So, I've heard so much about how great the series is supposed to be, I like John Le Carre (though I have not read The Night Manager) and it stars Hugh Laurie, a very good actor, so I gave it a shot.

It's very dissapointing. Am I the only one who feels lie that? Does it get better in the second half? Becasue I've seen the first three (out of six) episodes, and it's a rather bland, by-the-numbers thriller. Not a shread of the depth and tention I associate with Le Carre's work. In fact, the basic premise seems to make very little sense (why pick Hiddleston's character to be the mole? There's plenty of reasons NOT to). Hiddleston's performance is rather bland too, in fact between this and High Rise I'm really starting to lose my confidence in him as an actor. Laurie on the other hand has a potentially interesting role, but as it turns out there isn't that much of him on screen, and the character's potential is mostly wasted. The supporting cast of characters is very cliche. I'm having trouble believing this all comes from a John Le Carre novel. Is it a faithful adaptation?

MICE. That is the usual motivations for a spy/mole. Money, Ideology, Conscience, Ego. Best agents are usually the Ideology ones, followed by the Conscience, but those may crack. Ego ones are unpredictable, and Money will switch if made a better offer. So not only was Hiddleston's character ideologically motivated, he also volunteered, and came to them with something solid from the very start (the phones). While I also haven't read the book (yet?), my understanding is that the series misses the "discard them once you are done with them" that usually happens at his later books, or at least it wasn't so obvious in the series.

But Hiddleston's past connection to the leak in the first episode is a dangerous potential risk to the operation, and the fact that Laurie met him once already as the Night Manager in another hoetl he stayed in makes bumping into him again in such extraordinary curcoumstances halfway around the world very suspect. It just seems to me that someone with no personal connection to the case and entirely unknown to Laurie would make much more sense.

Still, what bothered me more was really the fact that the story isn't actually about a "night manager". I thought the series would be about a hotel employee spying on Laurie like he did in the first episode, just a normal guy out of his depth, but in a unique position to do it. When I realised it's a story about a former soldier (meaning tough guy with expearience) turned undercover mole it all became very "meh". I've seen that. Hell, I've had more fun watching that on Miami Vice .

As this series is on my "want to watch list" and same as for you it came highly recommended to me it's interesting to read that at least for you it didnt life up to your expectations. I'm quite sure i gonna watch a few episodes within the next 7-10 days and will make sure to step by and will report how it turned out for me.

Spoilers follow for those that have not seen the show yet. Be warned.







You mean the hotel in the alps and then the kitchen in wherever they were, right? Because Laurie never met him in Cairo.
And yes, he was suspicious of him. Thus why the legend they built him wasn't fully a legend. He did steal and disappear from the hotel, and I don't recall if he had travel legitimately to where they met or not. There was a warrant out for him, and he did treat the kidnappers quite a bit rougher than you would a colleague.
Give someone a coherent legend, hide a few things that can be found after some digging, tell your mark what they want to hear, and you can usually fool them. A stranger most likely wouldn't be invited to be looked at more closely, unlike someone they have talked a bit before.
But biggest reason, is that if it didn't happen, there wouldn't be a book/movie/series about it :P





Spoilers end.

I know, I know. I guess I'm just being very nitpicky about it because, like I said in my previous post, I was dissapointed that the story went that way at all.

First of all, if you read a book and it's good, assume you are going to be disappointed with a movie or TV adaption. Isn't that the general rule? Secondly, I believe it's recommended by people who like it but haven't read any of John Le Carre's spy novels. I thought it was ok and I haven't read any of his novels (I'm planning to). I hoped for this too. I always thought that love should be included but I suppose it falls as a sub-genre to ego. Honeypots is a very successful technique used by intelligence assets.