daviuquintultimate

You should not do this. You should not compare a film to its literary source: they are two different media, each with its own codes of expression and interpretation. But I couldn't help it: I had to do this. Only to constate that the movie gives up almost all the motives of interest present in the novel. Note that sometimes movies are on the same level as literary sources: for what concerns "A Tale of Two Cities", see for exemple the old and quite forgotten silent movie of the same title, directed in 1917 by Frank Lloyd: it stands out of its own, Dickens or no Dickens.

Apart from the comparison, this is quite a lenghty TV film, quite static, a little boring sometimes, but by no means badly realized. I will call it: quite well done, and quite useless.

We all know, propaganda - with shifting targets according to the years - has been at the core of U. S. (and other countries') mainstream film production from the very start. And we are all right with it, as long as it is treated with some delicacy, and, in the best cases, with some artistic goals in mind. Well, this is not the case for "Walk East on Beacon!", (1952, in the cold war era), where heroic FBI's members', as well as common citizens' efforts to counter the "red threat" are cast upon a plot lacking of whatsoever thrill. If you can stand all that, you should watch the film: an interesting specimen of its times' values. Be aware that the final scenes, as happens often in these movies, are quite concitated action shots in which is really difficult to tell what is really happening.

I'm very shy about the comparison that I now am proposing to you: an equally propagandistic film is 1959 Hitchcock's "North by Northwest". If you haven's seen it, please do, and you will understand what I mean.