input: Season after season, the players or characters in this show appear to be people who you'd absolutely love to hate. Is this show rigged to be that or were they chosen for the same? Each episode vilifies one single person specifically and he ends up getting killed off. You enjoy seeing them get screwed although its totally wrong and sick. You enjoy seeing them screwing others, getting screwed themselves, playing dirty, getting it back, escaping and finally getting kicked out by Trump. The amount of tears also seems to be increasing by the season.

The rewards which attempt to compensate for past humiliation and suffering are also heavily reduced. In the newer seasons, its like "You get to meet xyx who'll lecture you about uvw"..like who freaking cares? The characters are so hateable, collectively and individually, that you wonder if they're paid actors? The only sane one gets to win.

Watch with caution and maintain a conscience. Those are your fellow human beings in the firing line.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: As a fan of author John le Carre I've slowly been working my way through both his books and the adaptations of them. I found this 1987 adaptation of le Carre's masterwork at my local library and sat down to watch it thinking I would know what to expect. I was surprised to discover that my expectations were exceeded in this miniseries, a fine cross between a spy thriller and a human drama.

Peter Egan gives a great performance as Magnus Pym, the perfect spy of the title. Carrying on in the long tradition of le Carre's strong main characters, Pym is also quite possibly the best. Egan plays Pym (who in fact contains many shades of author le Carre) as a man forced to spend his entire life lying and betraying sometimes out of circumstance and other times just to survive with the consequence of him becoming "a perfect spy". Egan plays Pym to perfection as a man always on the run, if not from others then from himself. Egan alone makes the six or so hours of this miniseries worth seeing from his performance alone.

Surronding Egan is a fantastic supporting cast. Ray McAnally gives one of his finest performances as Pym's con man father Rick who (as le Carre has said) is based strongly on the author's own father. McAnally plays a man who comes in and out of Pym's life and is one of the those responsible for Pym becoming "a perfect spy". In fact if it wasn't for McAnally's performance a year after this in A Very British Coup this would the finest performance of his sadly too short career.

The rest of the supporting is excellent as well. From Caroline John as Pym's mother to Alan Howard as his spy mentor to Rudiger Weigang as the young Pym's friend turned controller to Jane Booker as Pym's wife the supporting cast is fantastic. Special mention should be made of the three young actors who played the younger Pym (Jonathan Haley, Nicholas Haley and Benedict Taylor) who establish the young man who would become the man played so well By Peter Egan.

The production values of the miniseries are strong as well. As the miniseries adaptations of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and Smiley's People proved these stories can only be told in miniseries format. The locations are excellent from the English locations to the those scattered across Eastern Europe and the USA as are the sets by Chris Edwards. The cinematography of Elmer Cossey adds an extra layer of realism to the world of the miniseries. Yet the highlight of the miniseries is really the script.

Screenwrtier Arthur Hopcraft tackled the job of adapting the six hundred or so page novel excellently. The novel was largely (at least in its early parts) autobiographical in that Pym's early life echoed much of John le Carre's life. The script for this miniseries is no exception as it traces the development of Magnus Pym from young boy to "a perfect spy". Never once does the miniseries deviate from its purpose of telling a fine human drama in the context of the world of espionage. If one ever wants proof that a spy thriller can be tense and fascinating without ever having one gun fight, fist fight, or James Bond style car chase this would be the proof. While the miniseries is six plus hours long it never wastes a moment and it all the better for it.

Though it might be overlong for some for those who don't have very short attention spans here is a must see. From the performances of Peter Egan and Ray McAnally to fine production values and a fine literary script A Perfect Spy is one of the finest miniseries who can expect to see. It is a fascinating trip down the history of the Cold War yet it is more then that. It is also a trip down what John le Carre has called "the secret path": the path of the spy the man who must lie and betray to survive. As much a human drama as a spy thriller A Perfect Spy isn't to be missed.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: The larger-than-life figures of Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson, and the specters of George Armstrong Custer and Sitting Bull, loom over director Anthony Mann's hugely entertaining first western with James Stewart. Although Stewart's quest to avenge his father's murder is the primary story, Winchester '73 is really an ensemble piece, with the eponymous, one-in-a-thousand firearm passing through the hands of many colorful owners, including a wry trader (John McIntire, especially great) and outlaw Dan Duryea, who's even more despicable than usual. The film's conflation of fiction and history produces a breezy pace and an ambivalent tone brilliantly in step with Mann's pared-down, compositionally rigorous film-making. His themes of psychological unrest and past dictating present faintly underlie this tall tale of good and bad men chasing after a fabled gun, but they starkly emerge in a vignette about a husband's cowardice and failed attempt at atonement, and are defined in Stewart's conversations with sidekick Millard Mitchell. Mann's use of environment is what sets him apart from other filmmakers of westerns. Instead of gazing at vistas from afar, he incorporates them into the drama as characters that redirect, complicate, or evoke the human characters' goals. Just as mountains, caves, and rapids had to be accounted for in The Naked Spur, here a gunfight occurs amidst the loose rocks and boulders of a small mountain, a physical obstruction that fatalistically determines the roles of victor and victim between two equally skilled sharpshooters. (I would be remiss in not recognizing cinematographer William H. Daniels's contribution, particularly his superlative day-for-night, open-range photography.) Not merely an adept outdoorsman, Mann presents an equally vivid picture of Wyatt Earp-patrolled Dodge City, primarily through scaled, multiple-plane staging. The shooting contest does not depend on brisk camera shifts or twitchy cuts for effect because Mann instinctively knows where to place the camera and how to move it to display the greatest density of information in a given shot. Nor does he care to spell out the plot in dialogue, relying on the actors' eyes or a well-chosen image to convey the stakes. One scene in particular serves to explain his attitude: Mitchell's telling of Stewart's motivation to Shelley Winters, which is interrupted by the climactic gunfight that soon enough reveals all. Light without feeling insubstantial, intense without being overbearing, Winchester '73 seems more modern than its contemporaries and is a joy to behold.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans:
positive