This might be the only one of the Annis and Warwick versions to show them kissing. British reserve and all that. :) I very much enjoy watching these wonderful period pieces. This has some dramatic "I don't know which character to trust" moments but I think it had too many similar escape scenes. For baddies, they were very loath to kill people. :) What this story needed was fewer instances of holding people captive or more expendable characters. :)Agatha Christie apparently believed the conspiracy theory that was swirling about in those days that a general strike couldn't be an industrial action but instead had to be a sign of the end of the world as they knew it. There was one in 1926 in solidarity with the miners over their wages being reduced and hours lengthened, and no anarchy, no revolution ensued. In fact, the result was so poor for the miners that the unions decided political action was the way to go in the future rather than general strikes. Brits were as terrified by the demise of Cousin Nicky and his family in 1917 as they had been during the French Revolution with the loss of the French royals. Brits of a certain class were afraid of foreigners, afraid of the great unwashed masses, afraid of traitors within their own ranks. The economy was still struggling in the Twenties, many people felt the Great War had been horribly botched, and the Liberal party ended its disastrous run in Oct. 1922 around the time Christie's book came out and the year the USSR was formed, never to return to power up to the present day. It didn't take a seer to know that starvation wages and the threat of even worse would bring on a strike. You can only push people so far. Eight years after the war when they had sacrificed so much, they expected better. Well, that's understandable. The problem with Christie's timetable is that her book was much more 1922 than 1918. Right after the war people in Britain didn't have the heart for a mass uprising, let alone another war. They wanted some peace and quiet, and time to heal. People just wanted their lives back, damaged though they were. They were still okay with sacrifice and restrictions and the difficulty with finding a job, because that was to be expected. The story simply didn't fit the way people were thinking. And what was that draft treaty? Did Christie even have something in mind? It's fun to think what could possibly have been so very embarrassing that it would cause the masses to rise from their beds of pain in 1918 and carry out a coup, but honestly, Christie, that's lazy writing. So...if the US comes in on the side of Britain in its darkest hour against Germany, the US gets...the first born son of every Brit? Canada? The Prince of Wales as the president's chauffeur? What is sufficiently embarrassing to cause the demise of the nation and WWII? I'm not an expert on British politics but wouldn't the party in trouble just face a no confidence vote and/or an election? So I am taking away two points for the over-abundance of rescues and the premise behind the plot. But I still like Tommy and Tuppence. :)

Having just read the book, I went looking to see if a film had been made and found this. I felt the filmmakers did a very fine job in two hours and stayed very true to the original story. The actors playing Tuppence and Tommy were a little too old for their characters but looked youthful enough to pull it off.Other reviewers complain about Gavan O'Herlihy playing the American, Hersheimer, however I felt he was believable in the role and didn't distract at all from the story. The scenery, props, clothing, autos and music are authentic to the story's time frame of around 1920 and so even though it was made in 1983, it doesn't feel like an "80's" production and for Christie fans, is definitely worth seeing.

I'd see anything adapted from Agatha Christie, as I love her books and writing style. On films and TV, there have been some real gems, like with the Russian and 1945 versions of And Then There Were None, Witness for the Prosecution, Sidney Lumet's Murder on the Orient Express, the Peter Ustinov films of Death on the Nile and Evil Under the Sun and most of the Joan Hickson Miss Marple and David Suchet Poirot adaptations. Not all adaptations of her work has been great mind, seen with Austin Trevor's Lord Edgware Dies, The Alphabet Murders, the 1989 version of Ten Little Indians and Alfred Molina's Murder on the Orient Express, the worst of the Geraldine McEwan Marple adaptations were similarly hard to sit through.Fortunately, The Secret Adversary does work as an adaptation and on its own. It's not a gem, but in no way is it a disgrace. It does drag at times in the middle and Gavan O'Herlihy's acting does come across as awkward. If you love Tommy and Tuppence and the TV series Partners in Crime, you'll like The Secret Adversary. If you don't, you may want to look elsewhere. Tommy and Tuppence may not be as interesting or as distinctive as Miss Marple and Poirot, but the stories they feature in still have Agatha Christie's unmistakable style and they are compelling enough. Partners in Crime is a very fun and light-hearted series that will cheer anybody up, a feeling that you do get also in The Secret Adversary.Again, fortunately what is good about The Secret Adversary more than makes up for any reservations. It looks good certainly, the somewhat soft-grained image does have an 80s look, but even they don't take away from the sumptuous period detail and the simple but effective way it is shot. The scenery and cars are very evocative to period, while I can't help admiring the fashions. The music has a certain jauntiness to it that doesn't jar with the atmosphere, while the writing is droll and thoughtful. The story is engrossing and keeps us guessing until the very end, which was a big surprise. True the pace does lull and there is a lot going on that it can come across as rather complicated sometimes. A couple of re-watches might help though.The acting is fine, there is a lot of talent here and they give their all to characters(of which there is many, any complaints though of being too many is valid and understandable) that do engage and don't kill the story. James Warwick and Francesca Annis are great in the lead roles and work beautifully together, while Reece Dinsdale is a lively presence as Albert and George Baker, Honor Blackman and Alex McCowen make memorable impressions as well. In conclusion, enjoyable, well worth seeing. 8/10 Bethany Cox

The Secret Adversary serves as the beginning of the BBC series "Agatha Christie's Partners in Crime". A full-length film, I've seen it claimed that it was filmed after the ten episodes of the series, and IMDb lists the series as preceding this film, yet it's the story of how "Partners in Crime" protagonists Tommy and Tuppence meet up as adults and start their sleuthing career, and according to IMDb, at least, it aired a year or so before the series on BBC.It's a decent but flawed film that will probably be enjoyed most by hardcore Christie fans. One main flaw is that the story is too complicated for its own good--probably the result of trying to translate a novel to a two-hour film. There are just too many characters, too many threads, and occasionally, too little explanation of characters and threads.One major problem here is the core of the plot--maybe I'm just lacking some knowledge from the real world that I need to understand it, but the plot hinges on a political document that if found, is predicted (with little lack of certainty) to bring about a complete revolution/overthrow of England. It is never explained why this would be or how anyone could be so certain of it, and I sure couldn't deduce or intuit it from the information given. I was also confused about the implied ethics of the situation--the document seemed to be authentic, yet the "good guys" seemed to want to get it so that they could keep it a secret, so effectively, it is sanctioning the "good guys" lying about some piece of history. Maybe the document was supposed to be more like a Hitchcockian MacGuffin, but if so, it seemed like too many details were given (as well as left out).On the other hand, it didn't help that I'm a bit hard of hearing, that I have an even more difficult time making out English spoken with accents different than mine, and that this DVD didn't have subtitles. But I could pick up most of the dialogue, and I was still occasionally confused about who someone was and why our chief characters were going where they were going and doing what they were doing. Some cuts and scene transitions were very rough dramatically, so that didn't help, either, and the pacing gets a bit draggy at times.The other primary flaw comes with some of the performances, especially Gavan O'Herlihy, playing an American, Julius P. Hersheimmer. He is fairly awkward throughout, and he's an important character. It kills too many scenes. The stars, James Warwick and Francesca Annis, as Tommy and Tuppence, respectively, are much better--enough that I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of the series, which I'm also predicting might not be so overcomplicated and underexplained because of being written for a shorter television slot.