User reviews

It's been a long time since I saw this mini-series and I am happy to say its remembered merits have withstood the test of time.

Most of the components of 'A Perfect Spy', the adaptation of LeCarré's finest novel, in my opinion, are top-drawer. Outstanding aspects of it are the musical score and the masterful screenplay, the latter written by Arthur Hopcraft who was also, I believe, the screenwriter for 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' with Alec Guinness a few years before.

The actors are mostly very good, some superb, like Alan Howard's Jack Brotherhood and Ray McAnally's Ricky Pym. Peter Egan is fascinating to watch because his face changes with every camera angle. The passage of time and the effects upon the physical appearances of the characters is very believably done. So much so that I wondered exactly how old Peter Egan was at the time of filming. The only jolt comes after the character of Magnus Pym is transferred from the very able hands of a young actor named Benedict Taylor to those of a noticeably too-old Peter Egan, just fresh out of Oxford. But this is a minor and unimportant seam in the whole.

Egan has trouble being convincing only when the text becomes melodramatic and he needs to be "upset" emotionally, ie cry. None of the actors have a very easy time with these moments, aside from the wonderful Frances Tomelty who plays Peggy Wentworth for all she's worth and steals the episode with ease.

Jane Booker is annoying as Mary Pym. She has part of the character under her skin but often displays an amateurish petulance that diminishes her as a tough cookie diplomatic housewife, which Mary Pym is. Rüdiger Weigang is splendid as Axel, amusing, ironic and brilliant. I also enjoyed Sarah Badel's camp turn as the Baroness.

The British view of Americans is vividly rendered in some dryly hilarious scenes. When the Yanks have come abroad to confab with Bo Brammell (head of MI6) the American contingent are portrayed as empty-headed buffoons who appear to have memorized a lot of long words out of the Dictionary and spiced them liberally with American jargon and psycho babble, much to the bemused scorn of the English.

The humor and sadness are subtly blended. LeCarré has a knack for mixing disparate elements in his stories and Hopcraft has brilliantly captured the melancholy, yet wistful, atmosphere of the original.

Not a perfect production (what is?) and yet the best of the LeCarré adaptations to reach film or television to date.

Highly recommended to all spy-thriller lovers and especially LeCarré fans. DVD available from Acorn.

I clearly missed the joke behind this series. How does a man so gullible climb his way through the ranks of British intelligence? Maybe that was Le Carré's point; that any idiot could have been "a spy" during the cold war, and that it was exactly his stupidity that kept him unwittingly "under the radar"...Either way, I came away feeling extremely annoyed at the end.

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 Rüdiger 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.

This is my second time through for A Perfect Spy. I watched it 2 or 3 years ago and liked it. I like it still. It's natural that it gets compared to the beeb's other big Le Carre' series, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Tinker Tailor focuses on the "game" spies play; Perfect Spy gives us the other axis - what kind of person a spy is. There are a number of themes that these movies share, along with others in the genre.

Ambiguity - moral, sexual, interpersonal - which creates a multidimensional space of true vs. false, inside vs. outside, love vs. responsibility. In a way, these characters are happiest when they are being treated the most shabbily by those they love and respect - "backstabbed" in its various nuances.

The theme of fathers and father-figures is also important. One of the most intriguing characters in A Perfect Spy is Rick, the main character Magnus' perhaps ersatz father. Throughout the story he betrays and is betrayed. A rogue who always manages to climb back up the ladder when he's been toppled, who seems impervious to what others think of him, asks Magnus each time they meet, "Do you love your old man?" and never, "Do you love me?" Maybe it says this somewhere else, but A Perfect Spy is a love story.

Another theme is that of malignancy. The nature of the business is to turn others - turn them against their government, against their friends and associates, turn them against their values and beliefs. In each of the Le Carre' movies I have seen, The Spy who Came in From the Cold, Looking Glass War, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Smiley's People, and A Perfect Spy, turning and being turned is the foundation of the tragedy.

Finally, not so much a theme as an artistic touch - in each of these films there is usually only a single gun shot, or perhaps two shots bookending the story. Violence, torture, cruelty are always just beneath the surface. We see their results not as streams of blood or dank prison cells but in the the objects Le Carre''s characters cling to as they are ineluctably sucked down into the morass.

If you haven't seen the films above, and you enjoy A Perfect Spy, you are in for a treat. I'd also recommend The Sandbagger series (Yorkshire TV), the 2nd and 3rd seasons of which begin to reach the level of this kind of complexity. The IPCRESS File and Burial in Berlin are nice, though light weight. For political intrigue try A Very British Coup, House of Cards and Yes, Minister/Yes, Prime Minister.

If only a brit would set his hand to making The Three Kingdoms - there would be a film with intrigue and complexity.

There is a brilliant lesson of sorts here about narrative depth, but you must know the book. Lavishly conceived by Le Carre as his magnum opus, the book is not any other spy thriller you picked up on an airport, it's one of the most tantalizing I know. The center is this, a mysterious man, posing as someone else, is holed up in a small room in Dorset overlooking the ocean and recalls a whole journey through life.

The childhood stream-of-consciousness where he attempts to be Faulkner without conquering the madness doesn't work; so much else does. It has a strong sense of presence in several places from Greek islands to Washington, the center of control. It has a sense of anxious premonition about the extents of control. It has a narrator writing a memoir while efforts are underway to apprehend him before he defects to the other side. It has several relationships of ambiguous love defined in his imagination. It has a disappearance in the middle of the night and a strange encounter in a Czech barn.

This, it just won't do.

The most glaring fault by far is that they simplified the structure, making it a linear telling in one go (practically). The childhood segment works even less because when seen, it loses the shroud of memory. Seeing Rick is never going to be as powerful as sensing him move through room's of the son's memory. It still covers most of the narrative ground but we lose the premonition, we lose the mystifying sense of machinery set in motion long ago and discovered only when the ground beneath our feet shifts, we lose the depth of the betrayal of love. We lose it all and get a nicely groomed play. Its idea of profound emotion is actors grimacing in close up; I was stunned to see that it's from the late 80s, it looks 20 years older.

I don't know if this is watchable fiction, maybe it is, but it's a complete catastrophe where it should go beyond it and give us lives, contact, sense, everything Le Carre strove to have it slide through portals of remembrance is reduced to the Cliff notes version.

But something weird happens. To see this and to have known the book is to have images of something I've known as deeper, more elusive, more rending and this, for me, was to recall even the book as deeper than Le Carre managed with words. A powerful scene in the film exemplifies just this, when his wife, alarmed by events, begins to read an unfinished manuscript he's left behind, ostensibly a novel he's writing (he says), but she suspects it's more, we know it's more, it's the disguised recollections of a lifetime (this is completely flattened in this linear telling).

She cries as she reads about betrayal as hope, as salvation, as an adventure for the imaginative soul, but oh how much more maddeningly full is the life behind the words. His wife, his mentor in the service, will they ever truly know? To know this is to realize how much we won't truly know in turn. There's only so much you can say and so easy to misunderstand. What Le Carre doesn't put to words around this life deserves its Tarkovsky film.

I rather liked this BBC TV adaptation of John le Carré's highly regarded book.

Very difficult to give it a rating! In the end, I've settled on 7, although some aspects warranted 8 or more.

This TV version of The Perfect Spy was aired by the BBC in 1987. It is very dated in the way it looks, the cold war spy story, the way it's told, and the way the screenplay is constructed. TV drama series just don't look like or do this anymore. It's 37 years old. Also, it's sloooow burn - a mood piece, which relies on some talking heads, tense room situations, and a sprinkling of violin music. It's OK actually! I'm of an age now where I can appreciate this sort of thing. If you want wham-blam - then you are looking in the wrong place!

Benedict Taylor, and then Peter Egan are Magnus Pym - a spy who plays for both sides. In a sense, this is not the most important thing here though. In it's place, the thing offered is that the Magnus Pym character is unmoored. He doesn't seem to have any moral code. This, in part, must be due to his father "Rick" Pym, played brilliantly by Ray McAnally. He is a crook of the worst kind, defrauding anyone he can get money out of. Because McAnally plays the father so well, we get a sense of the reverence he elicts from his son in earlier years. But he is the worst kind of role model, full of smooth emotional blackmail. I liked the way that "Rick" keeps popping up over time. In the end, confused and frustrated by his influence, Magnus tries to keep him away. It's as if Magnus is running away from him and everything he represents. But he doesn't really escape, he simply evolves into another version of his father. We see this especially towards the end. That's my interpretation anyway.

There is a lot going on in The Perfect Spy, with many relationships - most of which are damaged, manipulative and inauthentic. Perhaps the most important and defining pairing, is Magnus's lonstanding & influential friendship with Axel Hampel - a Czech agent, played wonderfully by Rüdiger Weigang.

In the end, Magnus Pym is a moral desert - a game player who never comes to terms with who he is, what he does, or why he does it.

The Perfect Spy falls down a little in a few places. We don't see what Magnus really does, and only some of the influence he really has. We find it hard to keep up with the female characters - who are often used and mistreated. There are gaps and failures to explain or give insight. Instead, we see what Magnus comes to realise only at the end....

Without doubt the best of the novels of John Le Carre, exquisitely transformed into a classic film. Performances by Peter Egan (Magnus Pym, The Perfect Spy), Rudiger Weigang (Axel, real name Alexander Hampel, Magnus' Czech Intelligence controller), Ray McAnally (Magnus' con-man father) and Alan Howard (Jack Brotherhood, Magnus' mentor, believer and British controller), together with the rest of the characters, are so perfect and natural, the person responsible for casting them should have been given an award. Even the small parts, such as Major Membury, are performed to perfection. It says a lot for the power of the performances, and the strength of the characters in the novel that, despite the duplicity of Magnus, one cannot help but feel closer to Magnus and Axel than to Jack Brotherhood and the slimy Grant Lederer of U.S. Intelligence. I have read the book at least a dozen times, and watched the movie almost as many times, and continue to be mesmerized by both. If I had one book to take on a desert island, A Perfect Spy would be the choice above all others.

This is without doubt my favourite Le Carre novel and it is transformed to the silver screen with all the love and care one could wish for. I read a review on this site that seems to find the characters loathsome but I believe this misses the point. All Le Carre stories are essentially love stories and this is no exception. It is an accurate reflection of the period in which it is set. Betrayal is the key by everybody for the good of nobody. Pym upbringing is so close to my own that I find it chilling watching. Peter Egan is in his finest role and the late lamented Ray McAnally is unbelievably good. Even the smallest roles played by such as Andy de la Tour, Tim Healy and Jack Ellis are spot on. This cast is a Theatre Impresario's Dream. The Story should not be spoiled by ill informed description but suffice it to say it relates to a young mans slow but inexorable destruction and descent into espionage and treason. All my sympathies lie with Magnus Pym and his sole (non sexual) love for Poppy (Rüdiger Weigang-as wonderful as always. His only true friendship but also by definition another in the long line of betrayals. OUTSTANDING! Rent it, buy it. love it.

For me this is not one of the better adaptations of a Le Carre novel. This said, after having just read his autobiography (Pigeon Tunnel), and watching the very revealing interview of the same title not long before this, it would be difficult to compare this to his other works. The many personal and real incidents depicted in this series, which the author himself talks about, put a very unique slant on this storyline. Ray McAnally shows hints here of his future role as the politician in A Very British Coup, a tour-de-force performance that is unrivalled for that genre. I found this series just a bit too plodding and at times confusing with explanations only coming near the end or not at all. Lots of convoluted scenarios, conversations and relationships that were overly complicated and unclear. The father, as depicted here, (and apparently in real life) was a real con artist, a disinterested father unless it concerned money and a man whose effect on the son lingered long after he was gone. This is less a spy thriller than a psychological profile of dysfunction and relationship issues. Not a bad series, especially for the acting, but a bit tedious and drawn-out at times. More to LeCarre than 'just' Smiley, the ultimate spy/catcher. Here, in the form of 'Pym', another great character, perfectly portrayed by Peter Egan, as well as a solid supporting cast. The mood, period details and even the background music, add to the production of this enjoyable thriller/spy story. The many complicated relationships and side issues, like politics, crime, post-war black markets and hypocrisy of the various levels of society (and not just the British one), are worth watching more than once. I've seen this series a few times now, and thanks to subtitles, know I haven't missed the many nuanced bits of intelligent dialogue and complex scenarios that this dated series presents. Worth watching.

This is an extremely long movie, which means you may become very bored before it becomes interesting, but its length provides opportunity for its characters to find permanent attachment in your sympathies.

If you are moved by the guilt of the loathsome you will find it particularly heart-wrenching, because it is a story that finds its heroes among the evil and the weak. If you can love a monster you'll cry for Magnus Pym, the spy who betrays everyone - notably his country, his friends and family - a man who has also been manipulated and moulded since childhood by those same people.

There isn't one truly likeable character in the entire story, not one loyal, 'moral' personality to sympathise with. But watching the whole thing without the help of a tissue would be quite remarkable.

I really enjoyed it in the end. Well worth it for people who like inciteful movies about baser human character.

Has anyone spread some light where Magnus was staying by the seaside .

"A Perfect Spy" is clearly a high quality production by the era's standards, with good performances and an authentic seriousness.

But it is slow. Really slow. And more crucially, it doesn't have enough story in it to justify 6 hours of screen time.

The scope is epic. Three actors play Magnus Pym - as a boy, a young man, and an older man - over the course of 50 years of his life.

First we're introduced to his father, Rick Pym, a charismatic character who skirts around the edge of honesty. The younger Pym seems to have picked up his father's economical way with the truth. As a young man, he helps his father out, but ends up having to find his own way in cold-war Europe when things go wrong, making unusual friendships along the way. As an adult, he builds a respected career in the secret service. But all is not as it seems.

The story of a Pym's deception is interesting enough. But the big problem here is that you never get the sense of any actual spying being done. It's a sequence of conversations, and coded ones at that (British people of the era were bad at talking directly, so spies are almost incomprehensible).

As a drama it would have been so much more convincing if it had focused on the impact of the spying, the moments where there were breaches of trust, and Pym's motivation (which is never clear).

Instead it plays out more like a memoir of a man with a dodgy Dad who was a bit dodgy himself. This may be true to Le Carre's book (I haven't read it) - but it doesn't make for good TV drama.

If Smiley's People and Tinker Tailor Spy were about the "how" of espionage, A Perfect Spy is about the "who".

Whereas the first two were essentially two long investigations, A Perfect Spy, which begins as a non-linear story line in the novel, is about the socio-psychological components of what goes into making a spy.

While those who have read the book will find this adaptation surprising, it is also one of the finest. The story is linear, starting with a young Magnus, his con father, and his acolytes.

The background of the series is about the issue of what I would call inverted loyalties. Time and again, we see Magnus' relationship with his father as one where the former is criminally tolerant and indulgent, as any son with a deranged father might. During Magnus' childhood, and through his mentoring by Jack Brotherhood, we see an individual with divided loyalties, but seemingly true to both.

What this creates for the viewer is the impression that the good guys are actually bad, and vice versa, without resorting to any literary or artistic device. For example, we see immediately that Axel is initially harmless, but while he does something objectionable, nevertheless remains very attaching. For Magnus, it is the same. The buildup of his character during childhood only strengthens our sympathy for him. The reality is only revealed when Egan's character towards the end, when the Americans are catching on) starts to decompose.

To my taste, the series spends too much time on the childhood of the hero character. There are also devices taken from the book that are clearly unnecessary for the series (the green filing cabinet for example), and the relationship with Brotherhood could have been expanded, for the sake of balance with that of Axel Hampel.

Not to be sexist, but the women in the series are simply annoying. Also, their role in Magnus', Jack's professional lives and the spy craft is merely as sex-pots, which doesn't always conform to the zeitgeist. Although this was perhaps truer in the 1970s, when the novel's action was taking place. Also, some people don't seem to age, yet, they've been apparently working since the end of WW2; i.e. Jack Brotherhood, from 1947 to 1987 without a grey hair...

Overall, however, we see compelling acting. Egan, MacAnally, Weigang at the summit of their art.

The last ten minutes of the series is the finest acting ever filmed or seen.

I'd seen good things about this series, but struggled to find it anywhere. Ultimately stumbled on it at Daily Motion. Well worth my efforts

Very little espionage screen time in this adaptation, this is more about jumbled up relationships , mistrust , and family problems. I failed to see what he actually did?. Tinker tailor soldier spy and Smiley's people were far superior. Le carre should've stopped there. Magnus Pym should've disappeared in episode one. I thought this was supposed to be about the Cold War spying/espionage game , not an emotional rollercoaster of quite frankly boring repetitive scenes. The was scene after scene of reminiscence. He kept talking about the brotherhood, I saw him as a double agent playing with the Americans and British with no loyalties to anybody. Not even himself . 1 out of 10 from me. Maybe a remake with a bit more juice in it would do better.

My take on this seems to be backward to the consensus, as I found the early episodes to be clearly he best, instead of the other way around.

The main problem I found was a general lack of atmosphere, both of how this should have changed with time and location (given as the story unfolds over multiple countries and decades), and simply in general. Watch the BBC/Guinness Tinker Tailor for how to do Le Carre atmosphere.

This isn't helped by having Peter Egan from ep 3 onward. He is a likeable actor but lightweight, without the range or spookiness the character deserved. And it made no sense at all to me for him to be cast, when his younger version, Benedict Taylor, could surely have played older versions simply with prosthetics. It isn't as if the BBC didn't have money to go location shooting, so why not prosthetics too.

All of which is disappointing as I found Taylor really excellent, in a Malcolm McDowell way. Would have loved to see him take the character to the end.

His chemistry with the stand out performer, Ray McAnally was also much better.

Beyond this, the script simply didn't build sufficient insight into Taylor/Egan's motivations so that there was no character tension, no sense of where paths could come together or go apart. So it eventually needed exposition where none should have been required. After all, motivations are what a non-action spy story is all about.

Beyond this, I liked Cuthbertson, Howard, Ashcroft and, especially, Weigang. They all deserved better.

Overall, a letdown after a solid start.