Contentar Best movie of this year hands down!

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

jehaccess6 I have recently become a fan of Patrick Swayze after first watching him in 'Dirty Dancing' a few weeks ago. I began researching his other roles on the IMDb database and ordering DVDs of his other efforts. I must say how aged he looks after 'Road House'. I suspect that his fondness for the bottle has much to do with this situation. Still, he seems to have pulled back from destruction from drink, which I am thankful for. He seemed in great physical condition for a man his age.I have not read the novel 'Icon', so I had no preconceived notions about what direction the plot should take. I must admit that some of the plot scenario seemed weak. The following points stood out:1. The rapid acceptance of Jason Monk as an ally of Sonia was incredible. His tale of being a journalist that packed heat was very weak. When events revealed his true identity to her, no mention of the blown cover story surfaced in the plot.2. The opening sequence of the film showed his failure to extract an agent after his cover was blown. A list of CIA agents had fallen into KGB hands, yet that list apparently did not contain the cover name of Jason Monk.3. The actual identity of deep-cover agents is a closely-held secret within the CIA. A cover name within the agency is developed and a false personal history is registered. This is to prevent attacks on the agent's family if his cover is blown. For the KGB to know Monk's true identity meant a compromise of security within the CIA of horrific degree.4. After Monk retired the KGB apparently made no effort to track him down and extract any relevant information and exact revenge. He was living on the coast of Spain and would have been an easy target. Further, the FSB successor to the KGB apparently did not detect Monk's reentry into Russia. A massive failure of border security.5. The motivation of the CIA official to betray Monk was never clear. He was clearly working against the interests of the US in trying to stop Monk. Further, he could have intervened earlier to stop Monk, since he was privy to Monk's reports on his activities and findings.6. It was standard procedure of the KGB to savagely attack the family of traitors, however innocent. This was a deterrent to possible traitors. Monk's wife and child would have certainly faced a horrible fate once his cover was blown. This fact would have been well known to his wife and motivate her to defect with her husband.7. After starting to work with Monk, Sonia was able to move about Moscow quite freely without making any attempt to disguise her appearance. This would not be so easy in reality. Her former associates in the FSB would be eager to avoid her fate of dismissal. They would be quite familiar with her appearance and be eager to gain favor by arresting her.That said, I still liked the film. The background shots were mostly from Bulgaria, but close to the real thing in appearance. I doubt that Russia would be eager to allow a film with such a plot to be filmed on their soil. The exotic buildings and crowds were quite fascinating and helped keep the plot moving.Annika Peterson did a good job as Sonia. She had chemistry with Patrick and was lovely to look at. She had features that could easily have been Russian, so casting did a great job.The plot had Sonia taking a huge chance of capture to look up daughter Elena when Monk's nerve failed. That was an indication of the feelings Sonia was developing for Monk. The reconciliation between father and daughter was touching. I especially liked seeing this personal struggle of the lead character.The character of Viktor was most appealing. You could see what a great friend he was when the risk of this relationship was enormous. Sonia and Elena soon sensed his goodness and obviously became fond of him, even if this development is never made explicit.The deeper theme of the film is chilling. Many ambitious politicians in Russia have used the innate Russian suspicion of foreigners to further their careers. Just look at Vladimir Putin play on these fears today. He is rapidly rebuilding an antagonistic policy toward the US that is bound to lead to eventual confrontation. When the oil supplies that bankroll current Russian prosperity start to decline, look for a desperate Russia to turn aggressive to seize resources in adjacent countries. The Komarov character in the film had a KGB background and similar ambitions to Putin.In conclusion, the film had enough eye candy and rang true enough to hold my attention, I watched the whole miniseries at one go. I expect Patrick Swayze will be back as Jason Monk in the near future.

avz142 Such a BS movie. It's just some stupid anti-Russian propaganda, with a completely BS plot, not in any way related to the book. It looks like the production team got more money from the people who ordered the movie, than they will ever be able to get from selling the movie. The plot of the movie includes references to some of the real recent events in Russian and other parts of Eastern Europe, but puts them in such way that has nothing to do with reality. It looks like the movie is a brainwashing instrument, which helps to portray Russia as a place populated by evil people that always dream about killing someone. An of course there are hundreds of stupid mistakes like using the map of USSR instead of Russia when running news reports, showing a crowd with Ukrainian flags and commenting that it's Russian elections, etc. Also there are many bizarre episodes (i.e. a character runs though the Red Square in Moscow and in a second he is in downtown Sophia, Bulgaria).

canuckteach I'd like to point out some positive things about ICON - the lead review here at IMDb pounded this telefilm pretty hard! lol. There were several decent action sequences (by 'decent', I mean much better than those silly ones on '24' where the good guys show up with tiny pistols and no flak-jackets or radio-gear). Lots of flash and bang - a truck blows up early in the film, which is sort of a launching point for the plot. Looked realistic to me, not unlike the sequence in the recent 'Quiet American'.There were good actors: Barry Morse (still alive?) and Ben Cross. Swayze (Jason Monk) is OK, but maybe miscast in this one - he doesn't have the right face. I thought the Russian urban scenes were impressive - it's a beautiful country, you know. I liked 'the Saint', 'Hunt for Red October' and 'Russia House' - films with insight into the Russian culture - and problems. That's why the book 'ICON' and this DVD appealed to me.However, I don't know why the writers chose to stray from Forsythe's super novel, which is in my top-10 favorites. I thought the basic novel plot was a natural screenplay: the ICON's grim political manifesto - and how it falls into Western hands. Also, Monk's early career unfolds as the CIA loses to the Russians in the spy game before the Cold War ends. This gave us some insight into Monk's skills, espionage background and disillusionment, but the screenplay follows a different track. The writers added a pretty female agent, and an ex-family for Jason Monk.Up here in Canada, PG-13 'Action' films are hard to come by ('Munich' was just released as 18-A). This film has no sexual scenes or profanity. So, watch it for fun -- and then read the book for the real thing.

Robert W. I am still hanging on there for Patrick Swayze. A huge fan, always have been and always will be even if it's just hanging on to the hope that Johnny Castle will get another great role and if it's straight to video for him than so be it...I still think he's great. Icon is an absolute B movie if not because of the budget for any other reason. It must be rated with the fact that it is a "B" movie in mind. That being said Icon is a decent little flick with some definite highs and some definite lows. I am quite confident that with a different director and a different screen writer (perhaps Frederick Forsyth himself) this film could have been done very very well. If nothing else Icon is a great Russian film. I have not seen any other film that embraces modern day Russia with a great respect and treats it as good as a political thriller in the US would treat America. The story is good enough although a little confusing at times with some scenes that are unnecessary and a little complex, most notably the opening scene which I am still a little confused about.Patrick Swayze takes the lead role as Jason Monk, an under cover operative, who is former CIA and is coaxed back into Russia with the promise of being reunited with his estranged daughter who he hasn't seen she was a little girl. It still pains me to see Swayze look so old in the face but the guy can still move, he is in great shape and plays the action role just fine. His acting is a little campy at times but it really is the writing and the film that is at best B quality. He certainly shines in the role (I thought) and I think Jason Monk is a marketable character for sequels but they have a lot to change. The supporting cast in the film is also quite notable. Joss Ackland as the reclusive Presidential candidate General Nikolayev is good in his scenes and very convincing as a Russian dignitary, Patrick Bergin is fantastic as the evil "Icon" of Russia who wants the Presidency and is behind the plot to poison different races of Russians in Hitler style. He's cold and calculating but very personable and believable. Steven Spiers is also great as Swayze's friend and partner Viktor. He's lovable and you are drawn to him but he's kind of underused in the sidekick role. Michael York, who unfortunately is best known as Austin Powers' boss Basil plays Swayze's boss and you can't help but remember him as Basil which kind of ruins his role. Jeff Fahey also does a great job as the sleazy America Political spinner who helps Komarov get elected. Annika Peterson plays the main female lead Sonija Astrov and she does a good job too, as good as Swayze does. She handles action well and her and Swayze have decent chemistry. All of them play Russian quite well and I know many complain about the cheesy accents and the fact that barely anyone actually speaks Russian when they would in reality but it's a movie that has to be done in English so to me it was just a matter of assuming they would be speaking Russian normally but in order for us to watch the movie without subtitles...it's English. The cast is absolutely not the issues with the film but rather the reason to watch it. The film style of the film immediately reminded me of another low budget series which I have really enjoyed the "Left Behind" series which coincidentally enough director Charles Martin Smith played a part in the third installment. He wasn't right for this film and I don't think he knew how to properly piece together the story. There was no need for the film to be in two parts or to be as long as it was. Much of the story could have been cut down. Sometimes the sound editing was dead awful as well. Watching characters' mouths move and be out of sync with the words was annoying at times...annoying enough for me to mention it. Or it's the fault of screenplay writer Adam Armus who has a tendency to drag out films (ie: King Solomon's Mines...also a Swayze masterpiece.) When it's all said and done it's not so bad. It's worth watching, maybe not all at once, but a little at a time but it's put together with a very low budget. The special effects and stunts aren't bad but it seemed like the production of the film and the DVD got some poorly budgeted effects which does effect your experience. It's a shame it wasn't better handled because the ideas and possibilities are there. Just not fully realized. 6/10