User Reviews

In the words of the opening titles: "In the 1880's -unlike today- London was a haven for political refugees of all nationalities. They were kept under constant surveillance by their embassies as well as by Scotland Yard. This was fertile soil for every kind of conspiracy and betrayal". This is the world against which "The Secret Agent", based on the novel by Joseph Conrad, is set, although I am not sure what was meant by that "unlike today". In 2008 there are probably far more asylum seekers in London than there were 120 years ago, and I am sure the same was true in 1996 when the film was made.

The central character in the film is Verloc, a Soho bookseller with a sideline in pornography. (Soho, although situated in the West End of London, was at this period a poor working-class district which had more in common with the poverty-stricken East End than with the wealthier surrounding areas). His nationality is something of a mystery; his name sounds foreign (Conrad may have derived it from the German "verlocken", meaning "to tempt"), but Bob Hoskins' Cockney accent sounds very British. (We learn that he has served in the French armed forces, presumably as a member of the Foreign Legion). He is married to Winnie, an attractive younger woman who has only accepted him as a husband in order to provide a home for her simple younger brother, Stevie.

Besides dirty books, Verloc has a couple of other sidelines. One of these is anarchism; he is a member of a multi-national anarchist cell plotting the downfall of every government in Europe. His final sideline is treachery towards his fellow-anarchists; he is secretly a spy in the pay of both the British police and the Russian embassy.

Verloc is called into the Russian Embassy for an interview with his controller, the diplomat Vladimir, and learns that the Russians want him to become an agent provocateur as well as a spy. Their plan is that he should blow up the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, hoping that such a terrorist outrage will persuade the British Government, who at this period often took a soft line with criminal conspirators if their conspiracies only involved the commission of crimes in other countries, to crack down on the anarchist movement. This puts Verloc in an unenviable position. If he carries out the attack and is caught, he faces a lengthy prison sentence or even the death penalty if anyone is killed in the attack. If he refuses, he faces the possibility that the Russians will reveal his treachery to his fellow-anarchists, who will doubtless take bloody revenge. In the event he decides to carry out the attack, but uses the simple-minded Stevie to plant the bomb. Unfortunately, something goes wrong, the bomb explodes prematurely and Stevie is killed.

Conrad's novel was also filmed by Alfred Hitchcock in 1936. That film today is generally known as "Saboteur", although when it first came out it was sometimes shown under the title "A Woman Alone". (Hitchcock could not use Conrad's title because, confusingly, he had made another film called "The Secret Agent", based on Somerset Maugham's "Ashenden", earlier in the same year). Hitchcock updated the story to the 1930s, which was probably a wise move, as period costume drama was never his forte. ("Under Capricorn" is not one of his best films, and "Jamaica Inn" is one of his worst). Although there are problems with the plot, "Saboteur" is an effective thriller in which Hitchcock makes good use of the devices, which he would perfect in later films, for creating a mood of ever-increasing tension.

The 1996 film is not a thriller of that sort, but rather a downbeat character study. The film-makers seem more interested in their characters' personalities than in their political views, and there is no serious attempt to explore terrorism as a social phenomenon. (The only major terrorist act we see is actually instigated by a reactionary foreign government, not by the revolutionaries themselves). During that period in the nineties when it became fashionable to talk, in Francis Fukuyama's phrase, about the "end of history", there was perhaps a lessening of interest in the ideology of violent revolutionary movements; today, in the post-9/11 world, I suspect that a film made on this subject would have a very different emphasis.

There are a couple of decent performances from Hoskins and from Jim Broadbent as Verloc, and two major foreign stars, Gerard Depardieu and Robin Williams, are seen in surprisingly minor roles. (Although it is a British film, the film-makers obviously thought that they needed some overseas talent to boost its international market appeal). Williams, unusually playing a villain, is good as the Professor, a ruthless explosives expert acting for the anarchists, but I was less impressed by Depardieu, a brilliant actor in his native French but much less so in English. I was also disappointed by Eddie Izzard, a comedian who rarely impresses as a serious actor, as Vladimir, but the real disappointment was Patricia Arquette's lifeless performance as Winnie, something which seriously affected the film as Winnie emerges, after the death of her brother, as one of the most important characters. Arquette also had one of the worst American-Cockney accents I have heard, a female version of Dick Van Dyke in "Mary Poppins".

In keeping with its theme, the look of the film is a dark, sombre one, with many dimly-lit interior settings. While it had some good points, I never really found it an engrossing experience. 5/10

I love Joseph Conrad's novels, but the films are another thing. They virtually never work, and this is just about the worst ever. It's extremely rare and I don't know if it was ever even released in the UK. I know it never got as far as Scotland, for which we can thank Hadrian's Wall. The truth is, the Romans didn't build it, we did to keep films this bad out!

This was obviously a pet project for Bob Hoskins who produced it, but you'd not know it to look at him. He's terrible in the lead. No character, no soul, nothing. Well, he is funny a couple of times, eating his dinner with his hat on or his death scene, but I don't think it was intentional. But compared to the rest of the cast, Eddie Izzard hopeless as the Russian ambassador, Jim Broadbent doing his Only Fools and Horses bit as Inspector Heat, Chris Bale's baleful idiot brother, he almost looks good. But then with the lead going to Patricia Arquette, who wouldn't? She's been worse, but that still doesn't make her any good in this. Her Winnie Verloc is pitiful in all the wrong ways. Why do they hire her? The only consolations are the scenes with Gerard Depardieu and Robin Williams in the restaurant. They work and sum up some of the spirit of the novel even though the two are pretty dire in their scenes in the rest of the film.

The adaptation is faithful but dead. It tells the story but not the characters or the themes and the direction by scripter Christopher Hampton isn't very good either. Honestly, even if you like Conrad you couldn't care less about this one. It slipped into the TV schedules late night last week without any warning, and with a film this bad that's probably just to hide ITV's embarrassment at showing it. Badly disappointing and then some.

Patricia Arquette.

The WWEA belt that has been held since 1964 by Dick Van Dyke for his WWEA triumph in "Mary Poppins" has had many challengers, Renee Zelwegger could have tried harder throughout both of her attempts with Bridget Jones, Gwyneth didn't even come back for seconds after Sliding Doors. Don Cheadle did come close in both Ocean's Eleven & Twelve and D.V.D.'s WWEA title looked very much in danger with Robert DeNiro in Frankenstein (he lost to a little known WWEA clause that forbids the use of lip stitching or any type of facial prosthetic), and there has been a surprise late entry recently by Ewan Macgregor in Star Wars episodes I & II, surprising as he is one of very few British contenders.

This recent award shock to Patricia is made even more amazing by the fact that this feat has slept unnoticed for over 8 years, simply because no one actually went to see it!

To see the WWEA rankings please go to the full post on "The Secret Agent" Message Board

All of the IMB reviews seem to overlook the fact that this is a remake.Hitch made this as "Sabotage" in the 1930s.His film makes this look like amateur theatricals.Perhaps the most important scenes in the film,the bombing and the killing of Mr Verlock are just thrown away.The tension in the Hitch version between Mrs(Sylvia Sidney)and Mr(Oscar Milka)is terrific.Also in the Hitch version the bomb is in a film can which is carried by the brother.No audience would ever believe that the boy would be killed but Hitch did it.He always regretted it as he felt that he lost the sympathy of the audience at that moment.As for this film it is a travesty.There are so many things wrong with this film that i would not know where to begin.So i have a suggestion for anyone who thinks that this film has merit.Watch this one first then go and see Sabotage.You will very easily decide what is the masterpiece.

"The Secret Agent", a novel by Joseph Conrad, had already been adapted for the screen. Alfred Hitchcock's 1936 film seems a masterpiece in comparison with this attempt by Christopher Hampton of a remake. Although both films are not exactly alike, this new version seems to suffer from a short vision that results in an uneven film.

The first problem with this film appears to be the casting of Patricia Arquette in the pivotal role of Winnie. Her accent is wrong and the obvious age difference between her and Verloc doesn't help the film. It's curious to note that Mr. Hampton has done much better work as a screen writer as well as his work for the stage. Nothing of that talent is in clear evidence in the film.

The film makers were lucky to get all the talent in the cast. Unfortunately the material doesn't suit Gerard Depardieu, or Robin Willimas, a good actor when he wants to do serious work, but not here. Bob Hoskins, Jim Broadbent, Christian Bale, Eddie Izzard and the great Elizabeth Spriggs, do all they can to make the film better, without much success.

I just saw this movie on TV and am shocked to find that it received no Oscar nominations, very little notice, and some downright negative reviews. I don't ever remember hearing of it, and I was an active moviegoer in 1996 when it was released. And I even know who Joseph Conrad is. Why?

This is a good story, well told, relevant to the times, with excellent actors, really a "blockbuster" cast; the settings, costumes, location, etc. are all spot-on for the time period (1907). To those who know a bit about history at that time, this would be the same as making a movie right now about a couple Al-Qaeda guys. This was a scary time. The German build-up, the recent war between Russia and Japan, lots of conflict around the world. Marxism had taken a firm hold in Western society, actively seeking to destabilize the very fabric of ordinary life. Some saw the rise of labor unions as part of this unravelling. Major politicians and monarchs were being blown to bits by anarchists in the street. We have pretty much forgotten today how scary things were then, cuz of what came later with Hitler, which overshadows everything before or since.

These people saw themselves as helping to give birth to a new world by aiding in the demise of the old one. They saw themselves as necessary midwives, not maniacs.

This movie puts a magnifying glass up to one little corner of the world in 1907 and lets us see in. It's not a pretty picture. What's left of human feeling gets sucked into the vortex of "political action," and we are left with a small human tragedy with much larger echoes.

**Spoiler alert**

This is a very well done movie. One example. When the train pulls away at the end, the couple is just about to kiss. There is a long moment as the director gives us the build-up to the train's first lurch into motion. You hear the train's engine, you see the steam rising from the locomotive. We wait for it. At the same time the two lean toward one another slowly, but just as their lips meet, the train jerks forward, and the kiss is never completed. A clue to what's ahead.

I am sure there are probably things wrong with this movie, but I can't figure out what they are. It may be confusing to people who thought it was going to be an action movie cuz of today's associations with the term "secret agent."

The acting is primo. Bob Hoskins ROCKS. Robin Williams is totally creepy. Gerard Depardieu is pathetic, just sad. Patricia Arquette is just wonderfully tragic in her part. The ubiquitous Jim Broadbent is here again, as always, superb.

It's all good. Watch it.

This film languished in post-production hell for years and I can see why, it's certainly not everyone's cup of tea. Conrad's novel is too psychological to transfer fully to the screen but this is a damn good effort. A wonderful cast gives its all but there are one or two misfires, Eddie Izzard is an excellent comedian but is the kiss of death to cinema and is completely unconvincing here as a Russian diplomat. Gerard Depardieu seems to lack conviction in his role but this is not a major drawback as his character is fairly peripheral. Bob Hoskins is excellent as Verloc, a truly contemptible and pitiful man, a traitor to everyone and everything. Patricia Arquette is moving as his wife, Winnie, who is powerless and battered by fate (I can't think why so many reviews pick on her performance, she's supposed to be passive and downtrodden). Christian Bale is very affecting as Stevie. But best of all is Robin Williams as The Professor, who steals every scene he is in. His cold, inhuman character is a frightening portrait of a zealot as he speaks of rationally eliminating the "weak" and the final shot as he shoulders his way through the crowd, his contempt for humanity etched into his face as he squeezes the trigger, is unforgettable. I wish Williams would do more serious roles instead of the sentimental comedy he has become associated with. All in all I thoroughly enjoyed this film but your enjoyment will be enhanced if you have read the book first as not all the nuances of the text can be conveyed on screen.

To watch this movie one must be in the right frame of mind. Firstly, it helps to be versed in political history and understand the political forces which brought this situation to exist in the real London of the turn of the century. Secondly, one must watch the movie in allegorical terms as you would read a poem or a short story. This is not a literal movie though the literal translation to the present day international concerns is acute. The psychological translation from book to screen is realized in all the actors' performances. Bob Hoskins is the double agent who has no loyalty to anything but his own survival and needs. Robin Williams who gets no listing in the credits (yet another allegorical reference) is the perfect sociopath. The sets are another character. The grey and dank Victorian London squaller lends itself to the futility of the goings on in the plot. Note the comparison to the home of the malcontents to the Greenwich sunshine. It's not a movie for everyone on any given day. It is a movie that could spark serious conversation comparing and contrasting the political climates of then and now.