Ensofter Overrated and overhyped

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Freaktana A Major Disappointment

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

jehaccess6 I have recently become a fan of Patrick Swayze after first watching him in 'Dirty Dancing' a few weeks ago. I began researching his other roles on the IMDb database and ordering DVDs of his other efforts. I must say how aged he looks after 'Road House'. I suspect that his fondness for the bottle has much to do with this situation. Still, he seems to have pulled back from destruction from drink, which I am thankful for. He seemed in great physical condition for a man his age.I have not read the novel 'Icon', so I had no preconceived notions about what direction the plot should take. I must admit that some of the plot scenario seemed weak. The following points stood out:1. The rapid acceptance of Jason Monk as an ally of Sonia was incredible. His tale of being a journalist that packed heat was very weak. When events revealed his true identity to her, no mention of the blown cover story surfaced in the plot.2. The opening sequence of the film showed his failure to extract an agent after his cover was blown. A list of CIA agents had fallen into KGB hands, yet that list apparently did not contain the cover name of Jason Monk.3. The actual identity of deep-cover agents is a closely-held secret within the CIA. A cover name within the agency is developed and a false personal history is registered. This is to prevent attacks on the agent's family if his cover is blown. For the KGB to know Monk's true identity meant a compromise of security within the CIA of horrific degree.4. After Monk retired the KGB apparently made no effort to track him down and extract any relevant information and exact revenge. He was living on the coast of Spain and would have been an easy target. Further, the FSB successor to the KGB apparently did not detect Monk's reentry into Russia. A massive failure of border security.5. The motivation of the CIA official to betray Monk was never clear. He was clearly working against the interests of the US in trying to stop Monk. Further, he could have intervened earlier to stop Monk, since he was privy to Monk's reports on his activities and findings.6. It was standard procedure of the KGB to savagely attack the family of traitors, however innocent. This was a deterrent to possible traitors. Monk's wife and child would have certainly faced a horrible fate once his cover was blown. This fact would have been well known to his wife and motivate her to defect with her husband.7. After starting to work with Monk, Sonia was able to move about Moscow quite freely without making any attempt to disguise her appearance. This would not be so easy in reality. Her former associates in the FSB would be eager to avoid her fate of dismissal. They would be quite familiar with her appearance and be eager to gain favor by arresting her.That said, I still liked the film. The background shots were mostly from Bulgaria, but close to the real thing in appearance. I doubt that Russia would be eager to allow a film with such a plot to be filmed on their soil. The exotic buildings and crowds were quite fascinating and helped keep the plot moving.Annika Peterson did a good job as Sonia. She had chemistry with Patrick and was lovely to look at. She had features that could easily have been Russian, so casting did a great job.The plot had Sonia taking a huge chance of capture to look up daughter Elena when Monk's nerve failed. That was an indication of the feelings Sonia was developing for Monk. The reconciliation between father and daughter was touching. I especially liked seeing this personal struggle of the lead character.The character of Viktor was most appealing. You could see what a great friend he was when the risk of this relationship was enormous. Sonia and Elena soon sensed his goodness and obviously became fond of him, even if this development is never made explicit.The deeper theme of the film is chilling. Many ambitious politicians in Russia have used the innate Russian suspicion of foreigners to further their careers. Just look at Vladimir Putin play on these fears today. He is rapidly rebuilding an antagonistic policy toward the US that is bound to lead to eventual confrontation. When the oil supplies that bankroll current Russian prosperity start to decline, look for a desperate Russia to turn aggressive to seize resources in adjacent countries. The Komarov character in the film had a KGB background and similar ambitions to Putin.In conclusion, the film had enough eye candy and rang true enough to hold my attention, I watched the whole miniseries at one go. I expect Patrick Swayze will be back as Jason Monk in the near future.

hendriks14 I actually liked the thing ! Set aside that it didn't ring true with the novel, I am well pleased to see another Forsyth adaptation. Whilst Swayze is still a bit wooden, he has that weary look of an old dog which is good for the part. And I found the casting of Joss Ackland inspired (liked him also as the Ambassador in 'The Hunt For Red October'). Bergin as a rip-off Stalin was very nice, though his fake accent sometimes made me gag. Another joy was the slick Jeff Fahey, love those old blue eyes.Whilst it didn't follow the book, I still rate it as an enjoyable TV-movie. Nice production, a little soft, not that exciting, but still a very enjoyable watch. Don't beat it so hard.Only one thing, Michael York as Sir Nigel Irvine ?. Since Austin Powers one can't take him seriously as head off SIS (which he in the book of Forsyth is). But he's still a fine character actor.The whole thing made me weary for the days when Alan Howard played Sam MacReady in the movies about 'THE DECEIVER'. Wonder when they will be put on DVD (region 2 that is). If they are, please let me know.CNOTE

perseus71 I had read the Book twice before finding out that there actually is a Mini Series on this. Given Hollywood's reputation on filming Novels (Bourne identity, Sum of All fears, the Jackal) I wasn't particularly expecting exact replica. But well its not that Bad. Face it Comapred to what they did to the other books I mentioned, this is as close as it gets. hallmark does have a reputation to stick to the Book better than rest of them. If you have not read the book then you will surely like this one. The Cast's good, the Score and the locations are good.I didn't like it when they replaced the Manifesto with some biological Weapon Crap. I thought the Female FSB agent and the Daughter were just distracting. Nigel Irwin was turned wimpy to say the least. What I did not like at all was when the agent provocateur (sp ?) of Forsyth was turned into modern day James Bond. Patrik's not bad its the role he had to do.I didn't like the Ending when Jason shot Igor. I'd have expected the FSB agent to do it as a foreign national shooting an elected President would have been a diplomatic Faux Pas.All in all Not a bad Yarn especially if you have not read the book.

smintjes I recently rented this promising mini series, I didn't even know they had adapted it for television. I was really looking forward to it since the book Icon is one of the best spy thrillers I have ever read. What a disappointment it was. The plot only loosely resembles the one in the book, the characters are completely miscast and there's some appalling acting. A shame really. The story behind Icon is perfect for the silver screen, but I think television budgets just aren't big enough for a decent adaptation of this spectacular book.Forsyth deserves much, much better than this. Avoid and stick to the book, which is a must-read.