This book was written in 1993, and watching it feels like I have been transported back in time to 1993 (but not in a good way). The dialogue is old -- the premise is old -- Hiddleston is stiff and the whole thing is predictable. I'll pass on future episodes.
I hope it shakes off some of it's weak beginnings. An Egyptian bad guy would not give his girlfriend something to fax from a hotel, he, being rich and criminal, could have it done without anyone knowing. I know it's the hook to get the Night Manager involved, but it's weak stuff. A British Arms dealer who seems to have no eyes on him? Why beat up the girlfriend and leave her alive when she's going to be killed anyway?
1
It was my understanding that:
1.The mistress stole the documents for protection and did not just give them her. hence his reaction when he found out.
2. He has plenty of eyes on him, but its made plain he is skilled in evading detection. That's one of the central themes.
3. He beats up the gf because thats his initial reaction, but he's not sure. the suggestion is that the decision to take it further comes from above and as the deal comes under threat or is canceled.
We must have seen a different programme.
1.The mistress stole the documents for protection and did not just give them her. hence his reaction when he found out.
2. He has plenty of eyes on him, but its made plain he is skilled in evading detection. That's one of the central themes.
3. He beats up the gf because thats his initial reaction, but he's not sure. the suggestion is that the decision to take it further comes from above and as the deal comes under threat or is canceled.
We must have seen a different programme.
8
I have not read le Carre, and not sure I want to now. I hate watching someone make matters worse, and Hiddleston's character seems to trip up more than a few times. With danger in air, I think "what an idiot!" but then perhaps these thriller/intrigue type stories are not my thing. I turned in to see him (because he's SO lovely to watch) and to see Hugh L. I agree that Laurie does not pull off "threatening, and dangerous" all that well. He is too likable to be scary.
Just watched the first episode and will not bother with another. Show is like an offensive mashup of Homeland and James Bond--revolution in the streets juxtaposed with pretty people in bath and bed.
Hiddleston has a creepy Aryan charm (is it the haircut?), but seems to be channeling a character from late 1930s political thrillers. Hugh Laurie, on the other hand, seems to be riffing on Donald Trump. None of it makes any sense.
Hiddleston has a creepy Aryan charm (is it the haircut?), but seems to be channeling a character from late 1930s political thrillers. Hugh Laurie, on the other hand, seems to be riffing on Donald Trump. None of it makes any sense.
You should probably stop watching. There are other programs for you.
7
My girlfriend and I had an ambitious anticipation for TNM, neither one of us is a huge LeCarre fan, but we both had/have high hopes for the series, but we weren't overwhelmed by the first episode. However, we have exhausted our nexflix options, so we will be patient, and reasonable optimistic. Also, we are both House fans and it will be extremely difficult investing in Hugh as a villain.
2
Tom Hiddelston was magnificent in Jim Jarmusch's film, "Only lovers left Alive." His star is rising. Also see "The Deep Blue Sea" with Rachel Weisz. He's a James Bond in the wings. I work in a hospital and we would have suspended Hugh Laurie, he was such a jerk. I get to finally perhaps enjoy him now. I thought episode one was terrific.
6
You should wait the following 5 episodes to judge Ms. Marshall and she doesn't have equine legs!! In any event, I like happy endings, so I watched the last episode twice...
I love LeCarre and I love this show, so far. For me, Tom Hiddleston is the star, much more so than Hugh Laurie, who's been unremarkable in the first episode.
I am also struck by the contrast between this production and the endless seasons of Homeland. This show succeeds without having a wild-eyed, over-acting, off-putting lead.
One quibble: a polished, handsome, multi-lingual, military vet would be far more than a career night manager. Perhaps someone less stunning,in every way, should have been cast as Pine.
I am also struck by the contrast between this production and the endless seasons of Homeland. This show succeeds without having a wild-eyed, over-acting, off-putting lead.
One quibble: a polished, handsome, multi-lingual, military vet would be far more than a career night manager. Perhaps someone less stunning,in every way, should have been cast as Pine.
4
Nice comments except disagree with last para. Not sure if you have read the novel but Pine's backstory is probably a good one for a career night manager. Also, in Europe, hotel managers are polished and multi lingual with handsomeness a plus....can't get the job otherwise.
2
As a fan of Smiley's People and A Perfect Spy, I was really looking forward to this but was very disappointed. Major plot element made no sense: Burr's frantic call to Jonathan warning that Sophie was in danger. How did she know to call at that moment and what did she tell him that he didn't actually already know? Then a small but worrisome detail: On the invoice for the arms there's a notation: Ready for Immediate Use. Camera focuses on it as justification for an urgent response. But come on, when would such a phrase be used on any invoice? An obvious phony. Will probably keep watching but not eagerly.
3
Because she'd been alerted back in Whitehall that the situation had been compomised. Up intil that point they were going to try and bluff it out as the chance to flee to the UK had fallen through.
I'm not used to seeing arms invoices for internatiol dealers, so cant say.
Immediate use would hint to me that it was a sales pitch for a dictator who wnated to keep power. Contrast that with equipment which was still at the manufacturers, was on the other side of the world and would not be available. The president/ buyer had urgen need of the weapons and he needd them immediately.
I'm not used to seeing arms invoices for internatiol dealers, so cant say.
Immediate use would hint to me that it was a sales pitch for a dictator who wnated to keep power. Contrast that with equipment which was still at the manufacturers, was on the other side of the world and would not be available. The president/ buyer had urgen need of the weapons and he needd them immediately.
1
I also caught the entire thing earlier this year. Laurie chews and swallows the scenery; Hollander just a bit less so. Hiddleston is a lox. As it progresses, the holes and implausibilities increase and I found it ultimately disappointing. Still, anything Olivia Colman does is worth seeing.
Warner writes: "As Roper, Hugh Laurie’s predatory gaze is perfect; a problem, however, is that the actor is also instantly likable — a challenge that may complicate establishing and sustaining Roper as 'the worst man in the world' over the coming five episodes."
------------
Not at all. We have already seen the fruits of Roper's influence -- in the documentation Pine copied, the connection with Hamid, and Sophie's gruesome death. We know what he's capable of. But it is evil in the guise of "likable" that is especially insidious. Here is a man with a humanitarian public persona and a dark inner core. And this is how people capable of heinous acts seduce others into their sphere.
------------
Not at all. We have already seen the fruits of Roper's influence -- in the documentation Pine copied, the connection with Hamid, and Sophie's gruesome death. We know what he's capable of. But it is evil in the guise of "likable" that is especially insidious. Here is a man with a humanitarian public persona and a dark inner core. And this is how people capable of heinous acts seduce others into their sphere.
15
I must stand up for Elizabeth Debicki whom I had only previously seen in The Great Gatsby. I found her to be a genuinely modern and believable leading female character in this show and of course very stylish to boot as Anna Wintour noted in her recent Editor's Note in Vogue. She is one of the main reasons I continued to tune in (in Australia it is advertisement free on the ABC). But that's not to undercut the three male leads who are all incredible. The scenes in Cairo were fantastic and later in the drama there are quite a few more incredible location shoots. Love it.
2
A must see. I've seen the whole series (without commercials thanks to primewire.ag). Well cast and credibly acted, great choice and diversity of venues, I found the series compelling (in spite of some of its shortcomings as pointed out by others). I was sorry to reach the end all too soon. All in all you won't the disappointed.
4
I disagree with emm305. Your recaps will bring more attention to this beautifully made show that should be seen. Haven't read the book and don't care to buy it to compare. That's what screenplays are about---creating something new from the source material and so far so good. It's so visually stunning and with these two male leads I will keep watching and reading your recaps!
3
I have never read LeCarre but started watching to see Hugh L. and the exotic locations. So far so good.
BUT did anyone catch the scene where Roper gets out of the car (steering wheel on the right) and someone else hops in driving off using a steering wheel on the left? How could someone have missed getting that right? Makes me skeptical about other details.
BUT did anyone catch the scene where Roper gets out of the car (steering wheel on the right) and someone else hops in driving off using a steering wheel on the left? How could someone have missed getting that right? Makes me skeptical about other details.
1
I haven't seen it yet, but was the second car U.S.-made? They do appear in England from time to time.
1
Yep, I noticed that! I agree about skepticism.
So....other things to be skeptical about. Uhh....its a story. These are only actors. The action is faked, not real. The vehicles you are worried about are props rented for the week...not actually owned but the actors. The sets, also rented for the week. You are going to miss out on the story if you are going to obsess about this stuff.
1
I think one should read and know this fine book before reviewing a min-series purporting to be true to it. But, that would take time and effort and we have no time for that, right? The Google generation will kill knowledge and taste, not to mention recreational reading, with another 20 years.So what, right?
The nuance in this book--and all of LeCarre's books-- is beyond TV's ability to portray.
The nuance in this book--and all of LeCarre's books-- is beyond TV's ability to portray.
4
TBF Le Carre is executive producer and the main producers are his sons. It's another medium so everyone knows the pros and cons of each.
3
The Times recap mentions the instantly likable Roper who is played by a star in a star turn.
Many actors (no gender implied here) are paid to "star" in film and TV and are sold as stars by their agents and those who hire them in these roles.
Not many actors truly display or have that elusive "star" quality that semi-explodes from those who are truly stars.
Hugh Laurie is one of those stars, from low comedy to high drama and everything in between.
This show seems to get the Le Carre milieu.
It is also a very good looking show and I never had to adjust the sound level during this episode. I'm looking forward to the rest of this mini-series.
Many actors (no gender implied here) are paid to "star" in film and TV and are sold as stars by their agents and those who hire them in these roles.
Not many actors truly display or have that elusive "star" quality that semi-explodes from those who are truly stars.
Hugh Laurie is one of those stars, from low comedy to high drama and everything in between.
This show seems to get the Le Carre milieu.
It is also a very good looking show and I never had to adjust the sound level during this episode. I'm looking forward to the rest of this mini-series.
2
Judith, Sandy's a bore, surely it's Corky you're eagerly awaiting more from?! :)
2
I think we have carried recapping a bridge too far when we are covering a 6 hour mini-series.
2
Having followed NYTimes recaps on several other series, I welcome a recap of this series, and wish for a recap of Turn which starts Season 3 with 10 episodes on April 25, 2016, also on AMC. It is an excellent show with an excellent cast and a Facebook discussion group of more than 1100 members. It is interesting to read the recap & comments about each episode.
2
Nitpicking for sure, but did anyone read the arms list around which much of the first episode revolved? An F-22 Raptor, a super-sophisticated jet that the US hasn't sold to anyone? A Trident missile, which is a submarine-launched nuclear ballistic missile? It looked ridiculous and undercut the sheen of realism that le Carre typically brings to his work.
3
Yes, and they were, understandably, upset by the napalm but not by the sarin gas?
1
Ok, so tell me....why does the mysterious woman give the list of armaments and related papers to a hotel manager she doesn't know, and ask him to make a copy, obviously aware that he would read them? Surely the books are better written!
3
Because she wanted him to take action. She said that she would have done it herself if she'd had the courage.
7
I'm in. Interesting to see Hiddleston by turns suave & cool, then panicky & sweaty: a ways from his Scott Fitzgerald role. I liked him immediately as Wallander's assistant cop, 'way back, who shoots W's daughter's kidnapper, then looks horrified. I agree that the cigarette scene bodes well. I hope Tom Hollander is a little more subtle as the mean-spirited gay figure. The entrance of the helicopter gang was properly disruptive and a little scary. Interesting that Hiddleston & Laurie both went to Eton and Cambridge, about tens years apart: acting incubators, both.
1
Why is Sophie automatically sexy and ripe for a love affair while the smart and powerful Angela Burr is portrayed strictly as a patriotic worker without a sexual side to her being? Body type? Hair style? Weight? Cleavage? Really? Still?
8
Who said she doesn't have a sexual side? We're only one hour into the series.
And why would that validate her any more than her strength and intelligence?
And why would that validate her any more than her strength and intelligence?
8
Angela's "sexual side" becomes more evident as the series progresses. Wait and see.
The Burr character is a wily runner of agents...in Lecarre's novel its a male character and he does not bother to discuss his Burr's pecs or biceps or dazzling smile or cut of his suit....he/she is a smart and dedicated espionage functionary. Sophia on the other hand is the character who animates Pine to become an agent of Burr's....he was just a dedicated hotel employee...but she seduced him and awakened something in him....love. When he can't prevent her death, it animates him to turn his passion elsewhere and he becomes prey to the British intelligence authorities....Burr.
So....its always fun to watch people try to reconcile their adopted political correctness with a one dimensional analysis of what they think they have seen or read....
You should probably stop thinking that every woman in the workplace, yours or in media, need to show up with an arousing personal story and cleavage.
So....its always fun to watch people try to reconcile their adopted political correctness with a one dimensional analysis of what they think they have seen or read....
You should probably stop thinking that every woman in the workplace, yours or in media, need to show up with an arousing personal story and cleavage.
3
I sense that perhaps Tom Hiddleston still has some ways to go in order to come into his own. I don't buy his character and am not interested in him the way I was in Ralph Fiennes and the great Alec Guinness.
I am a devoted fan of early le Carre. I was deeply disappointed when the Cold War novels came to an end and we got The Night Manager. So far, the tv series has not improved the novel, but I will hang on because of Hugh Laurie and my absurd hope that films and tv shows will miraculously get better. They seldom do, but I keep hoping.
I've seen all the episodes and enjoyed it immensely. Can't say more just yet!
2
I'm pretty sure that Roper was inspired by the late fugitive Marc Rich, who was pardoned (with seconds to spare) by our former president, Bill Clinton.
5
Geez....Rich made millions trading commodities, not weapons, and leaves the country to avoid going to jail for not paying taxes. Not even close to what LeCarre wrote about.
But, I guess if your mind is fogged by conservative political rantings...you start to think that all creativity is inspired by the conservative fund raising memes.....
But, I guess if your mind is fogged by conservative political rantings...you start to think that all creativity is inspired by the conservative fund raising memes.....
3
"a problem, however, is that the actor is also instantly likable"
Cary Grant was similarly likable, but he revealed a dark side that Alfred Hitchcock could find in him for "Suspicion," and "Notorious." So, it would seem this problem is more about direction, than audience response.
Cary Grant was similarly likable, but he revealed a dark side that Alfred Hitchcock could find in him for "Suspicion," and "Notorious." So, it would seem this problem is more about direction, than audience response.
2
There were so many commercials I finally turned it off and went back to George Gently on Netflix.
1
About all those ads . . .thank god for a DVR. Thoroughly enjoyed skipping directly to the story at 1:00 a.m.
For a miniseries, weekly episodes are far too infrequent for this gem.
For a miniseries, weekly episodes are far too infrequent for this gem.
2
Hiddleston and Huge Laurie were terrific. I love Le Carre and I'm in.
My only complaint - and it's a very big one - is frequency of the commercials which is very distracting. Why can't AMC front load them the beginning and end of the telecast with perhaps one or 2 at the midway point? As it is, it feels like the program is interrupted every 2 or 3 minutes - way too often!!!!
My only complaint - and it's a very big one - is frequency of the commercials which is very distracting. Why can't AMC front load them the beginning and end of the telecast with perhaps one or 2 at the midway point? As it is, it feels like the program is interrupted every 2 or 3 minutes - way too often!!!!
2
I am watching it on I-tunes. Around $10.00 for the whole series and no commercials. It's been years since I've owned a TV or had cable, I love the freedom that i-Tunes gives me. But I probably only watch one program or series a month and I depend a lot on NYT's reviews. Also the I-Tunes version says it is unedited. Might it be that what you see on TV is edited for the commercial breaks?
2
Not a huge Le Carre fan but I loved this. I confess to not knowing the story but wishing they would spend the bulk of the story in Cairo. It had that sort of magical air that once in a generation is captured in a film.
I've liked Tom Hiddleston forever. In this I was compelled by him. I could resist him. I wondered about him. I wanted to know more.
It's great to see Hugh Laurie in something as nearly off plumb as House.
"And yet, however self-assuredly sexy he is by day, he turns into a picture of obsequiousness by night"
And I guess this is what I loved about it.
I've liked Tom Hiddleston forever. In this I was compelled by him. I could resist him. I wondered about him. I wanted to know more.
It's great to see Hugh Laurie in something as nearly off plumb as House.
"And yet, however self-assuredly sexy he is by day, he turns into a picture of obsequiousness by night"
And I guess this is what I loved about it.
Watched the whole series on the Beeb UK. Brilliant plots, terrific cast, and solid acting which builds to a perfect climax in the final episode. Enjoy, America.
PS Why isn't this being shown on PBS or BBC America?
PS Why isn't this being shown on PBS or BBC America?
2
Hugh Laurie can do no wrong. I will watch him in anything. He is the equal of any of the great actors (Alex Guiness, Rex Harrison). Even when the character is awful or the story line confusing, it's worth the price of admission to get Laurie.
2
I find Hugh Laurie kinda distracting--too familiar as House.This is not his fault, nor Bier's- just the residue of years on TV that makes an indelible view of some actors. (Will Schwimmer ever stand free of Friends ?)
Maybe Roper should seem like a shape shifter.
Maybe Roper should seem like a shape shifter.
1
I won't say anything other than Brian C. is on the right trail.
10pm for the next 5 Tuesdays....locked in.
23
Thought it was a very promising first episode. I like the subtle character of Mr. Pine. I also noted the realism concerning the effects of physical violence. Often, on TV, black eyes heal overnight. In this more truthful version, Jonathan Pine observes the lingering wounds on Sophie / Samira's beautiful face, and thus understands his role in her dangerous life. As for the female roles, it does seem that the women are either operating alone in a male world (Angela Burr) or as adjuncts to the men; that is, we are not likely to see women having a dialogue together. I don't know what it is about Hugh Laurie, but he is amazing to watch as he inhabits these bitter dark characters. So different from his old roles (many years back) playing the hapless nincompoop.
16
I enjoyed the first episode and loved Tom Hiddleston's character but I was dismayed by the 6 minutes of 'show', 3 1/2 minutes of commercial, sequence. This means the show was just a little over half an hour long. I normally only have 'basic cable' plus one extra channel. This consists of 3 publicly funded channels and several channels that feature mostly re-runs. For this I pay $57 month (Cdn.) I was so eager to watch a John Le Carre series (read everything he writes and watched previous shows) that I increased my cable plan to include AMC thinking I would cancel after the 6 weeks. This increased my monthly rate to $110 (tax incl) but I thought 'oh well'. It would allow me several other channels as well but I had no expectation that I would want to look at them. I would have continued with this as I can see the show is really well done...if it had not been interrupted by so many, and such lengthy, commercials. I am not used to looking at that. Paying so much for the privilege of watching advertising!? So I immediately cancelled the new contract and will assume that PBS will bring this out at some point.
21
If not, everything worth watching eventually comes to one of the streaming service. Then you can watch it with no commercials.
5
I'm waiting to for the DVD to show up at the public library. I don't feel the need to be first to watch anything.
1
Can you provide a cost analysis for the various streaming services (tax incl) available in Toronto?
As a long time devoted Le Carre reader so far this adaptation has my attention to the fullest . The overall darkness that pervades Le Carre's writing seems intact . The adjustments to time and certain characters feels appropriate . And Hugh Laurie despite his previous career in British sitcoms seems to of taken the evil side of " House " to a new extreme befitting the villain ' Roper ' As for Roper's mistress , having spent time amongst the rich and famous witnessing their mistresses and trophy wives first hand I'd say her character is to borrow the British phrase .. spot on !
13
Great review of the first episode. I have been able to see all the episodes, (no spoilers), I'm not going to say anything, except that every episode of the show is well scripted and beautifully shot. Seeing Hugh Laurie as a bad guy was pure joy! It has a great blend of real world events and predictable characters, and some unrealistic actions, but if you go along with it, it's a fun ride.
I'm not sure how the BBC paid for this even though it was a joint production with AMC. They have produced a magnificent piece of entertainment, as the story progresses it is difficult to wait a whole week to see the next episode!
I'm not sure how the BBC paid for this even though it was a joint production with AMC. They have produced a magnificent piece of entertainment, as the story progresses it is difficult to wait a whole week to see the next episode!
19
Hope Amazon will feature this asap...like: yesterday !
Good start. Lurie does sinister well. Did his Zermatt questions about Pine's background suggest he may remember him from Cairo?
3
I do think that's what's being suggested. But when would he have seen him? While Pine was out sailing, from the yacht club, like Sophie?
3
He saw Pine at the hotel in Cairo, asked about a package, and later joined him on the terrace under the stars when Pine was smoking. Good grief.
Viewers who enjoy a slow movement of actions directing the plot will enjoy this show but those who want it all laid out will not. So far the characters are intriguing and the interplay between Pine and Roper promises to be very interesting. It will be a morality tale of many twists and turns and not everyone will be happy with the ending.
2
At my age, 69, slow is good. I just loved the show and never had to backtrack on my I-Tunes version of it because I thought I had missed something. I read the book years ago, and I am quite enjoying this update of the story.
2
The hook hasn't been set yet, but I'm not ready to give up on the show
8
No. I was eager to watch the TV version and i had watched up to 3 epsodes, but, alas, they butchered the story badly. The Night Manager has a very psychologically interesting story to tell, not your " typical " spy. The TV rewrite is just too plain.
1
Accurate, fair assessment of basic story. Settings refreshingly interesting (Cairo and the Swiss Alps) The Night Manager is more interesting than Roper -a "standard" assembly-line character. Thanks for this review, I agree w you on all points.
3
Roper/Laurie's likeability and Pine/our attraction to him is definitely deliberate. Have seen the whole series as the BBC already showed it over here. Highly enjoyable.
12
Me, too. Already saw it, read the book, and am watching again. Hiddleston is one of today's very best actors...too few people in the States know him, mostly for Loki. But find an audio version of him reading poems, or watch him in The Hollow Crown, and you will swoon, if you're the kind to swoon. Laurie is perfectly villianous. And Corky is genius acting too.
16
I'm a fan of both the author, the book and now the mini-series. There was enough dialogue lifted directly from the book to satisfy purists, and the "current events" updates were handled well. I look forward to the rest of the series.
1
"Equine legs" ... classic. You failed to mention "our man in the Cairo" embassy. Don't trust him and sooo glad to have my favorite TV cop, DI Miller, on the scene/screen. She'll get to the bottom of this bloody mess. Now her, I do trust.
21
Suggest she visit her hairdresser.
1
Be patient with long-legged beauties. Beauty doesn't mean brainless.
5
We've seen the series here and I both agree and recommend it. It's compelling and worth the time.
7
No spoilers- I promise. (we have seen it all already on this side of the pond)
I overall agree with the review, except the point about Hugh Laurie's likability being a problem: it's exactly the opposite. Most of the fun and complexity of the series derives from this duality, the push / pull Roper has on people. We, Pine, and almost everyone else, know he is "the worst man in the world" from the start, but at the same time he is likable and charming, and he draws you in.
Overall, 6 hours of excellent TV. Enjoy!
I overall agree with the review, except the point about Hugh Laurie's likability being a problem: it's exactly the opposite. Most of the fun and complexity of the series derives from this duality, the push / pull Roper has on people. We, Pine, and almost everyone else, know he is "the worst man in the world" from the start, but at the same time he is likable and charming, and he draws you in.
Overall, 6 hours of excellent TV. Enjoy!
16
Exactly. LeCarre took a lot of care in crafting the the Roper character and providing a richness of personal traits, not the least of which was his magnetism and attraction to both sexes.
2
I am afraid we don't see very much more of Sandy Langbourne and wife, they are very peripheral characters.
"Corky" on the other hand really comes into his own later in the series. There is a scene in a restaurant which is the quintessential, "rich jerk embarrassingly attempts to humiliate waiter." Painful to watch but wonderfully realised...
"Corky" on the other hand really comes into his own later in the series. There is a scene in a restaurant which is the quintessential, "rich jerk embarrassingly attempts to humiliate waiter." Painful to watch but wonderfully realised...
1
i saw bits of a few episodes.
love mr hiddleston, but it seems a tad bland...
hoping it picks up a bit.
love mr hiddleston, but it seems a tad bland...
hoping it picks up a bit.
Well, the feminist journalist approves, on points. And after all, that's what it's all about, sociopolitical points! Not to mention "agency," the darling concept of certain social philosophers that has infiltrated literary studies.
1
Ms. Warner, do note that 'fortuitous' does not mean 'fortunate.' The changes that moved the story forward are intentional, not fortuitous.
9
Terrific show with great production values - it's wonderful to see the world, and Zermatt was a treat. Hiddleston is reliably brilliant and we're thrilled to have such a good show to see us through May. May Mr. Roper (I haven't read the book) come to an untimely end.
4
Yum. We're just going to enjoy Ms. Warner's re-caps before watching any of the series.
1
with this I'll pass - 20 mins in and the beaten woman is enticing the smart educated Brit in bed - what a beautiful love making that must have been, staring into here fabulously bruised eye.....not interested in this bs
9