Steppenwulf A good production, decent actors and a fairly tight script makes this an enjoyable watch! Fast-forwarding through decades of Cold War espionage is hardly a new idea, but this one does it with a nice balance of the real and the fictional. However this is all brought down by the overall script: The series must have been made for the US and UK audience only. My guess is they are the only ones willing to accept unquestioningly the Soviet operatives almost without fail being portrayed as stone-faced, leering fanatics. Whereas the Yanks and Brits are naturally, mostly just decent dudes, somewhat concerned with morality and generally "the good guys". A shame on an otherwise fairly good little series! (Have not read the book, so have no comments on that aspect.)

Sean Gallagher I haven't read enough of Robert Littell's novels to know if he's the American version of Frederick Forsyth, Graham Greene, or my personal favorite, John le Carre, but I've liked the novels of his I've read, and one day, I hope someone makes a good adaptation of one of them. THE AMATEUR, filmed in 1981, was faithful to the plot of the novel for the most part, but was done in a plodding, mechanical style and further hampered by a one-note performance by John Savage in the lead role; only Christopher Plummer's wry turn as the head of the Czech Secret Service (he also poses as a professor) was worth watching. This made-for-TNT miniseries isn't as bad as THE AMATEUR, but it also falls short of the novel.Littell's novel was an epic roman a clef about the history of the CIA, with the usual blending of factual and fictional characters, and while it traveled well-worn territory (and not quite as substantial in that regard as le Carre's novels are), it's still an entertaining read. Obviously, when filming a long novel, even for a miniseries like this, some things have to go, but it's disappointing when great material is here, and the adapters (director Mikael Solomon and writer Ken Nolan) don't bring it to life on screen.Part of the problem is it seems like a greatest-hits version of the novel. You get the various incidents, like the Hungary uprising in 1956, and the Bay of Pigs, but there's no flow to the story. Solomon and Littell also cut out the humor of the novel - the character of Yevgeny, the Russian agent, for example, has a great fatalism about him (in the book, when asked what one of the principles of Marxism (I think) is, he replies, "A spy in hand is worth two in the bush?"), and Rory Cochrane could have played it as such, yet he does absolutely nothing with the part (he's certainly capable of it, so I'd like to think it's not his fault). Also a lot of the subplots are given to the character of Jack MacAuliffe, and Chris O'Donnell simply isn't equipped to handle them all. Speaking of O'Donnell, another problem is while the scope of the story is for 40 years, none of the characters really age, with the possible exception of Alfred Molina (as Harvey, code-named "The Sorcerer") and Michael Keaton (as real-life deputy director of counter-intelligence James Angleton). O'Donnell just looks like O'Donnell with a gray wig. The only actors who make much of an impression are Molina and Keaton. Overall, "The Company", while not terrible, definitely could have been a lot better.

Brian Rokosz Besides Band of Brothers, this is the best miniseries I've ever seen. When I picked this up at the video store I had no clue what it was about and wow was I impressed. I watched all 3 parts in one sitting without being bored atall...for me, act 3 is the best and Michael Keaton is without a doubt the best actor in it. Spanning decades and featuring twists I never saw coming I hope everyone picks this one up. Amazon is selling it for dirt cheap considering how great of a product this is so forget spending 6 bucks on the rental and just buy it, you will not be disappointed. I had a few problems with act 1's dialog, thinking it was kinda cheesy but all that was fixed after about 20 minutes...from then on it really makes you want to watch every spy movie you can get ur hands on...the book it was loosely based on is about as long as the Bible and my dad flew through it. This also makes a great Father's Day gift if ur dad likes anything from Bond to Godfather.

thevandahl This is entertaining, but cinema. I happened to be reading Tim Weiners "Legacy of Ashes" when this came on television, and can say that some "artistic liberties" have been taken. Take episode 3, where supposedly an American agent was in contact with the rebels; according to Weiner, who've had access to the archives, the CIA knew next to nothing about what was going on during the uprising, no more than it read in the papers. This man McAuliffe, which supposedly was apprehended by the Hungarian secret police, is not mentioned in he book. That does not automatically mean that he didn't exist, but if this is to be an accurate account, it means the filmmakers had better access to information than the Pulitzer-prize winning author who've written a 700 page book about the history of the CIA. To me, that seems rather unlikely. Much more probable, in my opinion, is that they preferred exciting over accurate, and made something which isn't historically correct at all, other than the names of some of the people involved.Perhaps not a complete fib, but "history-lovers" have me excused. This is not history, but fantasy. I give it 6 for entertainment value.