Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Truly Dreadful Film

Fresh and Exciting

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

The film differs from the book in that the crazy right wing politics is left out. (The labour party is not filled with communists.)Both the book and the film postulate goings on in Moscow Centre, but it just doesn't work that way. Readers of Le Carre's spy novels would tell you for example, that "Moscow Centre prides itself in always getting its agents back (alive.)" There is a James Bond film, Octopussy, with a similar story, trying to nuke a circus near a Nato airbase in Germany, rather than Britain, but that detail was probably inspired by this story as much as the books of Ian Fleming, who worked for Naval Intelligence and would have known better. The Americans were terrified of the prospect that a nuke might explode accidentally anywhere in Europe, because the gamma rays would be detected by US satellites, and Nato Rapid Deployment Bombers would immediately head for Russia, as a reflex action--this could not be stopped. The concern then was what the Russians would do when the RDBs showed up on their radar and there were no Nato exercises scheduled for that day. They hoped that cool heads would prevail, and that the Russians would wait to see if the bombers halted at their fail safe points. For reasons like this, it seems unlikely that even a rogue Russian General would arrange for such a nuclear incident.There's now an official history of MI6, by the way, "The Secret History of MI-6: 1909-1949," and a rogue British agent is detailed there, but he was only a little crazy.

Frederick Forsyth's bestselling novel is here brought to the big screen with an all-star cast, but despite occasional moments of excitement it is not a film that genuinely gets the blood pumping. While the intricate build-up of detail and suspense made the book absorbing, in the film it merely creates a cold, dry and rather plodding atmosphere. The film has an old-hat feel to it, for it pursues a storyline that has been done to death over the years. If you think about it, we've seen stories like this countless times: Rod Steiger plotting to blow up Parliament in "Hennessy"; Edward Fox plotting to assassinate De Gaulle in "Day Of The Jackal"; Bruce Dern planning a terrorist attack on the Superbowl in "Black Sunday"; Steven Berkoff wanting to decimate an American air base with an atomic bomb in "Octopussy". This time, in "The Fourth Protocol", it is the turn of Pierce Brosnan to carry out yet another despicable plan against the civilised world. Genre addicts will probably enjoy the film, but for the majority of us it's a tired case of more of the same.Secret agent John Preston (Michael Caine) leads a raid on the apartment of an idealistic government bureaucrat, George Berenson (Anton Rogers). In Berenson's safe, Preston discovers some top-secret documents containing sensitive information about NATO activities in Britain. When confronted, Berenson claims that he has been passing the information on to a South African contact, but to his horror his South African "contact" turns out to be a Russian spy who has been forwarding the information to Moscow. As high-ranking Secret Service official Sir Nigel Irvine (Ian Richardson) tells Berenson: "you've undermined NATO.... perhaps irretrievably". Meanwhile, in snowbound Russia, deadly and highly decorated soldier Major Valeri Petrofsky (Pierce Brosnan) is briefed to carry out an audacious mission that could bring NATO to its knees. Petrofsky comes to Britain posing as a hard-working, unmarried model citizen and promptly buys a house that backs onto an American air base. Gradually he sets into motion his chilling plan, which involves triggering a nuclear explosion from his house, disguising his act to appear like a terrible accident that occurred at the base, thus strengthening the calls for NATO to be disbanded. Preston races against the clock to stop Petrofsky before his deplorable plan becomes a devastating reality.The cast perform decently enough, though there seems to be a certain degree of indifference, or perhaps unenthusiasm, from some of the stars. Ian Richardson probably has the best of it (he has a suggestive, sinister tone of voice and shifty eyes that make him perfect for these cloak-and-dagger roles), while Caine makes an amiable enough hero and Brosnan a fairly believable villain. Others fare slightly worse, like Ned Beatty as a Russian official with an over-prominent American accent, and Julian Glover as a bad-tempered Secret Service bigwig whose attempts to evoke anger would barely trouble a child, let alone his adult colleagues. John Mackenzie directs adequately but unremarkably, allowing the jigsaw pieces of plot to slot into place in a by-the-numbers fashion. The very concept of a nuclear strike within Britain is quite disturbing and exciting on its own terms, but the film never really sets the pulse fluttering. Some might argue that this kind of low-key, realistic approach provides a worthwhile contrast to the extravagance and excesses of a James Bond movie, and they'd have a point, but there's something just a little too mechanical and familiar about "The Fourth Protocol" for my liking.

My personal view is that Caines interpretation of the character made TFP one of his best films to date, it reflected the Forsythes hero very acurately and was easily the best performance of the film. Again, my view is that the film was grossly under rated by the critics at the time and even today stands up well among films of this type. Well worth watching even today.

This is a very poor film giving the impression of a director who has no idea what he is doing. The film is a mess without any suspense what so ever. All there is is confusion for the viewer, as if the film maker in some way thought that that would make up for the very poor story. Throughout the film you are waiting for something exiting to happen but the climax never goes as the ending is as bad as the rest of this mess. Just skip this one!