IMDb रेटिंग
5.7/10
3.7 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंA retired CIA agent is recruited to participate in a prisoner exchange with the Russians.A retired CIA agent is recruited to participate in a prisoner exchange with the Russians.A retired CIA agent is recruited to participate in a prisoner exchange with the Russians.
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
Company business is definitely a film for those with spy-genre tastes. The plot begins as a fairly straight-forward story, but as you expect in all films in this genre, twists and turns develop - people are not who they seem and it becomes difficult to work out who is playing who. That said, it is not a clichéd film, largely because the twists are not contrived or overcooked.
Further it has a European flavour to tone it down. It doesn't become a cluttery screaming shoot out towards the end - an trap that American films all too often fall into.
I suppose that's why I give it such a high rating: an engaging spy thriller that manages not to overstate the drama or manufacture the twists. In many respects, it gives the film a strange credibility. I feel that this is much more indicative of a real CIA officer's job than something like spygame or James Bond.
Mikail Barishnykov (sorry if spelling is wrong) showed considerable acting talent and Hackman, as always, delivers a strong, but toned performance. Supporting roles from Kirkwood Smith and Terry Quinn, only bolstered its stocks further.
A strange thing to note is that the key people involved in the film has issues with it. Gene Hackman was tired from doing three films in a row and apparently wanted to back out, but pushed through. Barishnykov refused to do publicity for it and has not spoken fondly of the film. The director said some sequences were good, but the "whole" wasn't the outcome he wanted and regretted starting production without a complete shooting script.
While I feel like someone who appreciated a film that the main people in its production didn't rate, I don't care. I've rewatched it multiple times and love its pacing and plotting.
Further it has a European flavour to tone it down. It doesn't become a cluttery screaming shoot out towards the end - an trap that American films all too often fall into.
I suppose that's why I give it such a high rating: an engaging spy thriller that manages not to overstate the drama or manufacture the twists. In many respects, it gives the film a strange credibility. I feel that this is much more indicative of a real CIA officer's job than something like spygame or James Bond.
Mikail Barishnykov (sorry if spelling is wrong) showed considerable acting talent and Hackman, as always, delivers a strong, but toned performance. Supporting roles from Kirkwood Smith and Terry Quinn, only bolstered its stocks further.
A strange thing to note is that the key people involved in the film has issues with it. Gene Hackman was tired from doing three films in a row and apparently wanted to back out, but pushed through. Barishnykov refused to do publicity for it and has not spoken fondly of the film. The director said some sequences were good, but the "whole" wasn't the outcome he wanted and regretted starting production without a complete shooting script.
While I feel like someone who appreciated a film that the main people in its production didn't rate, I don't care. I've rewatched it multiple times and love its pacing and plotting.
Some people see this movie as tripe. I on the other hand enjoyed the heck out of it. Hackman is always good, Mikhail did a good job for a ballet dancer. The supporting cast was excellent. There wasn't a foul four letter word in every other sentence, which was a delight in itself. I enjoyed the plot, counterplot and just got caught up in the whole thing. Sure there are some holes in the story but have you seen the garbage that passes for 'critical acclaim' on television nightly? See it yourself, make up your own mind.
I thought I had seen all of the Gene Hackman movies, but somehow I missed this one and I rather enjoyed it quite nicely.
The good: Gene Hackman Gene Hackman Gene Hackman. The guy just gets it right (almost) every single movie. He is Mister Cool. A gentleman. A wisecracker.
This is certainly not Gene Hackman's best role, but it's good enough.
More good: the music by Michael Kamen, which sounds eerily similar to the orignal Die Hard soundtrack, which Michael Kamen composed as well. I REALLY appreciate a dedicated soundtrack and this movie has got a special score for every different scene. Terrific suspenseful score, that is one of the best features of this entire movie, just as it was in Die Hard.
Any bad? Well, it's a predictable, classic espionage story, which has been told (better) many times before in other movies, but for the fans of this genre, who dont mind the typical espionage cliches, this is still well worth a watch. It did please me from start till finish.
I am glad I stumbled into this movie. Gene Hackman rocks. And this movie is simply a well made nineties espionage movie.
The good: Gene Hackman Gene Hackman Gene Hackman. The guy just gets it right (almost) every single movie. He is Mister Cool. A gentleman. A wisecracker.
This is certainly not Gene Hackman's best role, but it's good enough.
More good: the music by Michael Kamen, which sounds eerily similar to the orignal Die Hard soundtrack, which Michael Kamen composed as well. I REALLY appreciate a dedicated soundtrack and this movie has got a special score for every different scene. Terrific suspenseful score, that is one of the best features of this entire movie, just as it was in Die Hard.
Any bad? Well, it's a predictable, classic espionage story, which has been told (better) many times before in other movies, but for the fans of this genre, who dont mind the typical espionage cliches, this is still well worth a watch. It did please me from start till finish.
I am glad I stumbled into this movie. Gene Hackman rocks. And this movie is simply a well made nineties espionage movie.
Apparently this film bombed at the box office and the director was very disappointed with how the whole thing turned out.
However, the film has a certain post cold war charm and the two leads Gene Hackman and Mihail Baryshnikov play nicely opposite each other.
True it's not a well finished film and scripting is, at times, nonsensical.
However, the film has a certain post cold war charm and the two leads Gene Hackman and Mihail Baryshnikov play nicely opposite each other.
True it's not a well finished film and scripting is, at times, nonsensical.
7aegm
Sometimes you rent something that you think will be bad just for the sheer campiness of it. That's what I thought I'd done with Company Business as I'd been browsing through the Blockbuster and couldn't remember the film at all, despite being a Baryshnikov fan. I figured what the heck and rented it anyway. I was quite surprised to find myself really enjoying this film even though you sometimes have to really work at suspending your disbelief. I'm still trying to figure out how exactly Baryshnikov could have been successful as a mole with his accent.
This film has two things really working for it though -- the dialogue and the stars. The dialogue is wonderful. Throughout the movie there are great one line bits that leave you chuckling. Mind you, most of those lines wouldn't have worked if Hackman and Baryshnikov hadn't had such great chemistry. You really don't watch this film for the plot, but for the interaction between these two. It certainly wasn't a pairing I expected, but it worked.
With all that said, my one complaint about the movie has nothing to do with whether or not it was a believable plot, but where it left off. I wanted more resolution. My husband agrees. We got to the end of the film and he looked at me and said "That's it? It was just getting good." It leaves too many things up in the air.
All in all, I would say if you are expecting a spy movie, don't bother. If, on the other hand, you want a fun little buddy movie, rent it and enjoy.
This film has two things really working for it though -- the dialogue and the stars. The dialogue is wonderful. Throughout the movie there are great one line bits that leave you chuckling. Mind you, most of those lines wouldn't have worked if Hackman and Baryshnikov hadn't had such great chemistry. You really don't watch this film for the plot, but for the interaction between these two. It certainly wasn't a pairing I expected, but it worked.
With all that said, my one complaint about the movie has nothing to do with whether or not it was a believable plot, but where it left off. I wanted more resolution. My husband agrees. We got to the end of the film and he looked at me and said "That's it? It was just getting good." It leaves too many things up in the air.
All in all, I would say if you are expecting a spy movie, don't bother. If, on the other hand, you want a fun little buddy movie, rent it and enjoy.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाMikhail Baryshnikov hated this movie so much that he refused to do publicity for it.
- गूफ़When Mikhail and Gene are walking through the forest, they walk toward the camera which moves backwards in sync with them. At one point, the camera crew bumps some branches of a fir tree, which are seen to snap into the frame before the actors reach the tree.
- कनेक्शनReferenced in Ken Adam - Production Designer (1990)
- साउंडट्रैकThe Boys In The Back Room
Written by Friedrich Hollaender (as Frederick Hollander) and Frank Loesser
Arranged and Producedv by Tony Bremner
Performed by Adèle Anderson
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Company Business?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $1,80,00,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $15,01,785
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $5,33,610
- 8 सित॰ 1991
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $15,01,785
- चलने की अवधि
- 1 घं 38 मि(98 min)
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.85 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें