Sat 12 May 2012
Archived Movie Review: THE RUSSIA HOUSE (1990).
Posted by Steve under Reviews , Suspense & espionage films[12] Comments
THE RUSSIA HOUSE. 1990. Sean Connery, Michelle Pfeiffer, Roy Scheider, James Fox, Klaus Maria Brandauer, John Mahoney, Michael Kitchen, J.T. Walsh, Ken Russell. Based on the novel by John le Carré. Director: Fred Schepisi.
I haven’t read the novel, and if I hadn’t recently seen the movie, I probably never would have. For one reason or another, none good, spy fiction hasn’t been a major portion of my reading diet for some time. But there is a chance I’ll read it now, if only to find out what was in the book that wasn’t in the movie.
There’s no way, the way I see it, that a long book (which I assume le Carré’s book was) could be condensed down into a film that was less than two hours long.
Or at least that’s how I felt as we were leaving the theater. Something was missing. And the something that was missing was the feeling that something had happened during the course of the movie, other than (I grant you) a successful romance between Sean Connery (playing a disheveled semi-idealistic British publisher) and Michelle Pfeiffer, as a Russian go-between delivering him a manuscript from a dissident Soviet scientist (Blandauer).
As one of the various British or American agents who get caught up in the story says, somewhere close to the end, “Well, we’re back to square one.”
As a spy or espionage novel, rather than a romance, there’s a moderate amount of suspense that builds up before the ending, but none of the edge-of-the-seat variety. Curiously, a number of incidents occur that appear to be of major significance, but nothing seems to happen as a result. Actions, whether performed under duress or not, never appear to have consequences.
There are scenes in which Sean Connery’s characters is wired for sound. There are others, especially when it would have counted the most — or that is to say, when the plot counts on it — he is not. What a clunky way to run an intelligence operation.
The acting is uniformly terrific. Michelle Pfeiffer never looked lovelier. The scenery — apparently the movie was filmed in Russia — is even better. The story is what needed some help.
February 1991 (moderately revised).
[UPDATE] 05-12-12. Of course there is the possibility that I missed something subtle, or even not so subtle. And if so, I am sure that someone reading this will tell me what it was. I only vaguely remember the details of the movie itself — it was over 20 years ago — but strangely enough, I do remember the theater Judy and I went to see it in, and I do remember how well-filmed it was.
May 12th, 2012 at 11:21 pm
I’ve now gone back to read the reviews on IMDB. The overall rating is only 5.9 stars out of ten, which (from reading my review) is about where I’d put it. (This is not very high for a major film such as this one.)
The reviews themselves, though, are almost uniformly positive. There are only a few who thought the story fizzled out far too often, as I did. Many called it a “thinking man’s thriller,” with lots of dialogue and very little gunplay, if any.
I can accept that, but to change my mind, I’ll have to watch it again, and when I do, I’ll report back here.
PS. I’ve also read Roger Ebert’s review. It begins:
“It takes a lot of patience to watch “The Russia House,” but it takes even more patience to be a character in the movie. To judge by this film, the life of a Cold War spy consists of sitting for endless hours in soundproof rooms with people you do not particularly like, waiting for something to happen. Sort of like being a movie critic.”
and ends:
“But these flashes of energy are isolated inside a screenplay that is static and boring, that drones on lifelessly through the le Carre universe, like some kind of space probe that continues to send back random information long after its mission has been accomplished.”
Ouch!
May 13th, 2012 at 12:14 am
Disappointment was my reaction. Two of my favorite actors in one of the most boring, pointless films I have ever seen. I’d watch Connery in HIGHLANDER 2 and Pfeiffer in B.A.D. CATS before I would sit through this again.
May 13th, 2012 at 12:51 am
Michael
I’m going to put you down as not caring for it.
— Steve
May 13th, 2012 at 5:52 am
Put me down for the same, Steve. I remember it as being a yawner, though if michael thinks this is bad he should watch Michelle in the odious GREASE 2.
Yuck.
May 13th, 2012 at 9:42 am
Jeff, I had finally rid myself of the memory of GREASE 2. This place can be a dangerous place for reviving painful memories.
May 15th, 2012 at 11:00 am
It’s actually a pretty decent adaptation of the novel. mantaining the basic structure, virtually all the characters and plot too – the ending is a bit less ambiguous (we don’t see the boat arrrive). It is probably a bit restrained as movies go but, like all of Schepisi’s films, it looks great, has a fantastic score by Jerry Goldsmith (he called it his best several times) and some fantastic dialogue too. I think the central romance, while fairly plausible, is a bit underpowered, which sia shame and does hurt the film a bit. I thought someone should stick up for it …
May 15th, 2012 at 11:14 am
Sergio, I am glad you did.
I had high expectations for this film and was disappointed and bored. Sometimes the viewer’s expectations can work against a movie (or anything else).
May 15th, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Thanks from me, too, Sergio. You’ve reminded me that I never did read the book, which I sort of promised myself I would, way back in 1991, when I wrote this review.
My sense of timing is that the book was written after the fall of the Iron Curtain, and le Carre had had to shift gears in his writing career because of it.
In fact, looking it up just now, the review from Kirkus begins:
“Does glasnost mean the Cold War is over? Le Carre, the ultimate chronicler of Cold War espionage, ponders that issue (and others) in an up-to-date spy fable: his drollest work thus far, his simplest plot by a long shot, and sturdy entertainment throughout — even if not in the same league with the Karla trilogy and other le Carre classics.”
and ends with:
“Narrated by a Smiley-like consultant at British Intelligence, the story, unwinds in typical le Carre style (leisurely interrogations, oblique angles), but without the usual denseness. The book’s more serious threads — debates on disarmament, Barley’s embrace of world peace over the “chauvinist drumbeat,” the love story — tend toward the obvious and the faintly preachy. Still, Barley is a grand, Dickensian creation, the ugly Americans are a richly diverting crew, and this is witty, shapely tale-spinning from a modern master.”
I am debating whether or not to read the book before watching the movie again. Michael’s reaction in comparing the film with the novel suggests that that might not be such a good idea. On the other hand, not reading the book ahead of time didn’t seem to work out so well for the first time.
I’ll think about it, but coming up with the time to watch a movie is going to be a lot easier than finding time to read the book, then see the movie.
May 15th, 2012 at 2:44 pm
I did like the book which added to my disappointment with the film. The book is worth reading, but where you place it on your To Be Read pile will be up to your mood. It is not the author’s best.
I had always believed reading the book first would spoil the surprises of the movie and maybe this did. The only time reading the book first made the movie better for me was the novelization of the Connery film THE AVENGERS. The movie made no sense because it cut out huge sections of the story. The tie-in paperback is really worth trying, the movie is not.
May 16th, 2012 at 8:39 am
Personally I liked the book a lot, in may ways one of the best of the author’s post-Glaznost works but then I’m a le Carre fan generally (though, perhaps a bit perversely, not of the Karla Trilogy which I always found a bit too slow).
May 16th, 2012 at 10:26 am
Sergio, I do need to read more of le Carre, but would you call THE RUSSIA HOUSE one of his best?
As a movie, THE RUSSIA HOUSE is a failure compared to the movie adaptations of TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY, SMILEY’S PEOPLE, and THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD.
August 6th, 2014 at 7:59 am
I am a le Carre’ fan and today by accident I wstched this movie the Russia House. Couldn’t sleep, turned on the television and Michelle and Sean were on the screen, decided to watch. Okay sure it is slower than Sean’s norm, and Michelle’s for that matter but found it interesting. A love story with beautiful landscape; gorgeous pictures over different locations in Russia. Men dressed similarly stuck in rooms with large recording tapes of conversation…ah, a semi spy movie. At the end, it was an ongoing love story between two characters thrown together, a tale of espionage, spying, and danger.
An exchange of a manuscript from a dissident Soviet scientist, to a publisher; using a beautiful mother with two small children…okay now I get it. It dragged a bit, but being a Ludlum fan, I got the gist using two of my most favorite artists, Sean and Michelle.
… doing something really dangerous and illegal, the old KGB, a lot of surveillance listening in to conversations between Sean and Michelle