The Secret Adversary (1983)

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

The acting in this movie is really good.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

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. :)

The Secret Adversary was Agatha Christie's novel which launched her Nick and Nora Charles characters of Tommy and Tuppence. This story shows how they met and the first case they got involved in.It was back on the Lusitania in 1915 when both were passengers. Some other passengers on that ill-fated ship were involved in a lot of intrigue relating to the late World War. That's over now, but Toria Fuller during the chaos of those passengers abandoning the torpedoed ocean liner grabbed herself a piece of a secret treaty and has had it for lo these many years.Now some Bolsheviks want it to stir up some revolution in the United Kingdom. There's a cell of them operating under the lead of the illusive Mr. Brown. British Intelligence knows about Brown, but no one knows who he is.James Warwick and Francesca Annis as Tommy And Tuppence renew their acquaintance from the Lusitania and get themselves involved in the case as a pair of amateurs. They're needed because the Bolsheviks seem to know all the professionals. They prove to have a knack for solving mysteries.A lot of this might seem melodramatic today, but Agatha Christie was a good observer of the times this was written in. The Russian Revolution had occurred and a lot of governments were pretty uneasy in their seats of power. Christie alludes to a General Strike and she turned out to be a prophet because one did happen in the UK in 1926 a few years after The Secret Adversary came out. It was real enough to the population in the United Kingdom back then.The Secret Adversary is a good introduction to Tommy And Tuppence and proved to a pilot for a BBC series of their mysteries. Recommended for those who think Ms. Christie wrote about Hercule Poirot and Jane Marple exclusively.

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.

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.