Spies of Warsaw

Sorry, lots of whining about how slow the pace of the series is. If you have read the source novels you should know that Alan Furst takes his time. They're all about mood, and ambiguity, shadows, and wheels within wheels. I think the series, while not great, catches, visually, a lot of Furst's writing, and ambiguity. If you are expecting Skyfall, don't bother. If you are willing to let the thing roll at it's own pace, it is well done. My review is generally positive despite BBC America's decision to do the thing in four parts in On Demand, with an endless series of exceptionally low rent commercials that break the mood considerably. Several years later: I got to see a full length version without commercials- a huge improvement over the wretched BBC America version. As mentioned, if you are familiar with the novel, it is a more than credible job. David Tennant is always excellent, a pre-Torchwood Burn Gorman, several other familiar faces. Well worth watching on Amazon.

Sorry, but it is the leading man who mainly disappoints. David Tennant is totally miscast and is not helped by a poor script, awash with clichés.

I have been to Warsaw three times and there was more tension in the air during my visits than here with spies all over the place.

It may have worked with a different lead, as Tennant sleepwalks his way through the scenes and physically has an uncanny resemblance to John Laurie when playing the crofter in the original version of the 39 Steps.

When he twitches those eyebrows he also looks like a mad scientist rather than the smooth Frenchman tempting every woman from Paris to Warsaw to jump into bed with him. Add to that a non-existent personality and you are left with a problem.

There is absolutely no chemistry between Tennant and Janet Montgomery who is very unenthusiastic throughout. Some decent efforts by a few of the supporting cast, but poor old Julian Glover was given a bad hand with some awful lines.

And the continual movement from Paris to Warsaw and back again several times over was very confusing

Sadly quite ridiculous.

What a marvellous 2 parter. The acting and settings were very good indeed. The story moved very nicely, building the appropriate tensions throughout. Based on a novel by Alan Furst, of whom I had never heard, it was historically accurate(with the exception of some British beer mugs in Prague). I hope the makers will give us more of the novels in the same format.

The first part was sufficient to make me buy the first of the Night Soldiers novels by Alan Furst. Having already read it, I shall now read the rest of the series, in sequence, so a way to go before I reach Spies of Warsaw.

David Tennant stars in "Spies of Warsaw," a 2013 miniseries also starring Janet Montgomery, Anton Lesser, Marcin Dorocinski, and Julian Glover.

Most of the film takes place before Poland was invaded. A military attache, Jean-Fracois Mercier (Tennant) has a network of agents and is assigned to Warsaw to see what the Nazis are up to. Mercier has evidence showing that the Nazis are getting ready to invade. However, he is stonewalled by some of his commanders, who doubt the veracity of his evidence.

In the meantime, he falls in love with a beautiful woman, Anna (Montgomery) who currently lives with a Russian.

I see that this miniseries received some lousy reviews. I can understand that if you've read the book; often, a good book doesn't translate well to screen. I haven't read it.

One of the critiques was that an important part of the book was left out, that is, spying on the Germans measuring the width of the roads in the Ardennes to see if their tanks could make it. I'm not sure what miniseries he watched and gave a rotten review to, but that scene was most definitely in the miniseries.

Another review complained about the locations, saying that it looked like Belfast dressed up to look like another country. The movie was filmed in Poland. I guess I'm not sure what film the above comments referred to.

I thought this movie was tense, and if not action-filled, very absorbing. I was interested in the fact that France was so ardent in her commitment to Poland to save it from the Nazis. We see where that went. And the end of the film is based on a real incident I hadn't known about.

David Tennant, from reading the reviews, was not the Mercier of the book. I still liked him.

A note about accents, a tired topic for anyone who reads my reviews. The people in the film are not speaking English with foreign accents. They're speaking their own language, so accents are not necessary. Some of the actors had them because in real life they have accents, but again, they're speaking their own language and the accent is a dialect.

Why would David Tennant be speaking to French people in English with a French accent? It's ridiculous. You notice that Chekov plays are not done with Russian accents. They don't use accents in Shakespeare. Many early films were set in other countries - no accents (example: The Mortal Storm, Zoo in Budapest).

It is a mystery to me why this production is not better liked. David Tennant is a great actor and I think he is great in this. I think the plot and production values are fine. The only flaw is that it is a little slow but I think it is worth sticking with it. I wish they would film some of the author's other works,he is a great spy writer.