably too expensive for BBC budgets.

Not sure if you are/ still checking this but I thought I would point out that the follow up series, Smileys People, actually included three central performances by Bond villains - Vladek Sheybal, Curt Jurgens and a scene stealing turn by Michael Lonsdale

@robertthain4330

2 жыл бұрын

Lonsdale was indeed brilliant as the hapless, bungling Grigoriev.

@richard7crowley

9 ай бұрын

And Lonsdale was also brilliant as the French detective in "Day of the Jackal".

The Hungary “murder” scene in the series was just so much better!

@fruzsimih7214

5 ай бұрын

In the book and series it is set in a forest in Czechoslovakia by night. Which makes sense as a kidnapping operation of a major intelligence service. In the film, it set in a Budapest café by day (!) in plain view of civilians (!!), and they even had a civilian woman killed! That's just *facepalm*.

@Summitclym

5 ай бұрын

@@fruzsimih7214 well said. The series rules again.

I can't be the only one to have a pad handy for note taking during such works?

Movie is great, TV show is iconic

Poor Gary Oldman. Even when the film was being shot, he said something about how Guiness' performance as Smiley was like a sword hanging over his head. Imagine being cast in the remake of something that not only was one of the finest performances of a character, but was done by one of the greatest actors of all time. He knew that not only would it be a huge thing to live up to, but that an entire generation of BBC TV viewers would despise the very existence of the film. If the film had been a remake of a film, I would count it as a classic example of a remake that should never have happened. It only survives to the point of being judged on its individual merit by being a remake of a TV serial, and therefore made *and watched* according to a somewhat different set of rules. But I was die-hard fan of the original series, and worse yet, it is a golden memory of watching it together with my Dad, who was the man who got me into reading the Le Carre books. No film, no matter how good, could possibly compete with that. It seems that the film was almost a waste of massive talent, in that I could never judge it fairly as I might judge a film for which I had neither read the book, nor lived through weeks of TV serial which might be one of the best things the BBC ever did. It's mildly tragic that I could not possibly react in any way but to hate the film for trampling all over my memories. Sorry film chaps, I know it's not your fault.

I think the film is good as a movie, but the writers completely misunderstood both the intelligence world and 1970s British society. I was also very much disappointed by Colin Firth's bland performance. Ian Richardson was so stellar in the series that he became my favorite actor! He does not completely play the same character as the one in the novel (who is older and less arrogant), but man, he absolutely nails the character he is given to play!

But that’s why I didn’t like the film version - all characters were too similar but house of cards - the original was fun

05:18 Interesting, because especially when Oldman's Smiley interacted with his wife in any way at all I felt his emotions very strongly. Ditto his relationship with Control and even Bill. I quite liked both Smileys. A lot.

Series best by far. Engaging and easier to follow the plot. All the points you made. The movie was hard to follow and I did not like the actors in their roles. I;d swamp them around. I had to go to Wiki to really get it down and then watched the series again. Nice. The movie is great for background when I need an afternoon nap. Better atmospheric quality for naps. Edit - I think there should be a nap quality score for movies.

Love to see you flexing some criterions behind you

Nobody: Me seeing obi wan kenobi on the thumbnail: “General Kenobi”

Hi CD....indeed, I found the movie to be quite a hard slog, though I did enjoy it much more second time round. And I haven't seen the TV series....any ideas where to watch it? 👍🙂

spot on review

So glad to hear your thoughts on this! I had no knowledge of it previously, so my first exposure to it was the 2011 film. I loved it! I did have to go to the cinema again and re watch it, which helped. I find it is the sort of film that I'm able to re watch and find something new in it! I have also watched the series, and thought Guinness was fantastic, and I now understand why he is seen as the definitive Smiley! He fits the part like a glove! I do agree with the slickness of the film and it's cast - and think the series is more authentic - not least because it was filmed during current events! I loved both of them tbh, but I do have great fondness for the film as my gateway into this wonderful dull world of le Carre, who I have been a fan of ever since watching the 2011 film! So glad to hear your thoughts and widening the scope of the spy genre on this channel! Keep up the good work!

Book first, TV series, Radio 4 play, film.

Bernard Hepton who was in Secret Army, my favourite actor Clifford Rose played Kessler, loved the uniform, very dashing.

@robdean704

3 жыл бұрын

If you think hepton is good in tinker you should see him in smileys people, absolutely breathtaking

I loved the film but take your points. So well documented. I like the critique view on this. I need to find the series.

I think you nailed it.

Saw the film back in 2011 when it came out (it was the 2nd 15 rated film I saw in the cinema, the 1st being... uh, The Inbetweeners Movie). I remember enjoying it, but being very baffled by it - I keep meaning to rewatch it, though after watching this vid I might pick up the TV version. I share your love for Guinness (the man, not the beer) - the Ealing Comedies are some of my favourite films. And I should probably give the book a read too, but my “books to read” pile is already tall enough as it is. The only John le Carré book I’ve read is the excellent ‘The Spy Who Came in From the Cold’ - also a very good film, written by Paul Dehn, the same guy who wrote Goldfinger and the Planet of the Apes sequels.

@calvindyson

3 жыл бұрын

I’d highly recommend the series to you. Particularly as a Guinness fan. It’s a slow burn for sure and I did have to keep a check of names and faces to make sure I was understanding it but much more satisfying than the film!

@BenCol

3 жыл бұрын

@@calvindyson I don’t know why it took the Beeb so long to decide to put their back catalogue out on Blu-Ray, but I’m glad they’ve started doing so. I might pick up Edge of Destruction too - it being a key part in Martin Campbell’s career, after all.

@BenCol

Жыл бұрын

Edge of Darkness, rather. Which I did pick up and I’m glad I did, it’s a phenomenal bit of telly and the Blu-Ray transfer is marvellous.

Read the book and you'll hate the movie version. The filmmakers made unnecessary changes to characters and the story that not only don't help but actually confuse both the motivations of the characters and how the Soviets succeeded in infiltrating them. In doing so, they very clearly didn't understand one of Le Carré's main themes, which is how alike the cultures of Britain's civil and spy services were to the English "public" schools and universities they drew their top officers from, and how the Soviets used that to exploit and undermine them for decades. The mini-series, with its constant needling of Smiley about his wife's infidelity not just to humiliate him but to try to deflect his attention and ruin his credibility, captures this perfectly.

John Wells...best known as Denis Thatcher in For Your Eyes Only & Q's assistant in Casino Royale (1967).....is in 2 episodes of the old version as the Headmaster.

I really enjoyed the Alec Guinness miniseries; obviously, it has the opportunity to really detail the situation. I have always found Gary Oldman to be very cold in his roles, but he had this incredible talent to so slip into character that you rarely see Oldman as a person. In the end, I think I preferred the miniseries, mostly because I like Guinness so much better, and it really encourages you to stick around to figure out what's going on. Oldman simply can't do that, and I have yet to REALLY make it through the entire film.

For me the decision usually comes down to how time I want to spend with the story, i love both versions. I think Jay Alston was better than Benedict Cumberbatch, Bernhard Hepton’s Toby Esterhaze is unmatched. I liked Colin Firth better as Haydon, Ian Richardson is brilliant but Firth felt more convincing.

@kenoliver8913

8 ай бұрын

I agree with each of these. I've always been a huge fan of Richardson (watch the original BBC House of Cards series - he shows up Kevin Spacey's US performance as lightweight), so I was surprised on seeing the movie just how much more Firth brought to the Haydon character. Richardson plays Haydon as just a narcissistic shit but there is more to Firth's version.

Both the movie and tv series substituted either Turkey or Spain for Hong Kong. Filming budget restrictions I suppose.

I loved the film but it grew on me after a 3rd viewing which says something bc I knew there was a lot more I could understand better. I think it does enough in letting you know what’s going on with the first viewing but it rewards going in again. Honestly I never considered watching the show version but your praise has intrigued me

the series - hands down.

Great review. You are right; don't look away or play with your phone. It is a rich storyline with a lot of characters. I enjoyed both versions.