Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

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".

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.

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 would have chosen "Never more timely" for a title had the woman in NYC not taken it first. Robin Williams' fanatic could be any number of "players in this morning's "eve of war" headlines: The "End Times" druids who currently have the ear of America's Chosen-By-God president comes to mind. Or Osama bin Laden's Shi'ite zealots.Conrad's literary genius is his ability to portray horror with the narrator's understatement and ambivalence. Bob Hoskins' film accomplishes this horrific understatement. Phillip Glass' (ordinarily no personal musical favorite) score gives the entire creepiness a magnificent auditory bas-relief. I wish I had voted it a "10" instead of merely "9." Superb.