The Secret Agent
The Secret Agent
R | 08 November 1996 (USA)
The Secret Agent Trailers

In 1880s London, pornographic bookseller Verloc is a double agent for the Russian government, providing information to Chief Inspector Heat about a lazy anarchist organization. In order for the anarchists to be arrested, an act of terrorism must occur. So Verloc decides to set up bombs – which leads to tragedy – not only for himself but also for his family, including wife Winnie and brother-in-law, Stevie.

Reviews
Tockinit

not horrible nor great

... View More
Skunkyrate

Gripping story with well-crafted characters

... View More
FuzzyTagz

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

... View More
Gurlyndrobb

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

... View More
Weredegu

Whoever cares about international terrorism? It's just a boring subject, let's face it. Any objections? Well, I can understand if there are some. This film, however, might unexpectedly make you accept the truth of the above provocative statements. At least until the next time you zap to a TV news channel that is.It's hard not to see awesome potential in doing an adaptation of Joseph Conrad's 'The Secret Agent'. And it's hard to believe such a boring and inconsequential mess could be created following up on that very idea. Incredible, just think of the following issues explored in the movie: a web of anarchist militants finding political refuge in 1880s London, an agent provocateur run by the Russian embassy, a would-be suicide bomber, human drama complicating plots and counter-plots and so on. If I managed to excite you a little by mentioning these themes, so sorry, the film will still be boring.To say something positive, at least it's not altogether unwatchable and, totally unexpectedly for me, the scenes between two actors from whom I would have normally anticipated the least were actually some of the best moments of the film, the scenes between Robin Williams and Gérard Depardieu, both playing anarchists with a rather mysterious (anarchic?) mindset. Oh, and it's quite likely I'll read the book after all, for what I have seen at least was enough to convince me that it might be a good idea.

... View More
michael-826

This movie has everything that ought to make it worth watching. A large selection of well known actors and an interesting story that takes place in London 1880. Nowadays, it even has references to present history of terrorism and the power struggle between nations.But alas. It fails on nearly every account possible. You don't feel engaged in the lives of the people in the movie. The music is lousy and there isn't really any suspense. The whole thing looks like a movie project from first grade at some school for movie directors.I bet that Gerard Depardieu, Robin Williams, Patricia Arquette and Jim Broadbent are looking back at this lousy movie as the absolute low point in their careers.If you are really enthusiastic about investigating the border between good storytelling and extremely bad taste, this is it.

... View More
Roosterbooster

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.

... View More
m_white

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.

... View More