I have repeatedly confessed my love for the film 'Three Days of the Condor' I really appreciate the work of Sidney Pollack. Therefore, it is difficult to overestimate the interest with which I began to watch the remake series with an uncomplicated name 'Condor'.
The general impression doesn't take off. This Condor does not take off, unlike the great predecessor.
What's the critical difference? In general, there are many differences - from a new format, a fundamentally different development of circumstances, other bets (the lives of millions are at stake) and ending with a whole platoon of new characters who do not have prototypes in the original film. What is the reason for the fall of the Condor & #39? The main reason?
I never tire of repeating that the analysis of history should begin with the figure of the main character. In the Main Hero (GG) as in the DNA molecule ' sewn up ' the plot decision that determines the success or failure of the picture. And in this case, I would talk not only and not so much about the constructive image of the main character, his dramatic frame, but, first of all, about the choice of the actor for the main role.
Indeed, this is a great opportunity to talk about such a fundamental choice for cinema as the choice of the main character. In fact, this choice is so important to the fate of the film that a director who knows how to do it correctly can otherwise be a full boot and still the film will take place. It is impossible to overestimate the importance of choosing an actor for the main role. A huge number of well-written and staged films are forgotten due to the wrong choice of the main character.
As I have repeatedly reported, the main character for the viewer is his portal to the world of the film, this is his driver's seat, on which he overcomes all the dramatic hills and valleys prescribed by the writer. This chair should be comfortable enough that the viewer could not be pulled by the ears. Getting into the shoes of the main character should be comfortable. The audience should like to identify with the main character.
To do this, the protagonist must carry a magical, inhuman attraction, radiate such an enviable individuality and integrity to delight any viewer sitting at the screen, regardless of age and gender.
This effect is achieved by the combined efforts of the writer, director and lead actor. But if suddenly the performer of the main role does not carry this animal attraction, organic magnetism - write is gone. No matter how good an actor he is. And vice versa - an actor can be no - ' three mise-en-scene faces' as my master said, and I want to follow him to the end of the world. Clint Eastwood or Belmondo are prime examples.
That’s why the stars of the screen receive such fees. Because the producer understands that Robert De Niro or Bruce Willis in the lead role is 50-80% of the success.
Have you seen various polls of a wide audience - the best film of Tarkovsky? Constant first place at 'Stalker'. The reason is the exact choice of the main character. And Solonitsyn in 'Andrey Rublev', and Banionis in 'Solaris' - the choice is good, but by and large speculative, formal, although both are strong actors. Kaidanovsky in 'Stalker' - a brilliant choice.
Robert Redford was equally brilliant for the role of Turner in ' Three Days of the Condor'. On the one hand, he brilliantly fits into the Procrustean bed of the script image, on the other hand, Redford has irreparable mind-blowing charm, which lightning quickly drags the viewer into the plot funnel. He willingly merges with Turner and begins to live his joys and adversity.
Not that in the new 'Condor'. The main character is not good from all points of view. First of all, looking at this face does not believe that we have a brilliant programmer - this is how the screenwriter presents him to the viewer. Hell knows, maybe a good programmer, but not a genius. It blows from him mediocre for a kilometer and nothing can be done about it. As for charm, no. There is no charm - there is an imitation of charm - the general cuteness of the interface, but as O' says; Henry - 'Sand is an unimportant replacement for oats' A pretty face is not able to replace charm and charisma. From the figure of the main character rather quickly begins to smell colorless and emptiness and the further, the more. Identify with such a guy does not want, so searching the screen in search of other figures that cause the desire to merge with them, the viewer once again takes up the remote in the hope of meeting on the next ' the very same, the only ' The main hero.
The Truth is the First Victim
Of course, I was intrigued to learn that Condor was a 10-part spy thriller starring Max Irons. By the way, it’s not just because I’ve seen Sidney Pollack’s famous movie that inspired it, Three Days of the Condor with Robert Redford as John Turner. For me, the genre itself is attractive: I love thrillers, detectives, where a catchy title, dynamics, an intriguing plot and a good action can be connected in one tangle, which in this case was the very name of the series.
I will immediately note that recently the boundaries of genres in cinema are so blurred that it is difficult to separate the political and spy thriller and remove from them the detective leaving: crime, investigation, search for evidence. It seemed that such a “multilayer” can only cover the series, but often such bestsellers are represented by action films, sometimes a series of films, where the main character must find a way out of an explosive situation in the shortest possible time, as it was in the films about the CIA employee Jason Bourne (" Bourne Identification, etc.) or with the hero of Professor Robert Langdon ("The Da Vinci Code, etc.) in the films based on the novels of Dan Brown. With a rating of high expectations is the future film on the most interesting bestseller Robert Ludlam "Manuscript of Chancellor" with Leonardo DiCaprio in the title role.
The series “Condor” also begins with an extraordinary and tragic situation that occurred in an inconspicuous company engaged in technical development and analytics commissioned by the CIA: from a sudden attack on their office, the entire department involved in the development of an algorithm to identify a terrorist threat dies, and its author – a young talented analyst Joe Turner (Max Irons), the only casual survivor, is forced to hide as the main suspect. His main task is not only to stay alive, but also to find those who benefited from this attack. The task is not easy, because behind the mask of complacency, patriotism, loyalty to the interests of the country can hide ruthlessness, cruelty, the desire to achieve the desired result by any means, even by any human victims, when it comes to modern bioweapons that can turn the whole world into chaos in a matter of moments.
Significantly, being a spy series, "Condor" is not focused in its narrative on "mad" speed. Joe Turner runs, he's haunted, he can't stay anywhere for long, but at the same time there's room for reflection, argument, perspectives into family history or pictures of the modern world, and every episode is preceded by a relevant quote. Sometimes it seems that it takes away from the development of the plot. In fact, the point is to more fully reveal the image of the hero Joe Turner. After all, the main idea of the series is not what Turner is running from, or rather, not only in this, but what motivates him, what he is ready to fight for! Rather, it is a drama series with a thriller, where the inner component of the hero is no less important than political or spy intrigue.
An interesting detail: “Condor” in the title of the series is not just a bright image, a bird, it is the call sign of the main character – Joe Turner from the novel “Six Days of the Condor” by James Grady and the film – the predecessor of the series. It is a pity that the authors forgot to clarify this, because there is no question of the call sign in the series itself. Another drawback: a slightly boring team to debunk the attack on the technical. office, the one that is just supposed to create or amplify the action. Thus, all the dynamics in the series are based on John himself and the people he involves in a destructive whirlpool during his flight.
The series turned out to be ambiguous and it is natural that someone will find in it pros, someone minuses. Personally, I was delighted to see Max Irons as a brilliant analyst for a classified firm. I remember him as King Edward IV of Jorsky in the historical series about the War of the Scarlet and White Roses, The White Queen. A great, sensual, charming actor with a wonderful, sincere smile and, I hope, with a great future in the acting field. It is worth noting the appearance after the long absence of Brendan Fraser. His character, a quiet, slippery type, evokes a dual attitude: his actions, the work he serves, have a negative coloring, but his love for his daughter is absolutely touching. That's the ambivalence, and it's brilliant!
Good luck watching!
Based on the novel “Six Days of the Condor” by James Grady.
A young CIA analyst, Joe Turner (Max Irons), working on a spy program, is suddenly caught in the middle of a conspiracy. The purpose of which is to provoke a major terrorist attack in the Arab world using biological weapons. Since Joe accidentally goes into this classified case and can get to its organizers, the entire department is ordered to clean up. Arriving killers, though professionals, but killing everyone, miss the instigator of the problem - Joe. The guy begins to run and in the course of his running, almost everyone who intersects with him in one way or another dies. Joe needs not only to save his life, but also to protect the world from the terrible bio-plague that is going to be released.
When I was going to watch this film, I remembered the excellent film adaptation of 1975 with Robert Redford and Faye Dunaway in the lead roles, a great example of a spy-detective novel.
What I saw in the modern action series - and actually nothing interesting, the main character is not convincing, a guy with youthful maximalism and faith in the right cause - did not show any qualities in either analytical, deductive, or even physical activity. Unless I ran fast. The rest of the characters generally passed gray mass, quickly dying. I will note only the killer, who in nature was supposed to be a man, that's the worst caste in the series, the lady of Arab appearance tries to look significant and scary, but in fact does not cause any emotions.
Even the name Condor has not once sounded in the series, for those who have not read, and have not watched “Three Days of the Condor” will not be clear. But Condor was the call sign of the main character.
The series loses in all articles to its predecessor in 1975, and you just wonder how poorly the plot is written, not interesting and not fascinating, poorly selected actors, a special omission is the youthfulness of the main character and the gender of the main villain. However, here's the paradox - this dull creation has been renewed for a second season. Waiting for him or not, for me, there are no options.
Spy, get out. And & nbsp, the faster the theme & nbsp; better
To begin with, I personally like the spy theme. But Condoré, something went wrong at some point. Why? Don't know. The series became a remake of the popular spy thriller of the past “Three Days of the Condor”. The movie was great. Excellent for its interiors, actors, dialogues, the development of the storyline. None of this is in the newcomer. Not at all!
And the seed wasn't bad. The program automatically recognizes a potential terrorist. Its author, Joe Turner, is a superbrain, he can analyze even the unanalyzed, see patterns, even where its trace can barely be seen even under a microscope. But there is a searing brunette who fills Turner's life with the true meaning - run or die. A raid on a secret office, everyone killed. Joe is being chased, all the presidential men are being sent to find him. But then, somewhere around Episode 5, everything stops.
A nerve disappears, and this is no longer a spy drama, but just a tractor. Screenwriters kill characters one by one. And to replace the new characters, we are shown a retrospective of events that are essentially not related or indirectly related to what is happening at this moment on the screen.
Starting with the 5th series, there are long dialogues. On morality, why dad won't come back, why people bring food to wakes, etc. We see everything except action. As a result, with each subsequent series, an irresistible feeling of rewinding begins to emerge inside. And after watching episode 8, turn off the computer altogether and go to bed early.
The series is not dynamic, boring, yawning, more suitable for working in the background somewhere in the kitchen, when you urgently need to do something, but working in silence is not your method.
4 out of 10
Sidney Pollack’s beautiful spy thriller “Three Days of the Condor”, released in 1975, based on James Grady’s book “Six Days of the Condor”, overtook the sad fate of the widespread senseless and merciless serialization of everything and everything. The show was simply called Condor, with no mention of the number of days. It was based on both the film and the book. The action from the 70s was transferred to our days, not changing the structure of the work, only supplementing it and modernizing, with the exception of the motives of the main villains.
The main character of the series Joe Turner (Max Irons) works as an analyst at the CIA. Condor is his emergency call sign. One day, a group of professional assassins break into their secret office, and only thanks to a miracle, Turner manages to escape. He tries to understand the situation, but understands that you can not trust anyone, even the agency.
Sadly enough, the series is good in exactly the places where it relentlessly copies the original film. The other inventions of the authors look banal, opportunistic, and sometimes completely stupid. Modernization of what is happening with the advent of a program spying on ordinary citizens for anti-terrorist purposes, completely kills the whole basis of the original work. Apparently, Condor should take the place of the ending Motherland or simply become one of the projects that tell about terrorism. Then it is not clear why it was to change the original, and not to make your own story.
The acting of most of the main participants leaves much to be desired, although this does not apply to invited stars for episodic and small roles. William Hurt, Bob Balaban, Mira Sorvino and Brendan Frazier, who has disappeared in recent years, look worthy. Some fictional and modified characters for the series look too one-sided or simply poorly played. For example, the mercenary Gabriella Joubert (Lim Lubani) loses dry to the original Joubert, played by Max von Sudov. And more like the character of Sarah Shahi - Samina Shaw, a caricature mercenary, from a beautiful ironic series with a twist under the action films of the 90s "In sight".
The ordeal of the main character about how the state machine should work, coupled with some too much tolerance of the writers, leave not the best impressions from viewing. That unique charm of the paranoid political spy thriller inherent in the original is not in sight. “Condor” can be viewed only from nothing to do or background, because no artistic value, unfortunately, it does not represent.
6 out of 10
"What nonsense that is." What's the point? Junior Soprano.
What's the point of making a show based on a great 1975 movie? "Three Days of Condor," if you can't bring anything new? This question came up to me all the time when I watched this television miracle. No, I will say even more precisely: in comparison with the original, the stupidity and incompetence of the plot can cause a rush even in a person who steadfastly endured Santa Barbara in his time.
Comparing these two films, you are once again convinced how much the quality of the scripts and the general logic of the films have sunk.
In the original, we, together with the main character, found out why they wanted to kill him, who wanted to kill him. You understood the logic of the killers, you saw that they were professionals. For them, killing is a job, not a way to have fun.
The original is a great dialogue with meaning.
This is not the case in the new creation. To begin with, the first series could have ended: the intrigues and causes of the murders will be shown immediately. The very rationale for the murders is so stupid that it’s not even possible to be deft for the creators of the series: what’s the point in destroying people who have already done their job? Moreover, the murder should draw even more attention to their work. It's like extinguishing a fire with gasoline.
Professionalism in execution of murders. How many times has it been said, “Don’t hire people with a deep degree of oligophrenia.” But those are exactly the faces that are shown in the series. These are mentally ill people who I personally would not trust to change the tray after cat. Their professionalism is imaginary: when they go to kill, they do not even care about insurance. It is immediately apparent that their mentor was Vovochka from the Trinity Kingdom.
Thinking about all these inconsistencies and absurdities prevents exactly one thing: constant jumping from one character to another, or jumping from one time the narrative to another (the past). The whole series is a continuous ragged narrative, which almost completely discourages the ability to evaluate the logic of the plot.
A separate line I have the semantic load of the film. The questions he raises. And it's all bad here.
We all know perfectly well. In order to get the right answer, you need to ask the right question. The question of what temperature is pink is meaningless.
These are the questions that the heroes of this series ask. Questions about freedom, patriotism, the limits of state intervention in private life, etc., are meaningless without context, without concrete situation. That is why the characters of the series are engaged in empty ranting and chatter. But this allows you to achieve the desired duration of the next series.
The common-sense idea that all carnage in the modern world of capital is about money almost immediately disappeared. I don't know if she's on the horizon again, but I won't check. I've had five episodes of this masterpiece more than enough.
Conclusion: the series “Condor” is an extremely weak, talentless work of art, to understand the whole stupidity of which is hindered by ragged narrative and pseudo-intellectual dialogues of the characters. This is a very unfortunate adaptation of the good movie Three Days of the Condor. May common sense be with you.
Note: Since film search is very much concerned about the moral state of citizens, inadmissible (from their point of view) words are replaced by the closest analogues. Even if these are well-known quotes that do not offend anyone, but are designed to bring pepper to the review.
In the vast field of spy series at the moment, the patriotically provocative epic “Homeland” confidently dominates, boldly leaving all competitors behind, including the extreme lack of quality stories with exciting action and some Hollywood stars. Among the heaps of secondary raw materials like the last season of 24 Hours or the serial adaptation of Hostages, this pile of liquid copypaste pouring from all the cracks of serial Hollywood has its own diamonds. A worthy representative of his genre is The Night Administrator with Tom Hiddleston and Hugh Laurie, who, to my deepest regret, pleased us with only one season. As a result, we get a free niche, which is in a hurry to break into, like James Bond into the hearts of girls, the series “Condor” with Max Irons in the role of a typical pumped IT person with the face of a model from the CIA. The series is an adaptation of James Grady’s novel Six Days of the Condor, which was already filmed on the big screen in 1975. Let’s see if this creation can climb the spy Olympus and hoist the flag of quality on its top.
The series follows Joe Turnenre (the aforementioned Max Irons), an ordinary analyst and software developer who works for a company that provides its services to the ubiquitous CIA. At one point, our protagonist decides to give up such a life, about which it is impossible to tell anyone, but here’s the problem, the algorithm developed by Joe for foreign countries, calculates a terrorist who is ready to lay a device with biological weapons on American soil in the stadium. This news inspires our hero, and he decides to postpone his departure and continue his work for the benefit of the States. The next unremarkable day Joe comes to work and decides to smoke a winning cigarette on the fire escape, which saves him from an attack on the office, followed by the slaughter of all specialists (smoking for the first time saves, not ruins health). Miraculously leaving the pursuit, Turner decides to unravel this bloody tangle, into which the threads of a dirty conspiracy are woven, pulling for which, you can see the silhouettes of high-ranking officials and pseudo-patriots hiding in the shadows of ordinary performers.
The first thing that attracts attention is the excellent production of the series, everything will be shot on nature and it costs a lot, and most importantly, there is no epileptic shaking camera during action scenes (this feature has become inexplicably popular recently). Max Iron plays more than decently, his role in "Tutankhamun" he proved that he is an excellent actor who can do any role. Apparently, he inherited his acting talent from his father, the legendary Jeremy Irons, and now begins to demonstrate it in his works, which, oddly enough, are too few. Extremely pleased and the appearance of Brendon Fraser, whose career, it would seem, has already gone into oblivion, but no, the role of the bad guy he more than to face, although everyone remembered him forever as a sarcastic lover of adventures from the mummy of 2001 (when this franchise was still good).
The series I can advise all fans of good action, as well as all fans of good spy movies. The series “Homeland” slowly but surely leaves the path in which he walked the first 2 seasons, and “Condor” can become a great replacement for us and a bright representative of its genre.
8 out of 10
