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".

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.

"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.

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.