I'm quite a fan of Jan Guillou's Hamilton books so I couldn't help but compare this movie to it's literary counterpart all the time. First of all Stellan Skarsgård is doing pretty good as Hamilton though he is a little rougher looking and taller than he is described in the books. The movie also captures the mood of the book quite well but it really lacks Guillou's humor and political commentary witch makes the movie seem a little monotone at times. Some characters like Siegfried Mack and Loge Hecht aren't as well defined as in the novel and Mouna the PLO agent isn't even named. Other than that it is true to the book and the little changes they've made like the slightly altered shootout at the terrorist hideout near the end are forgivable as there is a difference in what's exciting in a book and in a movie. This film is definitely watchable but I would take the book over the film any day of the week.
4 Reviews
Better than the first movie
shanayneigh23 July 2022
A better adaptation of the novel than the first movie, Täcknamn Coq Rouge (1989), but it still has the issue of feeling rushed. The story is simplified which works better with this novel than the last one, but it's still lacking tension.
Okay entertainment, not best Hamilton-experience
Are-512 April 1999
This movie is okay entertainment, but I think Peter Haber is much better in the role as Hamilton than Stellan Skarsgård. Haber can be seen in the TV mini-series, "Enemy's Enemy" for instance. Peter Stormare might also be a better Hamilton (see Harald Zwart's "Hamilton"). I gave this movie 6/10, OK entertainment, but nothing more. Watch one of the other Hamilton films (if you already have, you'll probably like this one about as well as I did), or even better: Read one of the books! ;)
The best Hamilton so far
pellegrino3 October 2003
This is Carl Hamilton at his best. It may not be Stellan Skarsgård at his best (comparing with movies like Breaking the Waves), but he's doing a good job here too. I would actually say that Stellan Skarsgård IS Carl Hamilton, in more or less the same way as Sean Connery IS James Bond. None of the other actors playing him in the later movies quite reaches his level - they are, of course, also working with scripts not even half as good as this one.
The movie in itself explores the difficult feelings of an agent infiltrating and more or less becoming part of a terrorist organisation. Their methods may be ugly, yes even horrible. But the purpose of their actions? It's action with a nice enough twist, making it entertaining AND interesting.
The movie in itself explores the difficult feelings of an agent infiltrating and more or less becoming part of a terrorist organisation. Their methods may be ugly, yes even horrible. But the purpose of their actions? It's action with a nice enough twist, making it entertaining AND interesting.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
