Secret Agent (1936)

What makes it different from others?

The Worst Film Ever

just watch it!

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

This was Hitchcock's third espionage thriller in a row (after THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH and THE 39 STEPS), clearly having found his niche in his UK sound film career. This shares a good deal with its predecessor. Both involve espionage and budding romance. In this the identity of the sought after spy is cleverly hidden until the end of the film, but as with THE 39 STEPS, the McGuffin has been in front of our noses since the beginning of the film.Madeleine Carroll appears a second time as the female lead, as she did in 39, and again proves herself a very good actress, both dramatically and romantically. Gielgud is a surprise, playing a contemporary role without a bit of his later assumed effeteness or accented theatrical voice. Robert Young is an anomaly – what is an American actor doing in a UK film??? As usual it is Peter Lorre who steals the film, as he did with THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, this time giving an entirely different supporting performance as an emotionally wild Hispanic hit man. The release year was the first for the Supporting Actor category at the Oscars and he was undeservedly overlooked – a nomination was certainly in order.The film is set in 1916, during WWI, though there is no attempt to use period clothing. There are many memorable moments: the drone of the organ throughout the scene where the first body is discovered slumped over the instrument; the false clue of the button's owner at the roulette table; the chase through the train at the end, mirroring a similar scene in 39. The great suspense center piece of the film involves cross-cutting between the assassination scene and a domestic tea party, with the anxiety of the event going on outside superbly registered in both Carroll's facial movements and the behavior of the intended victim's agitated pet.It ends rather abruptly and not too satisfactorily, as if Hitch had run out of ideas. There is one goof when Young refers to Carroll's Adam's Apple. Women don't possess this feature, which belong entirely to the male anatomy.All in all, this is stylish, elegant, a mix of humor and intense drama, that is wonderfully entertaining. My print ran 1:25:53. Highly recommended.

"Secret Agent" tells the story of a two secret agents who pose as a couple as they attempt to capture and kill a German agent, "Secret Agent" was possibly an original Hitchcock story and one of the earlier spy films. However, an interesting premise, two great lead performances by Carrol and Gielgud is botched by poor storytelling, an overlong duration and the highly irritating character that Peter Lorre portrays. Lacking suspense and all the elements that make Hitchcock a master director and my all time favourite director, the only redeeming qualities found in this bloated Hitchcock picture are the attempted story its telling, an interesting romance story developing between the two leads and the two lead characters themselves. "Secret Agent" is the biggest step down from "The 39 Steps" that Hitchcock could seek. If his intentions were to make a film that is in every right, worse than its predecessor, he has succeeded otherwise its simply not something he'd want to remember.

I am very keen to see as many, if not all, of the films from the great director Sir Alfred Hitchcock as possible, even those that might not be as big or suspenseful as the obvious ones. Basically it is the First World War, where novelist-turned-soldier Edgar Brodie (a younger Sir John Gielgud) is recruited by the British intelligence to find a mysterious German spy and eliminate him. With his new identity, Richard Ashenden, given to him by his "handler" 'R' (Charles Carson), Brodie is teamed with fellow spies Elsa Carrington (Madeleine Carroll) and an assassin called The General (Peter Lorre). Elsa is posing as Brodie's beautiful blonde wife, and The General has no morals but a cheery nature, and all three already have a target that they suspect is the spy. This turns out to be the wrong man, so they have killed an innocent old man, so Edgar and Elsa question the morality, especially as The General finds the mistake amusing. In the end, Elsa finds out the true spy, (it wasn't obvious to her, but it was to me) it is Robert Marvin (Robert Young), and there is a final encounter on a train that eventually crashes. Also starring Percy Marmont as Caypor, Florence Kahn as Mrs. Caypor and Lilli Palmer as Lilli. It was a bit hard to follow any story, and the suspense was a little vague for Hitchcock's regular standard, but there were some catchy moments, and Lorre was really good as the charming killer, so it's an alright spy thriller. Good!

Alfred Hitchcock is easily considered one of the finest directors ever to have lived: making films like The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes, Notorious, Vertigo, North by Northwest and Psycho. But some of his early British films were more hit and miss. Secret Agent was more of a miss.Set in 1916 in the middle First World War. A famous writer/army officer fakes his own death and becomes a spy for the British, Richard Ashenden (John Gielgud). Ashenden is assigned to go to Switzerland to stop a enemy spy who is preventing a British advance in the Middle Easy. His partners are The General/The Hairless Mexican (Peter Lorre) and Elsa Carrington (Madeleine Carroll), his fake wife on the mission. The team have little information about the spy they are hunting, even killing an innocent man, but need to use their investigative skills to stop him.They are some positives in this film, mainly in the direction. Hitchcock has some wonderful shots, showing his skill, like when the camera tracks from looking out of a window then through a telescope. They is a good action sequence at the end of the film, and because of the time, it forced Hitchcock to use long fix shots, making conversation shots longer, and actually better: more like a play. There is also a decent cast in the film, and they is no fault from the actor.The problem with the film is the storyline. They should have had a more of a complex plot, with a lot more investigation throughout the film. Some things seem to happen too easily and just fall into place. It doesn't have the thrills or the tension that is normally in a Hitchcock film. As a spy thriller is mediocre. The character of the General was also a nasty stereotype and was almost played for laughs. It was tough to watch and whilst Peter Lorre tried his best he could only give an over-the-top performance. If this film was made now that character would have been a lot more serious and darker.Overall, Hitchcock does show his talent, but this is not his best film.