"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 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.

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 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.