User reviews

some comments on this film have stated that there are unnecessary killings of agents or witnesses, this is done to show the politics of the film and how there must be no trace back to those who planned the operation, whilst also portraying that petrofsky is a lethal killer, and as Caine says in the film "the best". A great story, and very believable, spies that remain hidden from each other and no excruciating scene where the bad guy reveals his plot to the good guy. Would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the operation had turned out differently, or the ending for that matter!

Of course one of the best things about this film is the acting as previously stated by other people. Caine brings his character to life and is very believable in the role of John Preston, the agent who cares, and will "bend" the rules to make sure things get down. Brosnan is similarly good, his character will stop at nothing to complete his mission, he is a stone cold killer and this is portrayed well, he doesn't let anything get in the way of the mission.

All in all a very good little film, much better than some of the tripe we get from Hollywood and with one of the finest British casts i've seen in some time.

I was quite surprised to see that this movie got a 5.9 rating. I think that it's a lot better than that. Brosnan is good, the plot is sufficiently tricky to be interesting, and Caine delivers the kind of reliable, excellent performance that you can count on (at least when the movie isn't total junk -- he only seems to phone it in when the movie is entirely hopeless). The ending is a little abrupt, but I can't find any fault with it other than that. (The cast is uniformly strong, too.) Maybe people underrate the movie because the movie is low-budget. It looks like a British TV-movie, and maybe it was, but I find it easy to get past the production values when the acting is good.

I've seen it twice, and it holds up to a second viewing.

Usually we get treated to one type of spy movie these days. This type is made up of good looking young agents with all sorts of high tech weapons and gear. There are beautiful women who are just lining up to sleep with the good guy. The Fourth Protocol is not one of these movies and thank goodness! It is one of the most realistic cold war spy movies out there. Despite it's age(1987) it is relevant to today's world. There is nuclear terrorism and real looking spies. Michael Cain plays a British agent and is too busy looking for Russian spies to be sexing up fine Russian female agents. In fact he has a family. He is excellent as the seasoned agent who uses his mind and not gadgets to track down the Russian spy played by Pierce Brosnan. For those of you who saw Brosnan in Tailor of Panama and found it refreshing to see him play a creep secret agent will be in for a real treat in The Fourth Protocol. Brosnan plays Petrofsky, a young hot shot KGB agent who tries to slice and dice his way to the top. I mean Petrofsky is a flat out cold blooded killer. He makes the guy in Tailor of Panama look like a saint. He has a conscience but he doesn't let it get in the way of his mission to explode a nuclear weapon on a US Air Force base in Great Britain in order to make it look like the US had a nuclear accident. Petrofsky was the right man for the job he would blow up two or three thousand people just like that. If he wasn't a KGB agent, he could surely find work as a serial killer.

The story moves along quickly and sometimes a bit too quickly. However it doesn't detract from the movie. The movie looks more like a cop movie in the way the investigation unfolds. When they finally find out what's going on there is a good action sequence that doesn't go over the top. It just serves the purpose in this movie. Other things I liked was the scene where they constructed the bomb.

I would recommend this one to anyone who likes spy movies and are tired of the James Bond rigmarole.

Rayvyn

Forget Brosnan's performance in the Bond movies or the recent excellent Tailor of Panama. His cold, calculative KGB agent in The Fourth Protocol should have told us what a wonderful actor he is. Made in 1987, the film is closer to its older brother (The Days of Jackal, also by Frederick Forsyth) than the spy films starring Michael Caine, as I originally thought it would be. The pace is slow, but thoughtful. Like Jackal, we get to see Brosnan making preparation to bring in the bomb and piecing it together. We also get to see Caine, 'the rebel' of M16 tracking him down. Great show!

I wouldn't consider this movie a "classic" or even particularly "great", but for some reason I really enjoy watching this film. I haven't read the book, however I used to own "The Fourth Protocol" computer game for the Commodore 64, and was vaguely familiar with the basic storyline.

I can't pinpoint what exactly it is I like about this movie, but I did enjoy seeing Michael Caine as a British agent tracking down the nuclear bomb. I could probably watch a whole series of films based around his character. I also liked some of the other characters and I think it had a good cast of actors. The workings of government agents was very compelling to watch, but it was good to see that the film wasn't overwhelmed by ridiculous gadgets and stuck to the drama involved.

The 80's technology in the film also had an element of nostalgia about it. This film reminds me of a bygone age of the BBC Micro and Ford transit vans. In fact, I love watching the film just to see the various parts of England as well.

I liked the fact that its a rather 'quiet' movie, but I do think it needed to be re-edited. Some parts of the film just skimmed through major plot developments without giving them time to breath, and other times the film would show a character hopping from various locations in England without giving a sense of the travelling in between. Watching this film would give the impression that England is only about 10 miles wide! Some elements of the film really needed to be fleshed out a bit more.

This isn't the sort of movie I would go to a cinema to see, its more of a "Friday night in" movie that I would watch on TV. I would only recommend it to someone if they were die-hard fans of this genre.

Based on the bestselling novel by thriller writer Fredrick Forsyth, The Fourth Protocol stands out as one of the last of the breed of Cold War spy thrillers. Set amongst the issues of 1980's Cold War tensions, the film is the story of a KGB plot to detonate an atomic bomb in the UK near a US Air Force base, causing the deterioration of NATO as a result if UK security services don't stop it first. With good performances and a fine script that make up for some of the films shortcomings, The Fourth Protocol is a good example of the Cold War spy thriller.

The films has good performances throughout. The cast is led by Micahel Caine and Pierce Brosnan. Caine is British agent John Preston, a bit of a loose cannon himself, who stumbles upon the plot and has to face his superiors skepticism before he can stop the plot. Brosnan is KGB agent Valeri Petrofsky who, masquerading as James Ross, is the man with the atomic bomb. The supporting cast is like a whose who of fine character actors including Joanna Cassidy, Ned Beatty, Julian Glover, Michael Gough, Ray McAnally and Ian Richardson. Sadly the actors playing Russian characters struggle with their accents at times but for the most part the performances work and help the film rather then hinder it.

For the most part the film has good production values. The direction of John Mackenzie, coupled with the cinematography of Phil Meheux, the production design of Allan Cameron and the costumes of Tiny Nicholls mean the the film has a very realistic feel to it. For the most part the editing of Graham Walker helps as well, especially in the sequence where the bomb is assembled by the Brosnan and Cassidy characters. Unfortunately there's moments where the editing is rather hap-hazard with scenes of Petrofsky on his motorcycle, then packing his car, then on his motorcycle again. Another example is the sequences involving the McWhirter couple (played by Matt Frewer and Betsy Brantley) with Petrofsky which, while a fault of the script admittedly, should have been cut from the film as they serve no purpose and slow down the film's pace. Even with the issues with the film's editing, the production values hold up well.

The film also has a fine script as well. Frederick Forsyth adapts his own best-selling novel, with help from writers George Axelrod and Richard Burridge. The script remains fairly faithful to the original novel though there are some significant differences (such as the amount of time spent investigating soviet agent Jan Marais at the beginning for example). This helps the film plot wise as it focuses the film more on the tense build-up to the possible detonation of an atomic bomb on British soil. The film nicely contrasts the arrival of the bomb's components from Petrofsky's side with Preston's attempts to derail the plot. The script also reveals a world of crosses, double-crosses and triple-crosses as the plot keeps getting more and more complicated as it goes on. The result is a well-written thriller.

With good performances, good production values and a well-written script from noted thriller Fredrick Forsyth, The Fourth Protocol is a good example of the Cold War spy thriller. Even with editing issues, the film is a well-paced and tense story of Cold War intrigue and a story of how things might have bee. Even more surprising is that despite its being entrenched in 1980's Cold War politics the films dealing with the on-going threat of nuclear terrorism means it has relevance over two decades later. Thus the film remains a tense, if somewhat dated, thriller.

It is a while since I this film but the title is explained at the start of the film,a voice over and text on the screen says something about a treaty signed by the major powers during the cold war and mentions a secret "fourth protocol" that forbids the planting of small scale nuclear weapons in each others countries. Iiked this film but at the time (1987) many people said that Forysth was a right wing nut,he is but we know know that the USSR had all sorts of crazy ideas about attacking the west because they thought that the west was going to attack them first.

People who liked this fiom should also look out for THE WHILSTLEBLOWER ,another 1980s British spy movie with Michael Caine.

A Brit agent, MichaelCaine, suspects something big is being smuggled into England, and his guess is accurate, as he discovers an atomic bomb delivery, putting the world in nuclear jeopardy. The nasty plot is supervised by Russian agent Pierce Brosnan, a totally dedicated undercover officer assisted by a Russkie engineer : Joanna Cassidy.

Thriller about political fiction with chills, thrills, intrigue, twists and turns. Based on the famous Bestseller that Frederick Forsyth himself updated. Michael Caine is the principal component of this political thriller giving a nice and believable acting in his usual style as British agent attempting to stop a conspiracy from destroying NATO . While Pierce Brosnan is ultra-cool as Russian agent prividing one of the best performances to date. They are well accompanied by a nice plethora of secondary actors, mostly Brits, as Ian Richardson, Michael Gough, Julian Glover, Ray McNally, Betsy Brantley, Cartwright, Joanna Cassidy, Matt Frewer, though marred by odd casting as Ned Beatty who is really miscast as a high rank Russian General.

It displays a poweful and suspenseful musical score by Lalo Schifrin with his ordinary sounds and similar to Jerry Goldsmith . Moreover, colorful and evocative cinematography by Phil Meheux. The picture was nicely directed by John MacKenzie. This British filmmaker was a good professional who made some successes and flops . John began working in TV plays , which inspired him and gave him the best training to shot , it also taught him how to work quickly . Mackenzie was one of Britain's finest directors with nice results in his enjoyable films . He moved to length features decisively with his biggest hit : "Long Good Friday" , but a decade spent in Hollywood that proved to be unfulfilling , artistically , shooting failures as "Honorary Consul, "The Innocents" , "Blue Code" and "Ruby" . Although he was never achieved the recognition he richly deserves , he was a notorious director , though sadly deceased in 2011 at 72 years old . Rating 7/10 . Well worth seing. The yarn will appeal to Pierce Brosnan fans .

After more than 30 years, it's still an exciting thriller and a well-made film. I wish there were more movies like this. It is undoubtedly an example to follow for those who want to dedicate themselves to making films of this type.

Rogue spies try to undermine the Fourth Protocol, which is a secret agreement between the USA, Britain and Russia to cease smuggling nuclear weapons into their respective countries. A Soviet agent is sent to the UK to stage a nuclear accident that could be blamed on the Americans and set off a chain reaction of events to unbalance this stand-off.

The Fourth Protocol is based on a novel written by Frederick Forsyth. I have never read it but have read others by this author. His style focuses on the intricate detail of the spy/politics of his thrillers, while his characters contrastingly always seem to be really cardboard, with very little recognisably human about them. With this in mind it's not too surprising that The Day of the Jackal was his most successful book, seeing as the very blankness of the central character was an actual important plot point. But usually this weakness in characterisation is more noticeable. The Fourth Protocol is a quite typical Forsyth spy thriller, in that it has a fairly detailed plot and paper thin characters. Michael Caine phones it in as a Harry Palmer type spy who doesn't play by the rules. It's a quite weak and clichéd character and to be honest Caine doesn't bring much to the table with this one. Pierce Brosnan, on the other hand, is pretty good as the cold Soviet killer. Like in Day of the Jackal, it's this villain who is the more interesting when set alongside the dull heroes, meaning that its actually the bad guy whom we want to succeed, which I'm sure could not have exactly been the original intention. Unlike Caine, Brosnan is playing against type and certainly makes better work of what he is given and is certainly the best thing about the movie. On the whole, this is a pretty standard spy film, with nothing very distinctive about it. Despite its generic nature, it is quite enjoyable though.

Well, the tagline says it all. It feels like a realistic Cold War spy thriller. Michael Caine does a solid job and a young Pierce Brosnan is believable as a Russian KGB killer. Great soundtrack by Lalo Schifrin, although his score is sometimes more exciting then the images on screen. There might be a but too much "talking heads" scenes, especially when Brosnan is not in them. But it does look a bit like a straight to TV film. The climax is a bit disappointing

Very enjoyable with great cast. Michael Caine is almost Harry Palmer again and there are some famous names amongst the support. Good, tense story and no sags right up to the end.

Seen it 3 times now and there'll probably be at least one more viewing.

This has all the ingredients for a superb espionage thriller, like The Ipcress File. Unfortunately this does get bogged down in the middle. Caine, considering this is the late eighties ( before fore his renaissance in the mid nineties ) is actually pretty good. As is Brosnan, who shows he's as good as a ruthless killer as a romantic lead ( bits of both here ). Add in some great UK actors, Richardson, Rodgers and especially Julian Glover ( who excels as the boss you would hate to work for) putting in good performances. The only slight is the underrused Joanna Cassidy, who has little screen time. Twenty minutes cut out and this could've been an 8/10.

A good film, indeed, but not so much of an exciting experience to watch it and those who know Frederick Forsyth's works as novelist are highly familiar on how gripping and thrilling his characters and situations are. But the thing that disappointed me the most is that Forsyth wrote the film script and what I saw wasn't so interesting to make me feel great about it.

Well, the story isn't news, again we have a plot where Soviets want to destroy the Capitalist/American system, this time the target is an American base in England. Now, the British intelligence has to find the terrorist before something bad happens. The villain, however, is one man and one man only, a deadly KGB spy (Pierce Brosnan) who has the mission of exploding an atomic bomb on a American military base. The man on his track is the charming agent John Preston (Michael Caine, very good), who has to fight the bureaucracy of his boss (Julian Glover) to finally solve this situation.

The problem I had with the film is the awfully number of characters and tiny little situations where I couldn't understand clearly what was happening, some of the characters motivations as well wasn't good presented. The lack of some great action sequences also bothered me a little, but the ones developed were very interesting (the scene where Michael Caine jumps out of the car, then runs to a moving train; and Barry's crazy chase with the van almost hitting the people).

The cat and mouse game of "The Day of the Jackal" is inexistent here except for the final moments (here's a writer making a copy of himself. The whole situation is so similar that is beyond belief). The appeal of "The Fourth Protocol" lies in the incredible cast assembled that not only includes Brosnan and Caine but also Ned Beatty, Ray McAnally, Joanna Cassidy (quite effective as Brosnan partner), Michael Gough and others.It's not a case of great performances but all of them have decent parts to play with.

Surprisingly strange is the fact of a great director like John Mackenzie, specialist in creating thrilling moments in films like "Deadly Voyage" and "Infiltrator" (both TV movies) seemed a little lost with this script since it's hard to feel some thrill with everything presented (except when Pierce is killing his victims, he's a real stone cold kind of a guy). If the drama is quite hard to follow, the suspense only works for limited moments. But seeing the general picture as a whole you still can have a decent movie, with some good surprises. To me, one random moment that marked me in this film is when Michael Caine beats two racist punks on the subway, that was really awesome. I don't know why it's really in the film but it's a great moment to be seen.

It could've been special but it also could've been way worst, just one step in false and this could be a reunion of wasted talents. Gladly, this didn't happened. Fans of Cold War flicks will enjoy it but be prepared for lots of confusing things. 6/10

I hadn't seen this for ages. Then it was given away free with the Daily Mail.It really has aged well. The plot is still believable. Just substitute Islamic terrorists for Russian ones. Caine was brilliant and doing his 'laser' style acting in all the close ups. Something he doesn't bother with in his many pot boilers. I have to agree with some of the other posters. It really should have been promoted as Harry Palmer's midlife crisis. He would have developed just like this. The hero in the book reads like an ex-Para version of Freddie Forsythe. Caine makes the role his own and adds his own interpretation. Another of my favourites Pierce Brosnan acts his heart out too, as the stone killer Petrofsky. The Ian Richardson and Anton Rogers scene has to be a career best for both of them. Only a side plot but absolutely brilliant.

There is always a dilemma for the spectator who knows the literary work: the book vs the film. I understand that it is almost impossible to convert the whole book with its complexity to the movie, but still some important moments from the Fosyth's novel are missing (and most of the story features are grossly simplified). However it's still an ordinary spy-game film, well directed, with good casting, not reaching over the other ones produced in late 80'. Violental and sexual content was added for effect. The female character (Irina) appeared in the story only for such purpose (but I'm not blaming the creators for that - there has to be at least one female in let's say "bigger role", don't you think?).

If you know the book, don't expect a bigger excitement. If you don't know the book, don't expect a bigger excitement either...

I'm a big fan of Michael Caine's Len Deighton films - 'The Ipcress File', 'Funeral in Berlin' and 'Billion Dollar Brain' - even *if* the films got worse as they went along.

Even though it's based on a Forsyth book, it's practically a 'return to form' for Harry Palmer - a conceit that's easily swallowed if you allow that Sgt. Palmer might have to assume more than one paper identity over the course of his career. Sir Michael is in top form here, as is Pierce Brosnan and one of my favorite British actors, Ian Richardson of 'House of Cards' fame.

In fact, it's an altogether plausible thriller - until you get to the American actors. Sure, Ned Beatty and Joanna Cassidy are great actors - but whoever thought that Russian Intelligence agents, save for Brosnan, should sport American accents should be forced to spend a month in some inarticulate American suburb. It almost ruined an otherwise good film. When the round and blustered vowels were rolling out of Mr. Beatty's mouth, I had to wonder if the film were meant to be a dig at American influence over the UK, much like those xenophobic Japanese monster movies - Godzilla, etc. It was just a bit of a stumbling block to try to paint these Americans as Russians, when they weren't *trying* very hard to be Russians.

A plus for this film was that it tried, somewhat, to depict the preparations that Brosnan had to make as an enemy agent. Not as meticulous as 'The Day of the Jackal', mind you, but it was on course. I recommend it to fans of cerebral, non-glamourous spy films.

Harry Palmer is back, sort of.

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.

An adequate spy thriller of its type, the film has a number of predictable moments but a few well-filmed scenes too, such as the meticulous preparation of the bomb itself. The screenplay is generally sub-par and the characters are not developed any better than the story itself, plus the end is almost silly, not fitting in very well with everything else. Some have commented on Brosnan's performance in a positive way, and I suppose he does a reasonably good job. There is not much in this film that I would recommend it on myself though - it is okay to watch, but it does not really rise above the mark set by other similar films.