I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

That's how Jonathan Ross describes this French subtitled movie, when he introduced it when it was shown on the satellite French movie channel, Cinemoi.The now almost famous (to us Brits) Vincent Cassel, playing 'Brisseau' and his wife, Barbara, or Lisa, (Monica Belucci) are the couple in question and are part of ring of agents, totally professional, taking great care to meticulously plan everything. They don't ask questions. Maybe they should...Out in Angola, is a bloody civil war and that requires guns, lots of them. A Russian arms dealer, trading from Switzerland is going to send a ship-load of weapons out there. The Secret Agents are set the task of going out to Morocco and sabotaging this sailing by planting explosives on the vessel and blowing it up.So, that's the premise, interesting and realistic and to do just that would be far too straightforward, right?The movie moves along quite quickly, shot in old style, i.e. steady cameras instead of wobbly, jarring ones. But there is excitement too, with well-shot stunts, especially car chases (French thrillers always do them well) and moody mellower moments. It's humourless and efficient and we aren't asked to like, or approve of the protagonists or what they do. It gets sufficiently complex to be satisfying, it's well acted and about the right length.It's a good thriller, but somehow not a great one. It needs an extra something, though what this is difficult to pinpoint. It doesn't quite reach 7/10, for me, but is very close. Whether it's worth buying as a DVD and at the present cost, is a different matter. But rented or on Cinemoi, then it's a great choice for a mid-week action movie.

I'm sorry if I don't blindly join the many admirers of this movie, who would like to rate it 11/10 if it would have been possible. Since I don't run for Senator, I don't mind making possibly unpopular remarks. Don't get me wrong: Agents Secrets certainly is an interesting movie, worth while having in your collection. But to me it is not the gem many people describe. My main complaint is that the movie simply isn't surprising enough to earn that status.Let's remain honest: 2 combat divers, send to blow up a ship with time bombs, accompanied by a back up team posing as a pseudo couple ? Rather watch the excellent movie "The Rainbow Warrior Conspiracy" from 1989. Illegal arms-for-diamond-trade ? Done several times before ! American agents clearly informed about what the "Frenchies" are up to (Echelon ? Moles ?...)… Déjà vu ! Someone framed by 150 gr. of heroin hidden in his or her luggage ? How many times has this not been seen before ? Also used in 20, 30 other movies: the main character gets kidnapped by the "opposition", but somehow miraculously manages to cause a traffic accident, after which of course he's the only survivor… I'm not even mentioning the somewhat unbelievable sideplot of Brisseau finding extremely quickly the professional (???) killer who shot one of the combat divers, and making quickly in between a trip to Spain to kill her.Now, having said that... Strangely enough, even if Schoendoerffer really used too many wrong ingredients for a surprising plot, his spy flick isn't a bad movie at all. Not because of clever dialogs about international security or about the loneliness or the dangers involved with the spy business however. In contradiction with some other comments, I didn't found Agents Secrets a particularly good psychological study about secret agents… Don't expect a Simenon-like experience, with a relatively bleak plot as an excuse to paint vivid psychological portraits, as the Belgian writer often did. The few moments something "psychologic" is happening, it is far too cliché to be of any merit.Other things that make some spy movies very interesting are superb locations. Agents Secrets can't have earned its reputation based on this argument. Don't expect to see superb cars nor –there needs to be something for everyone- breathtaking bathing beauties à la Bond either...So, what is it, that makes me not calling Agents Secrets "not a bad movie" ? Strong pro's are the quick pace of the plot, underpinned by interesting "nervous" camera movements. The ultimate trump though is the excellent cast. Well, exception made for the cliché looking villains who kill a French agent in the strong first minutes of the movie: they look like the stereotype gang members of Pablo Escobar.I wonder... Maybe the film would have gained strength if the killers remained invisible, anonymous, like a constant menace on the background.For all this, a 7/10 seems to be an honest score.

What strikes me are the parallels drawn between secret agency and stardom in this film. The irony of having two of Europe's most celebrated modern actors living the roles of ever-pursued spies; constantly aware of watching eyes, never certain of complete privacy, never comfortable, always chased and forever chasing, makes the actors' reaction to their lives as agents all the more personal. Furthermore the viewer, although perhaps subconsciously, is better able to identify with these parallels than with the sentiments of the characters themselves; celebrities are in our public-eye whereas true agents remain hidden and undercover.It is the truth bared in this film about human emotion that proves its success. The stagnancy of moments in waiting, the abuse of others to further your game, the love undermined by private affairs and physical relations... Schoendoerffer's shocking scenes such as Bellucci's drugging of the two small children in her care and of a mother she comforts, tinge the typical unblemished movie-spy personality with crimson reality. Instead of blindly sympathising with the film's heroes, the viewer must think and feel beyond the typical thriller/action movie requirements in order to appreciate the characters, their situations and the film itself.

(WARNING: SOME SPOILERS AHEAD) I'd like to vindicate this movie, since many people seem to have disliked it. And I'll tell you why: this is one of the best spy movies I've ever seen. I'm no expert about the world of espionage, but according to what I've learnt about real-life spooks, this movie is based on reality in many aspects.The plot is based on operations conducted by the real-life French spy agency (the DGSE) that really occurred: the bomb attacks on a German weapons trafficker in the 1950s who was supplying rebels in the Algerian War of Independence, and the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, a ship owned by the environmental organization Greenpeace in 1985 in Auckland, New Zealand. In the latter case, just like in the movie, a French female spy infiltrated Greenpeace and stole plans of the ship to be bombed, and the actual bombing was carried out by French "nageurs de combat" (combat divers, more or less the French equivalent of Navy Seals), some of them posing as a couple of Swiss tourists during their stay in New Zealand.For what I know about the subject, the movie authentically depicts the modus operandi of real-life field agents, e.g. George (Vincent Cassel) avoiding being seen with his contact Tony (Eric Savin) during the operation in Casablanca; spy agencies hiring foreign mercenaries to do their deniable ops (i.e. dirty jobs) to make sure such ops will be deniable if discovered; agents being betrayed by their own hierarchy for reasons of "higher national interest"; the dirty tricks spy agencies of yet allied countries do to each other; and more specifically to the DGSE, the rivalry between the military officers (represented by Cassel, Bellucci and the Colonel played by Andre Dussollier) and the civilian technocrats (represented by the no-name black-haired cigarette-smoking guy in his early forties played by Bruno Todeschini), the former ones having lost control of the agency to the latter over the years (the DGSE was originally run by the French military). Many people found this movie boring, but that's because the lives of real spies are exactly like that! The director stated that he wanted to depict accurately the state of mind of real-life field agents (i.e. their solitude, the fear they perpetually feel etc.) and he has exactly achieved that, and his movie must be seen more as a documentary look on real spies, not as a James Bond/Jason Bourne-like action thriller. Those Hollywood movies aren't even remotely true to the real world of espionage. Even the British TV spy show "Spooks" seems unrealistic in comparison with this movie.I hope I have given some facts that will give a clearer perspective to some viewers, in order to better appreciate "Agents Secrets", which may indeed seem a bit difficult to understand for those who are unaware of the real-life background it is based on. And on a purely cinematographic level, this movie offers brilliant writing, directing, editing and acting. Vincent Cassel and Monica Bellucci convincingly portray two spies having to pose as a couple and always working professionally during their mission, i.e. they're always careful never to allow an ounce of sexuality in their relationship. This is all the more remarkable acting, as they were actually already married in real-life at the time of the shooting!A definitely memorable movie.