The Secret Agent (1996)

Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

The Age of Commercialism

Let's be realistic.

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's 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.

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.

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 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?)