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.

"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?)

London in the late 19th Century is a haven for all manner of political exiles. Verloc is an anarchist who has spent years in the employment of the Russian Government as a spy while also providing information to the London police. When Vladimir, the new Russian ambassador demands that Verloc start to prove his worth by bombing selected targets. Without a choice but to act, Verloc starts in motion a chain of events that will end with a bombing but hurt himself and his family in the process as it is only a matter of time before the police can find him – unless his "colleagues" can silence him first.

Although the plot is fairly enjoyable, it is the delivery of the film that somehow stops it being anything more than interesting. The simple tale shuns the political detail that could have come and centres on the emotional drama around Verloc and his family, but it doesn't totally succeed in doing this to the point where it is enough to make the film work. The construction is good enough; Verloc's position is quite tense and the consequences had the potential to be quite impacting but it somehow never becomes as interesting as the material suggests it would. Part of this is the delivery, that is a bit uneven and unsure of itself but the most obvious weakness is the acting.

Hoskins does as well as he can, but spread over the uneven material he comes over as a bit unsure of what he is meant to be doing. Regardless though, he is a big part of me sticking with the film as his character is effective. Of course, sharing his scenes with Arquette can only serve to make Hoskins look like a master of his trade in the same way that Arquette's make her look like some talentless waitress who was sleeping with the director (not that she was of course). Her accent is terrible of course, but this is only one failing in a performance that is wooden, emotionless and totally unconvincing. Support from Depardieu, Broadbent, Izzard, Bale and others adds colour and the impression of depth but none of them really work that well – Broadbent and Izzard in particular seem to add a slight comic touch that doesn't really fit. Williams has a small role but it is effective and memorable – just a shame that he seems to almost be in an entirely different film from the main narrative.

Overall this is an OK film that is interesting enough to be worth seeing but it is hard to shake the feeling that nobody was totally sure what to do with it and the end result shows an uneven hand on the tiller. Hoskins helps it but Arquette is pitiful and the famous support cannot make up for her being so bad in so central a role.

I'm constantly amazed how well Conrad is adapted by modern film makers. The political intrigue can be mostly ignored, as it is slight and not very interesting. What this movie does well is depict human emotions and reactions in difficult situations, and here is where the well picked cast delivers. Robin Williams is unbilled, but provides a fascinating character study of a true anarchist which contrasts nicely against Bob Hoskins' unwilling agent role. I was beginning to grow tired in the middle of the film, thinking the shallow political action was the ending, but the later intense focus on the human reactions and struggles following the incident do a wonderful job of drawing you back in.

The Secret Agent was pretty good, but not as good as I had expected, especially since it starred Bob Hoskins. I am a big fan of Bob Hoskins, but here his performance was below average. In fact, the entire cast performed badly, except for Robin Williams. Williams has a minor role but he makes the best of it and steals every one of his scenes. Overall I give a couple of points for an interesting storyline and a few more for Robin Williams. 5/10