Truly Dreadful Film

Don't listen to the negative reviews

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Made during the second half of his British period Alfred Hitchcock's Secret Agent is a spy thriller about a reluctant hero (John Gielgud) during the First World War who botches a hit. Following two of Hitch's more polished works ( The Man who Knew too Much, The 39 Steps) it fails to live up to their pedigree but does contain more than its fair share of gripping moments.Richard Brodie (Gielgud) Elsa Carrington ( Madeline Carrol) and The General (Peter Lorre) have been assigned by British intelligence to waste a threat in Switzerland. It turns out to be the wrong man however leaving Brodie and Elsa drained, the General far from it. Brodie, now romantically involved with Elsa wants out but accedes to accompany the General on one more assignment.In the lead Gielgud is somewhat detached and passionless most of the way while Carrol offers some sparks leaving it up to the dark humored, callous Lorre character and the dubious all American Young to keep things interesting while Hitchcock injects some of his suspenseful editorial mastery in a factory, on a train and in particular during an assassination in the mountains. Not a classic but a good one.

I found the film is a bit uneven but worth watching for at least four reasons. One of them is the performance of Madeleine Carroll who is perhaps the best of all the Hitchcock blondes. She was stunningly beautiful and a supremely talented actress. Her performance stands the test of time and of changing screen acting techniques. Carroll as Elsa is called upon to run a great range of emotions and never misses a beat. Her face is surely one of the most beautifully expressive faces in screen history.Peter Lorre is always worth watching. He is at once comical and cunning. He can be obsequious and yet ready to take the offensive the moment the opportunity arises.The third thing that strikes me in this film is how uninteresting John Gielgud was as a younger man. His face was rather non-descript and he had not developed the distinctively deep, resonant tone that was Gielgud's trademark. I know that he is playing the part of a relatively young man and not an old, wise professor but his lack of diction makes some of his lines completely lacking in emotion and is sometimes difficult to understand. Age certainly improved Gielgud as a screen presence.Robert Young's scenes with Madeleine Carroll are the highlight of the film. Witty, sophisticated dialogue and great charm. Both know what the other is thinking as they playfully counter each others moves.

It is hard to assign this inter-war Hitchcock thriller to any one genre... it is clearly a spy thriller but there are also romantic elements and a good number of comic moments.John Gielgud plays writer Edgar Brodie who returns from service in France in 1916 to learn that he has died while on leave! This is all part of establishing his new cover as Richard Ashenden; he is to go to neutral Switzerland with a man known as 'The General' to identify and eliminate a German agent before he can get to Constantinople. When Ashenden gets to Switzerland he is surprised to hear that his 'wife' Elsa has got there ahead of him; when he goes up to his room he finds a beautiful blonde wearing nothing but a towel and an American by the name of Robert Martin. It turns out that his boss, known as 'R', had sent her to improve his cover; he isn't impressed at first though as he sees her as a thrill seeker who doesn't really know how deadly their mission might be. They both learn when Ashenden and The General find their contact dead; the only clue to the killer is a button the dead man is clenching. That night at the casino Ashenden accidentally drops the button onto the roulette table. There is a bit of a laugh when it lands on the winning number then another player says he things it must be his... he is an Englishman married to a German woman; as he is undoubtedly the spy Ashenden and The General work up a plan to dispatch him. When the job is done Elsa no longer feels what they are doing is exciting and glamorous; it is grubby work... and it seems even grubbier when they learn that they got the wrong man! I lead puts them in the right direction but by then their target is on the move; heading to Constantinople which is in enemy territory.This Hitchcock film may be over seventy five years old but it doesn't feel particularly dated because it has a decent plot that has a few nice twists without being so convoluted it is hard to follow. The cast did a good job with a young John Gielgud putting in a sold performance as Ashenden; Madeleine Carroll was delightful as his 'wife' Elsa... I certainly won't forget her introductory scene and Peter Lorre was particularly entertaining as this lecherous, slightly creepy 'foreign gentleman'; The General. As one would expect from Hitchcock it was shot in a way that captured the tension of the situation... if you are a fan of Hitchcock's other works or just want to see a thriller that doesn't involve any offensive material then this is well worth watching.

Alfred Hitchcock is easily considered one of the finest directors ever to have lived: making films like The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes, Notorious, Vertigo, North by Northwest and Psycho. But some of his early British films were more hit and miss. Secret Agent was more of a miss.Set in 1916 in the middle First World War. A famous writer/army officer fakes his own death and becomes a spy for the British, Richard Ashenden (John Gielgud). Ashenden is assigned to go to Switzerland to stop a enemy spy who is preventing a British advance in the Middle Easy. His partners are The General/The Hairless Mexican (Peter Lorre) and Elsa Carrington (Madeleine Carroll), his fake wife on the mission. The team have little information about the spy they are hunting, even killing an innocent man, but need to use their investigative skills to stop him.They are some positives in this film, mainly in the direction. Hitchcock has some wonderful shots, showing his skill, like when the camera tracks from looking out of a window then through a telescope. They is a good action sequence at the end of the film, and because of the time, it forced Hitchcock to use long fix shots, making conversation shots longer, and actually better: more like a play. There is also a decent cast in the film, and they is no fault from the actor.The problem with the film is the storyline. They should have had a more of a complex plot, with a lot more investigation throughout the film. Some things seem to happen too easily and just fall into place. It doesn't have the thrills or the tension that is normally in a Hitchcock film. As a spy thriller is mediocre. The character of the General was also a nasty stereotype and was almost played for laughs. It was tough to watch and whilst Peter Lorre tried his best he could only give an over-the-top performance. If this film was made now that character would have been a lot more serious and darker.Overall, Hitchcock does show his talent, but this is not his best film.