Rewatching this in 2020 (last viewing was probably mid-90s!) I must say I enjoyed this mild mannered "spy games" light comic thriller. Showing its age now with references to Princess Diana and protagonists smoking on an aeroplane. Has shades of better movies like MIDNIGHT RUN and 48 HOURS but with its own unique charm. I like the twisty turny espionage plot (like an early dry run of Jason Bourne films) and the Michael Kamen score sounds very DIE HARD esque, which adds to some of the more tense scenes (especially the spy trade gone wrong scene about halfway through the film). Lots of good strong supporting actors chewing scenery, and I'll watch Hackman in anything! Some of the dialogue makes me laugh too ("He's so rich he could ski uphill"), and I thought the cinematography was good on my modern 60 inch television. It also serves as a great travelogue of Berlin and Paris. Loses a few points for a totally abrupt ending, almost like they ran out of budget! I would have loved another 10-15 minutes to see how the characters ended up, and if they made it to the Seychelles.
32 Reviews
Enjoyable spy film
blanche-230 May 2008
Gene Hackman is Sam Boyd, an old CIA agent who is dragged back into "Company Business" in this 1991 film also starring Mikhail Baryshnikov. Boyd has to funnel money to the Russians using a prisoner switch as an excuse, but it all goes awry when, during the exchange, he realizes the prisoner the Russians are sending over is someone he just saw at the airport. He aborts the switch immediately. He and his Russian (Baryshnikov) are directed to a safe house, but when it blows up, Hackman realizes the CIA wants both of them dead. So they go on the run with $2 million.
This film had a light, breezy atmosphere to it, and the two stars play it sort of like an "I Spy" episode. It's not an out and out comedy but it's pleasant and implausible enough. Someone thought that the "big reveal" about the young the woman helping the two in France made the thing truly ridiculous - I don't know why. Baryshnikov at the time of the filming was 43, and the young woman (Geraldine Danon) was 23. What's the problem? Great locations in Berlin and France, good acting, and some exciting scenes. Fun if you're not expecting "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold."
This film had a light, breezy atmosphere to it, and the two stars play it sort of like an "I Spy" episode. It's not an out and out comedy but it's pleasant and implausible enough. Someone thought that the "big reveal" about the young the woman helping the two in France made the thing truly ridiculous - I don't know why. Baryshnikov at the time of the filming was 43, and the young woman (Geraldine Danon) was 23. What's the problem? Great locations in Berlin and France, good acting, and some exciting scenes. Fun if you're not expecting "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold."
A good little movie with some great scenic views.
mgvolpe18 February 2002
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.
gene hackman can play any role.
ksf-231 December 2020
Almost retired CIA spy Boyd (Gene Hackman) is called back to service to bring prisoner Grushenko (Mikhail Baryshnikov) to Russia as part of a prisoner exchange. from the beginning, Grushenko is suspicious, so maybe that's foreshadowing. and of course, a designated meeting goes bad, and "someone" is shooting at them. when Boyd calls DC for instructions, his boss turns out to be Kurt Smith, "Red" from the Seventies Show. Acc to wikipedia and other sources, there were soooo many issues making this film... an unfinished script, the fact the USSR was already kaput, and cast and production disagreements. it's also odd that both IMDB and wikipedier label this an action comedy.... i'll go along with the action, but never did hear the comedy. it's pretty well done as a serious action/drama, which is how the actors play it. the ending is pretty weak. there are a couple twists and turns, but it kind of ends with a whimper. no big showdown. which is ok. very european. written and directed by Nicholas Meyer. it's good. but it's not a comedy.
Fine, believable spy story.
DOGSLEDDER546 June 2020
Pretty good spy movie more realistic than many other spy flicks. Plausible story with dozens of typical Hollywood digs at
America, American institutions in and out of the government and American allies- mostly overt digs but some covert ones too. If you ignore them, or more likely don't even notice them, this is a very watchable bit of entertainment. Good cinematography, sometimes reminiscent of Hitchcock, and action keeps you interested in the story. Hackman and Baryshnikov work and play well together.
Not as bad as the critics say
robert-8592315 January 2020
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.
Surprisingly Fun
aegm30 May 2000
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.
hackman goes well, Baryshnikov goes better
krillin1239 October 2004
the great acting was about the best part of this for me. I also liked the storyline; it was deep enough but not so that you get too confused about why the things that are happening are happening. It was good to see lots of different and interesting locations: Berlin and Paris (I always wondered how the elevators went up the curved legs) in particular. The script was no slacker either. On top of the normal discussion you had witty one liners to lighten the mood. I thought it was charming how they started out (Hackman and Baryshnikov that is) as 'business men' doing their respective jobs, playing their roles but then became attached to one another and thus fought together. I also liked the mysteriousness of the ending. The 'where are the going to go now?' factor is usually a good touch. If anything was wrong with it I would've liked a little more action. The only real action scene I recall was the shootout in the subway. Other than that they were just running from baddies and jumping out of windows, which was entertaining but more confrontation would have been appreciated.
Another Corrupt U.S. Government Story
ccthemovieman-121 December 2006
This film is a cold-war type thriller with the United States and the Russians trading spies (or former spies: the story is a little confusing.)
The "trade" goes wrong when Gene Hackman thinks the man he's trading for (Baryshinikov) is the wrong guy. The inference from that centers around a corrupt U.S. government sanctioning whatever is taking place. The corrupt government theme is getting more than a little tiresome but Hackman and this good no-name cast makes this still an interesting story, even if that theme has been way overplayed. Odd how American filmmakers, who make millions of dollars in this country, always make the American government look like villains. It's pathetic.
This movie would have been so much better had things been a little easier to follow.
The "trade" goes wrong when Gene Hackman thinks the man he's trading for (Baryshinikov) is the wrong guy. The inference from that centers around a corrupt U.S. government sanctioning whatever is taking place. The corrupt government theme is getting more than a little tiresome but Hackman and this good no-name cast makes this still an interesting story, even if that theme has been way overplayed. Odd how American filmmakers, who make millions of dollars in this country, always make the American government look like villains. It's pathetic.
This movie would have been so much better had things been a little easier to follow.
For the Gene Hackman fans! And for the fans of the cold war espionage genre.
imseeg23 October 2022
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.
Unsatisfying
Revman5015 June 2020
There are moments that work but, for the most part, the film either lacks the grit to make it a thriller or the humor to make it a comedy.
The ending is abrupt and premature.
Hackman's performance is the only thing that makes any of it work.
Clever spy plot that isn't over-cooked
mattrochman8 July 2006
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.
Company Business goes bankrupt
rkbyers17 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
One of the delightful sides of Company Business is that it shows some of the seedy side of the espionage game, especially when things are being run as games within games and by people with whom you not only could never identify, but you are unsure as to what they really are representing. The theme is simple: People are born on one side or another and become part of the turmoil, long after the ideals have been laid to rest. This was certainly done better in various Jon Le Carre' books, but the result is the same. This was a movie about how time was bypassing the Cold War. I was surprised to read that Mikhail Baryshnikov hated this movie and would do no publicity for it. While he didn't do such a great acting job in it, he did remind one of the characters he was playing, jailed, nervous, and unsure of where he was going. Hackman's acting was much lower key than normal, his ability to deliver short bursts of power and that machine gun forced laughter notwithstanding. He gave you the image of an over-the-hill agent who couldn't resist another shot at the action. I especially liked the idea of them escaping from both sides, back to the universal idealistic dream. My only great criticism is how silly it is to portray being shot in such an insouciant manner. The fact that a country might not have extradition, also, isn't really an issue for the CIA, KGB or even the Columbian drug czar. The scenery is beautiful in Berlin and I howled at them being in one of the clubs which made Berlin famous. Paris was also beautiful and the Eiffel Tower scenes were majestic, especially the Eiffel Tower elevators. Geraldine Danon was hauntingly beautiful, especially when she shows up at the café to meet Hackman. I am disappointed that she did not show up in any other Hollywood movies.
Spy exchange gone bad
jotix1004 January 2006
Nicholas Meyer is a good writer as shown in the many screen plays, and novels, he has given us. As a director, he has had some success and failures, as it's the case of his "Company Business", which he wrote for the screen and directed.
The film has a fatal casting problem in Mikhail Barysnikov, who was a great dancer, but alas, as an actor, one would advise him to stick to his day job. As a result, the film never achieves the momentum that is hinted at the start.
Gene Hackman, a superb actor, doesn't do as well under Mr. Meyer's direction. As a matter of fact, he appears to be too old for the part and there is no chemistry between him and Mr. Barysnikov, making the film drag. The others in the cast do what they can, but nothing can save this movie.
On the plus side, we are taken to interesting locales, but by the time we arrive at those destinations we couldn't care less where we are, or if it's Friday, we must be in taking a tour of the Eiffel Tower in Paris.
The film has a fatal casting problem in Mikhail Barysnikov, who was a great dancer, but alas, as an actor, one would advise him to stick to his day job. As a result, the film never achieves the momentum that is hinted at the start.
Gene Hackman, a superb actor, doesn't do as well under Mr. Meyer's direction. As a matter of fact, he appears to be too old for the part and there is no chemistry between him and Mr. Barysnikov, making the film drag. The others in the cast do what they can, but nothing can save this movie.
On the plus side, we are taken to interesting locales, but by the time we arrive at those destinations we couldn't care less where we are, or if it's Friday, we must be in taking a tour of the Eiffel Tower in Paris.
Reasonably entertaining
will_varner25 September 2002
While I realize that others have dis'd this movie, I found it entertaining enough to get the DVD. Géraldine Danon is certainly quite attractive and I appreciated the location work v. some bogus set. If you are looking for Oscar material you will need to pass on this one. On the other hand, if you like the talent (Hackman, et al) then you will probably find it worth your time to enjoy this. I can promise you there has been a great deal worse than this made by many times over.
Simple, yet enjoyable
dontspamme-7607821 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This isn't one of those elaborate spy movies with many twists and duplicitous characters. In fact, when you think a double cross is about to happen... it doesn't. There aren't a lot of characters that keep coming and going to keep track of.
Hackman and Baryshnikov are OK in their roles. They don't ham it up (too much) and keep a reasonable degree of seriousness of the fact they're "out in the cold" and will be probably be killed on sight by their respective spy organizations. I'd say this movie is about 60/40 comedy/drama.
I was disappointed in the ending. They've finally laundered the marked bills (maybe a bit too easily), but Grushenko (Baryshnikov) is wounded and they're stuck in a restaurant near the bottom of the Eiffel tower after having killed a CIA senior officer. Boyd (Hackman) talks about disappearing to the Seychelles with the laundered cash because it has no extradition. But they still have to get off the tower and out of Europe. Plus, I doubt the CIA and (remnants of) the KGB care much about extradition. Their biggest worry should be how to get across the street. Then the movie just ends. The voice mail left for the mysterious sweet toothed "Donald" seems to be the potential solution. But how? Was the jar of jellybeans supposed to be a clue? "Ronald" Reagan was known to like jellybeans, but he was out of the government and would be a very unlikely ally to a former Soviet operative.
Hackman and Baryshnikov are OK in their roles. They don't ham it up (too much) and keep a reasonable degree of seriousness of the fact they're "out in the cold" and will be probably be killed on sight by their respective spy organizations. I'd say this movie is about 60/40 comedy/drama.
I was disappointed in the ending. They've finally laundered the marked bills (maybe a bit too easily), but Grushenko (Baryshnikov) is wounded and they're stuck in a restaurant near the bottom of the Eiffel tower after having killed a CIA senior officer. Boyd (Hackman) talks about disappearing to the Seychelles with the laundered cash because it has no extradition. But they still have to get off the tower and out of Europe. Plus, I doubt the CIA and (remnants of) the KGB care much about extradition. Their biggest worry should be how to get across the street. Then the movie just ends. The voice mail left for the mysterious sweet toothed "Donald" seems to be the potential solution. But how? Was the jar of jellybeans supposed to be a clue? "Ronald" Reagan was known to like jellybeans, but he was out of the government and would be a very unlikely ally to a former Soviet operative.
Decent spy flick with flaws
dsparks5559 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Not a bad movie with good performances. However the premise is flawed from the beginning. The CIA would never and I mean take orders from an Air Force Colonel. The CIA is completely separate and independent from the military. Whoever wrote the script for this film is clueless. Anyway If one can overlook the stupid underlying premise then the film can be enjoyed as lightweight entertainment.
It's not Hope and Crosby on the Road to the Border; It's Bugs and Daffy on the road to rotten.
mark.waltz31 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
A silly mix of political mayhem and two opposites forced together in an adventure that they are probably both too old for, this suffers from both a really dumb structure mixed with a horrid screenplay. The fantastic Gene Hackman hides his embarrassment and goes through with a serious portrayal as an alleged government agent assigned to get Mikhail Baryshnikov out of prison and across the German border, a job screwed up by double-cross, sending both men into hiding together and putting an embarrassing predicament on both the United States and Russia. This makes officials from both countries look like buffoons, think the Coyote and Elmer Fudd meet Boris and Natasha. They end up in Paris where all of a sudden we learn that Baryshnikov has a daughter, kidnapped in an attempt to get him to come out of hiding, resulting in a tense conclusion on the Eiffel Tower. While I didn't expect another Bond film, I certainly didn't expect Looney Tunes with a touch of genuine violence and sexuality either. Screenwriters of fluff like this expect us to buy whatever they try to sell us simply because we're naive about political intrigue, but they underestimate most of us who can recognize absurdity right off the bat. To top it off, there's really no conclusion which adds to the frustration of the 90 minutes you've just wasted.
SPY-COMEDY...TROUBLED PRODUCTION...LACKS TENSION...WATCHABLE
LeonLouisRicci27 August 2021
The Usually Astute Writer/Director Nicholas Meyer has Written that this one was a Disappointing Disaster from the Start.
Started Filming with an Unfinished Script, the Soviet Union was Collapsing, and Gene Hackman was Uncooperative.
But the Movie is Watchable because of the Talent Involved which Managed to Bring Home a Lackluster Espionage Film.
The Comedy Chemistry Works somewhat, but the Film is Stagnant, Uninvolving, and Unsatisfying.
The Look of the Movie is Slick with Meyer's Eye for Imagery is Apparent.
However the Film Fails to Ignite and Languishes with a Clunky Montage and Hopelessly Muddled Script.
After Completion the Film was Barely Released to Theatres with No One having Confidence.
Considered by All those Involved an Embarrassment at Worst and a Mediocre Movie at Best.
The Ending is Jarring and Abrupt and it All Adds Up to a Mishap of Not Much.
Worth a Watch for Fans of Hackman and Meyer, but Bring Along Very Low Expectations.
Started Filming with an Unfinished Script, the Soviet Union was Collapsing, and Gene Hackman was Uncooperative.
But the Movie is Watchable because of the Talent Involved which Managed to Bring Home a Lackluster Espionage Film.
The Comedy Chemistry Works somewhat, but the Film is Stagnant, Uninvolving, and Unsatisfying.
The Look of the Movie is Slick with Meyer's Eye for Imagery is Apparent.
However the Film Fails to Ignite and Languishes with a Clunky Montage and Hopelessly Muddled Script.
After Completion the Film was Barely Released to Theatres with No One having Confidence.
Considered by All those Involved an Embarrassment at Worst and a Mediocre Movie at Best.
The Ending is Jarring and Abrupt and it All Adds Up to a Mishap of Not Much.
Worth a Watch for Fans of Hackman and Meyer, but Bring Along Very Low Expectations.
Missed Oppurtunity
BlitzkriegKraut27 November 2020
Poor commitment by many involved and sloppy storytelling hurt this otherwise promising film. While not quite a comedy and barely an action film, the stars use their smarts to overcome their enemies but the audience is force fed this information. The worst example is cutting from a hero making a prediction to the prediction coming immediately to pass, as told solely with dialog ("They will be expecting that."). This is clearly lazy character building and story progression by those in charge. Many of the performers are recognizable years later, and have proven their talent, but it does not come across on screen. Generally it is an enjoyable film but not something that will leave a lasting impression.
oddly without tension
SnoopyStyle23 July 2016
Sam Boyd (Gene Hackman) is a retired CIA agent. He's recalled by Elliot Jaffe (Kurtwood Smith) to do an off-the-books prisoner exchange with the Soviets. He escorts Pyotr Ivanovich Grushenko (Mikhail Baryshnikov) as well as $2 million in exchange for captured U2 pilot Benjamin Sobel in the newly united Berlin. At the meeting, Sam recognizes Sobel as somebody he saw at Dulles Airport. They escape in a shootout. Colonel Pierce Grissom (Terry O'Quinn) tells Jaffe to take them out before they are both exposed for the drug money. Boyd uses his old contacts to stay alive. Grushenko tells him that it was indeed Sobel but he's been turned by the KGB and worked undercover in America as a professor. Grissom and KGB Colonel Grigori Golitsin are still trying to exchange for Sobel. In Paris, Grushenko reconnects with Natasha Grimaud.
This is a familiar and easy role for Hackman. Baryshnikov is doing the acting without the dancing. Writer/director Nicholas Meyer has done plenty of good stuff especially the even numbered Star Treks. This should be a lot better than it actually turns out to be. There is a lack of tension despite the action. There are comedic turns which feel out of place. The main limitation is the plot which tries to be a tightly written spy storycraft. However, it doesn't always makes sense motivationally. It may be wound too tightly. The movie should let the characters be human beings rather than plot devices. Gene keeps this movie working and it functions without excelling.
This is a familiar and easy role for Hackman. Baryshnikov is doing the acting without the dancing. Writer/director Nicholas Meyer has done plenty of good stuff especially the even numbered Star Treks. This should be a lot better than it actually turns out to be. There is a lack of tension despite the action. There are comedic turns which feel out of place. The main limitation is the plot which tries to be a tightly written spy storycraft. However, it doesn't always makes sense motivationally. It may be wound too tightly. The movie should let the characters be human beings rather than plot devices. Gene keeps this movie working and it functions without excelling.
Dull Spy Thriller
rmax30482327 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
It's 1991 in Berlin. The wall has come down, the Cold War ended, and everything is in a state of flux. Two out-dated spies are chased by all sides.
Below average in almost all respects. Exceptions are some nice touristy views of the Berlin underground and the Eiffel Tower. Oh, and Gene Hackman's performance, which isn't among his best but which doesn't reach the lower depths of some of the others. I guess Oleg Rudnik, as the chief Russian heavy is respectable too -- and he LOOKS great. What a face, mournful and lugubrious but distinguished too, except for his cadaverous, mismatched pale yellow teeth. They seem to grow at random angles out of his gums, but he so rarely smiles that it's hard to get a good look at them. Kurtwood Smith does his Kurtwood Smith number capably. And the musical score is disarming, a plucked balalaika backed by a base fiddle.
The story is something about a double-cross by the CIA ("the company") and some remnant of the KGB, during an attempt to deliver Michael Baryshnikov to his homeland. Baryshnikov and Hackman find themselves pursued through Germany and France by both sides. They trade wisecracks, but the wisecracks aren't funny. Well, there was one I enjoyed. The duo approach a cheap-looking car they are considering stealing and Baryshnikov pronounces it "Eastern." "Is it alarmed?", asks Hackman. "Only when you frighten it."
There isn't much action either, for those looking for temerarious propulsion, and what there is of it is sometimes confusing.
The chief problem, I think, is with the disjointed script. It doesn't seem to know for certain where it's going or why. Hackman was in a similar movie -- "Target" -- which was more successful, given the limits of the genre. You may find your attention wandering during this one.
Below average in almost all respects. Exceptions are some nice touristy views of the Berlin underground and the Eiffel Tower. Oh, and Gene Hackman's performance, which isn't among his best but which doesn't reach the lower depths of some of the others. I guess Oleg Rudnik, as the chief Russian heavy is respectable too -- and he LOOKS great. What a face, mournful and lugubrious but distinguished too, except for his cadaverous, mismatched pale yellow teeth. They seem to grow at random angles out of his gums, but he so rarely smiles that it's hard to get a good look at them. Kurtwood Smith does his Kurtwood Smith number capably. And the musical score is disarming, a plucked balalaika backed by a base fiddle.
The story is something about a double-cross by the CIA ("the company") and some remnant of the KGB, during an attempt to deliver Michael Baryshnikov to his homeland. Baryshnikov and Hackman find themselves pursued through Germany and France by both sides. They trade wisecracks, but the wisecracks aren't funny. Well, there was one I enjoyed. The duo approach a cheap-looking car they are considering stealing and Baryshnikov pronounces it "Eastern." "Is it alarmed?", asks Hackman. "Only when you frighten it."
There isn't much action either, for those looking for temerarious propulsion, and what there is of it is sometimes confusing.
The chief problem, I think, is with the disjointed script. It doesn't seem to know for certain where it's going or why. Hackman was in a similar movie -- "Target" -- which was more successful, given the limits of the genre. You may find your attention wandering during this one.
Highly underrated, if somewhat uniform
joegold8017 January 2006
Decently scripted and well acted, Company Business missed many people's radars. Take a few seconds out to remember that its setting is the time that it was filmed - while the jokes may seem dated now, they were funny at the time for a Europe waking up to the end of the iron curtain. The two leads have decent chemistry and the supporting roles are well done - it's actually nice to enjoy the film for having no unnecessary love interest to distract the story.
It will never be an awards contender by any stretch of the imagination and certainly not Gene Hackman's finest hour, it's still worth watching.
It will never be an awards contender by any stretch of the imagination and certainly not Gene Hackman's finest hour, it's still worth watching.
An Exchange of Prisoners Gone Wrong
Uriah4329 July 2021
Having retired from the CIA a few years earlier "Sam Boyd" (Gene Hackman) is asked to come back temporarily to handle a trade between the Soviet Union and United States. Essentially, the Soviet Union wants one of its spies by the name of "Pyotr Ivanovich Grushenko" (Mikhail Baryshnikov) along with $2 million in cash in exchange for an American spy in its custody named "Benjamin Sobel" (Bob Sherman). At first, everything seems normal to Sam, however, during the actual exchange in Berlin he notices that the prisoner he is about to receive is the same man he saw at an airport prior to leaving for Europe. This causes him to suddenly abort the mission which results in both him and Grushenko now being hunted by the CIA and the KGB for two completely different reasons. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this was an interesting spy caper which suffered somewhat from a couple of rather slow scenes and an abrupt ending which left more questions than answers. Likewise, although both Gene Hackman and Mikhail Baryshnikov performed well enough the relationship between them seemed unnecessarily awkward at times. Be that as it may, although I thought that this film could have been better, it was good enough for the time spent and I have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.
A light, a very light, almost comedy, almost drama flick.
ccunning-7358720 December 2019
A light, a very light, almost comedy, almost drama flick. Hackman has had better roles in other movies and is a very good actor, but you can't do much with this plot... They try to make drama with twists and turns along the way but it doesn't quite work. The CIA brings Hackman out of retirement for reasons only poorly brought out, to hand off a KGB spy in trade for someone we (The USA) want. Everyone has deceptive reasons for doing everything and the CIA & KGB team up (Yeah, like that's really going to ever happen!) for each organizations goals...
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
