Slaptasis agentas (1996) Online

London in the late 19th Century is a haven for all manner of political exiles. Verloc is an anarchist who has spent years in the employment of the Russian Government as a spy while also providing information to the London police. When Vladimir, the new Russian ambassador demands that Verloc start to prove his worth by bombing selected targets. Without a choice but to act, Verloc starts in motion a chain of events that will end with a bombing but hurt himself and his family in the process as it is only a matter of time before the police can find him – unless his "colleagues" can silence him first.

Although the plot is fairly enjoyable, it is the delivery of the film that somehow stops it being anything more than interesting. The simple tale shuns the political detail that could have come and centres on the emotional drama around Verloc and his family, but it doesn't totally succeed in doing this to the point where it is enough to make the film work. The construction is good enough; Verloc's position is quite tense and the consequences had the potential to be quite impacting but it somehow never becomes as interesting as the material suggests it would. Part of this is the delivery, that is a bit uneven and unsure of itself but the most obvious weakness is the acting.

Hoskins does as well as he can, but spread over the uneven material he comes over as a bit unsure of what he is meant to be doing. Regardless though, he is a big part of me sticking with the film as his character is effective. Of course, sharing his scenes with Arquette can only serve to make Hoskins look like a master of his trade in the same way that Arquette's make her look like some talentless waitress who was sleeping with the director (not that she was of course). Her accent is terrible of course, but this is only one failing in a performance that is wooden, emotionless and totally unconvincing. Support from Depardieu, Broadbent, Izzard, Bale and others adds colour and the impression of depth but none of them really work that well – Broadbent and Izzard in particular seem to add a slight comic touch that doesn't really fit. Williams has a small role but it is effective and memorable – just a shame that he seems to almost be in an entirely different film from the main narrative.

Overall this is an OK film that is interesting enough to be worth seeing but it is hard to shake the feeling that nobody was totally sure what to do with it and the end result shows an uneven hand on the tiller. Hoskins helps it but Arquette is pitiful and the famous support cannot make up for her being so bad in so central a role.

A very good film, if not quite a masterpiece....

This film aims very high, with every intention of obtaining stratospheric heights, but time restraints do not allow this film to fulfill it's full potential, and I think that the obvious effort put into the film by all involved, can produce a slight sense of disappointment in those who appreciate the film, and only increases the alienation of those who are not attuned to the themes of the film.

Essentially, I think that the film's greatest flaw is that it is excessively abbreviated, and most characters are not able to be fully developed. This is partly the fault of Joseph Conrad, who wrote complicated and intricately plotted books, but the slow pace which adds greatly (and appropriately) to the atmosphere of the film, also prevents the insertion of additional scenes to develop the characters. This film could have been expanded into a masterpiece, but it would have been very long. To appreciate the film, one must grasp the nature of a large number of characters, and often there are only abbreviated cues to show the way. Thus a story about betrayals small and great, becomes a film of great betrayals.

It appears that opinions are very polarized on the acting in this film, but I found most of the performances engaging, with the strong exception of Robin Williams, who seems to be mainly engaged in an attempt to break out of his comedy roles with the aid of a phony scowl. I should note that others disagree with my opinion of Robin Williams in this case however.

I found the soundtrack (by Philip Glass) to be outstanding, with a traditional flavor as is appropriate to the film, but quite original.

Joseph Conrad was a visionary. He realized that the society in which we live is imperfect and hypocritical. Over one hundred years ago he realized, as did Herman Melville and other great thinkers, that women do not enjoy an equal stature with men in society. So he chose to write a great novel that deals with this issue both subtly and forcefully. The Secret Agent is not what it may seem to some to be upon first reading or viewing -- i.e., a spy thriller. On the contrary, it is an in-depth analysis and portrayal of the relative powerlessness of most women in society. It does not preach. It does not advocate. Conrad leaves it up to the reader (or viewer in the case of the excellent movie version) to draw whatever conclusions are pertinent for that person. Thus it is art, because it creates an enduring impression that seems to come from the reader's or viewer's own mind.

The movie version is superbly acted by a cast of master actors who quite clearly are very pleased to be participating with each other in creating this masterpiece movie. One gets the impression that each of the "lucky" actors has great respect for the book and its author and its messages, much as many Shakespearean players do when they "give their all" for the play.

The result is a realistic heart-wrenching tragedy. This may explain why it is not favored among common moviegoers that want and expect a Hollywood happy ending. Instead they get the real world, superbly depicted.

If you want fun, don't view this film. If you want to be challenged intellectually and ethically, then by all means watch it several times. And then tell your serious-minded friends and acquaintances about the existence of this movie. They will thank you!

Professor JimBob

I'm constantly amazed how well Conrad is adapted by modern film makers. The political intrigue can be mostly ignored, as it is slight and not very interesting. What this movie does well is depict human emotions and reactions in difficult situations, and here is where the well picked cast delivers. Robin Williams is unbilled, but provides a fascinating character study of a true anarchist which contrasts nicely against Bob Hoskins' unwilling agent role. I was beginning to grow tired in the middle of the film, thinking the shallow political action was the ending, but the later intense focus on the human reactions and struggles following the incident do a wonderful job of drawing you back in.

This is a very dark and mysterious piece of work that captures the sooty mood and gritty feel of Victorian London. Even the extras seem plucked, unbathed, right out of Limehouse and Whitechapel. An unshaven mad bomber is an odd role for Robin Williams. As always, he does it well but unfortunately Williams is Williams and all I could think of was Patch Adams. Bob Hoskins may be best portrayer of losers in all filmdom. Certainly his character here, Verloc, is a confused and pitiable loser. The plot is dark and even a little pointless. The sombre cinematography with its muted colours, deep shadows and European texture emphasizes the grim story of shattered lives . At times there is some needless "creative" camera work. Nevertheless this very unconventional film makes for a satisfying if, at times, puzzling couple of hours

You have to take into consideration that the book with which this was based was first published in 1907 and written by Joseph Conrad, author of "The Heart of Darkness". Conrad is not the kind of writer to spoon-feed "good" and "bad" characters. Simultaneously, the late 19th and early 20th century was not exactly an era teeming with spy thrillers. The closest comparable tales were those by Arthur Conan Doyle and his character Sherlock Holmes. (High-adventure books, such as Allan Quatermain, were all the rage.) And yet, this is a very literary take on the suspense-thriller genre that strangely transcends its era--almost eerily. But instead of the west vs east situation that became the perfect backdrop for spy thrillers of the late 20th century, this story centers around the very beginnings of socialist and anarchist groups that would eventually rise up and seize Russia and later China.

The film captures well the dark atmosphere of late 19th-century London on the east-side. Bob Hoskins in one of his finest performances is Mr Verloc, a plain person, who owns a plain shop inside a plain house in London of the 1880's. His one asset is that he has a beautiful wife, Winnie, played brilliantly by Patricia Arquette. And she takes care of a handsome brother who is feeble-minded enough to be on the verge of retardation, played by Christian Bale in one of his earliest films. (Of course, people didn't yet understand retardation at this time, and he is labeled a "degenerate".) They seem a happy family. But Verloc has some dark secrets. At first, we learn he hosts anarchist discussion groups at his home. But then we learn Verloc does much more than simply provide tea and cookies to would-be criminals and traitors to the government. He has a secret life in which continental agents hire him to make political statements through violent means. And Robin Williams (billed as Jeorge Spilvyn!) is the anarchist's anarchist who becomes the pivotal character.

Although it takes a few scenes to get moving, the story concerns one of Verloc's missions gone awry that has dire consequences to himself and his family. The form of the film is brilliant and is done in such a way as not to confuse the audience. We learn pieces of back-story in flashback, and it is not until movie's end that the entire picture emerges. Chief Constable, played by Jim Broadbent of "Topsy Turvy" fame, has put everything together, almost. And yet, the story keeps coming back to Robin Williams, the nameless "professor" who is the one crucial element.

Despite some of the negative press here, I think this is a brilliant film, subtle yet quite compelling from beginning to end. The performances are all top-notch, absolutely first-rate, from Hoskins to Gerard Depardieu as a self-centered lowlife often found at the tavern drinking with the "professor". Certainly, if you're looking for the usual 007 spy fair, you may have to look elsewhere. But if you're in the mood for something different and cerebral, take a chance on "The Secret Agent".

I would have chosen "Never more timely" for a title had the woman in NYC not taken it first. Robin Williams' fanatic could be any number of "players in this morning's "eve of war" headlines: The "End Times" druids who currently have the ear of America's Chosen-By-God president comes to mind. Or Osama bin Laden's Shi'ite zealots.

Conrad's literary genius is his ability to portray horror with the narrator's understatement and ambivalence. Bob Hoskins' film accomplishes this horrific understatement. Phillip Glass' (ordinarily no personal musical favorite) score gives the entire creepiness a magnificent auditory bas-relief. I wish I had voted it a "10" instead of merely "9." Superb.

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.

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.

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

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.

"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.

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.

I really enjoyed this movie. There is a lot to see in this movie. Very smart and brilliantly written. They chose great actors for this movie and they portrayed their roles quiet well. Stunning and great ending nothing could have been better. It was nice to see a dark side of Robin Williams especially acted the way he did. Nice set work and background. Very believable. I would rank it up there with Les Miserables, Quills, and The Tailor of Panama. If you haven't seen them watch 'em. It makes you actually feel for the bad guys and see the path of good shaded and darken. This movie does not end happily and that is a good reason why I love it. Ignore all the bad reviews because those are from the kind of person who can't understand artistic ability or Indy films.

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.

Anyone looking for some exciting tale along the lines of the Bourne trilogy in a film named The Secret Agent is going to be disappointed.

What you have here is a dark and deep intellectual exercise in the actions of spies, anarchists, agent provocateurs, and the like in 19th Century England.

While Bob Hoskins (Unleashed, Who Framed Roger Rabbit) leads the cast, it is truly an ensemble film.

Hoskins is a man playing all sides. He is an anarchist, but in the employ of the Russians, and under the thumb of a local police inspector (Jim Broadbent). His wife (Patricia Arquette) only married him to gain protection for disabled brother (Christian Bale). When the Russian boss (Eddie Izzard) puts the pressure on, he has to act and he manages to kill the brother. Everything falls apart at that point, and it is where the film really gets interesting. So, if you bail before that, you miss it all.

One of the most interesting things in the film was his actions after his wife found out that her brother was killed. She is leaving, and he orders her to stay. He is stuffing his face while "consoling" her and sits on the couch. He then tells her, "I know what you need. Come over here." I hope this is not a reflection of the attitude of men towards women in this period, but I am afraid that it probably is. Anyway, it was what she needed, but not in the way he imagined.

Things do not end well in this film. There is a good performance by Gérard Depardieu (Cyrano de Bergerac, The Man in the Iron Mask) towards the end, and a great performance by Robin Williams throughout.

They must really like Conrad's story, as it has been done on TV a couple of times before this film. It is worth your time.

Near the end of Christopher Hampton's spot-on adaptation of Joseph Conrad's 1907 novel The Secret Agent: A Simple Tale, the tone of the film abruptly changes. For most of the film, Hampton's vision of late 19th London is suffocating. The camera moves from one confined space to another - the studio and shop of the eponymous hero and his wife, pubs, a government official's small office. Even the street scenes induce a bit of claustrophobia. There is a Dickens-like bleakness. It feels as if it could have, and perhaps should have, been filmed in black-and-white. The sudden change takes you by surprise, At first, it seems as if the film had taken a leap in time -- and all that careful staging of Conrad's London was for naught. But soon comes the realization that some of the greatest moments in film are both powerful and subtle. The pastel colors of a sunrise are tragically ironic. All that lifelessness that came before now means so much more in the context of the one character in the novel and movie who seems know about the value of life. Conrad's novel was not well received when it was first read -- and probably misunderstood. The aesthetics of Conrad's prose has few rivals in all of literature, but some may find hid storytelling to be dense at times. This 1996 film version also had its detractors-- but don't be misled. This is a film that has a lot of substance, and Conrad's prose seems to flow effortlessly at times from page to screen. Like the novel, the film has much resonance today. But if you're looking for a 21st century hyperbolic action film, this may not be the one for you. One final note: Robin Williams is not credited for his role, even though he has as important, at least, a role as Gerard Depardieu. If you doubt his ability as a serious actor, this small role may upset that particular conviction.

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 saw it with several buddies and maybe we missed some vital detail, but we have it on our list of Worst Movies Ever, as number 1. It was very disappointing because we thought it would be a good movie, as it had a good cast. The only thing we actually liked about the movie was the credits. The ending was specially pathetic. I hope never to see it again.

"I have no future, but I am a force," says the Robin Williams character, minutes before he completes his mission. A chilling glimpse into the mind of the fanatic. Superb performances by almost everyone (Eddie Izzard does the most unconvincing accent since the last time John Malkovich played an Englishman), a great score by Philip Glass, and the last five minutes will freeze your blood. (Two Academy Award winners here, and neither of them is Bob Hoskins -- what is wrong with those people in Hollywood?)

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.

I stumbled upon "The Secret Agent" amongst the cheap DVDs at a mall and this should have been a sign of warning. But you never know where you can dig up a hidden gem and with this impressive cast this film certainly looked a safe bet.

Well, as it turns out acting is the only facet of the movie that doesn't disappoint. I especially liked Jim Broadbent's Chief Inspector Heat but the real surprise is Robin Williams, who turns in a convincing performance in one of his few darker roles. His scenes with Depardieu at a bar are the rare highlights of the movie.

Acting aside, there isn't really anything worthwhile that the movie could come up with. The story wasn't engaging enough to hold my attention I kept pushing the display button on the remote to see how much longer I need to endure. Also, since the movie is set in nineteenth century London I was constantly thinking about how they could find the locations or build sets to make the film believable, which is a clear sign that the filmmakers were not up to the task in that respect, since had the illusion been alright I wouldn't have been thinking about that in the first place.

Overall, a below average affair with a strong cast which the film itself couldn't live up to.

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.

The Secret Agent was pretty good, but not as good as I had expected, especially since it starred Bob Hoskins. I am a big fan of Bob Hoskins, but here his performance was below average. In fact, the entire cast performed badly, except for Robin Williams. Williams has a minor role but he makes the best of it and steals every one of his scenes. Overall I give a couple of points for an interesting storyline and a few more for Robin Williams. 5/10

I enjoyed the different characters and the actors who portrayed them. I really thought Christian Bale was great, as well as Eddie Izzard, Patricia Arquette, and Bob Hoskins. This movie was interesting, though I was a bit confused about some of the politics.