Topaz (1969)

the audience applauded

Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Just what I expected

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

I took another look at the full length, uncut DVD version of "Topaz" and found it surprisingly good, in fact very good indeed. A handsome, well crafted, well written, excellently cast, and fully developed film. Unfortunately it was all for naught, because the 1969 audience did not "buy it" and was simply not interested. The studio panicked and the re- cutting only made things worse and the story thin and unconvincing. It's a shame that this one Hitchcock film based in real facts bombed, while his fictional films full of serial killers, mamma's boys, closet gays, killer ship yard owners, insecure straights were successful. I think he tried to redeem himself in this film and succeeded, but only in retrospect. (He died in 1980). Bravo Hitch, well done !Lucky that the original cut survived for us to see today. Orson Welles was not so lucky with "The Magnificent Ambersons", which suffered a similar fate. No original print exists today, The problem with "Topaz" is that it was a long winded "talkie" with just a few action scenes. Kind of boring to watch in a theater, but great at home at your own pace. I prefer the "suicide ending" to the two others, it seems to work best, but Universal chose the "airport ending" on the DVD release. The "duel ending" seemed unrealistic. You can decide for yourself !

(32%) What to say about this film without bad-mouthing one of the greatest film makers of all time? Let me be kind and say that is very much of its time, though if one had any interest in the Cuban missile crisis before watching, then their appetite will be greatly diminished after, not by what one learns but through witnessing one of the least exciting, plodding films old Hitch ever put to film. The script (biggest culprit for films problems) is bland beyond belief and is a total wonder why it ever got picked up in the first place (slim pickings?) with its total lack of any real tension, uninspired dialogue, uninteresting characters or memorable scenes, couple that with some quite poor acting at times and some slightly sloppy editing. It's just so not what we love about the master's best work and probably would now be almost forgotten about if made by another, less well known or less respected director.

Hitchcock's attempt to do a movie of Uris's cold war spy novel is entertaining, as all Hitchcock's films are, but I would wager that he agonized over this one. He was very good in the scenes where the politicians/intelligence agents are meeting over 'who knows what about whom, and what does it mean, and who is going to leak what to whom, and how will this affect everyone, and let's do whatever it takes to find out.' Hitchcock is always a genius in the one-on-one close-ups whereby body language so betrays the hidden dark secrets, but I am not so sure about the scenes that are supposed to explain to a movie audience just who is an enemy of whom, and who is out to stab whom in the back (if you know what I mean). Personally, I think Cubby Broccoli does a better job of these kinds of spy stories in the James Bond series.The Hitchcock action sort of stops and starts in jerky movements, like a car with a faulty engine. Copenhagen, to Washington, to Cuba, to Paris, back to Washington. Getting on planes, getting off planes. From unhappy wives to anxious daughters to an ambitious son-in-law (his loyalty was to whom? And what exactly was his purpose in the film?) From enigmatic mistresses to servants who are agents (for whom? and why?) The only explanation: "Cuba is a prison." Huh? In the early days Castro was a saint! To me, the best scene in the movie is that of getting the defector and his family out of Copenhagen. That was pure Hitchcock. Hitchcock never gave attention to the blatant "kissy, kissy" stuff in his movies like he did in this one. The romance was almost also implied, which made it even more magic. Those particular scenes in this one felt like A) filler or B) everyone in Hollywood is doing it; we should also do it.This movie was to me one of the weakest of the Hitchcock events. It is painful to compare it to "North by Northwest," "Rear Window," "Witness for the Prosecution," "Dial M...,' etc, etc, etc. The morale of this experience is, stay true to yourself and your craft, no matter what.

I don't care who made it, TOPAZ is a dreadful film. The acting is terrible - John Forsythe and Frederick Stafford make Greg Morris and Peter Lupus in MISSION IMPOSSIBLE look like Olivier and Gielgud. John Vernon looks exactly like one of those stock Latin American revolutionaries that the IMF force overthrew every week. As a thriller, it simply does not thrill. The dialogue is execrable - the dubbing worse. The only interesting bits are when - mercifully - hardly anybody speaks. The blurb on the 2005 DVD describes TOPAZ as a 'riveting' and 'spellbinding espionage thriller.' By the end, 'the danger and the suspense builds to a heart-pounding conclusion in this lavish, globe-trotting thriller.' Ask for your money back - but you won't get it. I think Hitchcock is greatly over-rated: he made some great films, yes, but some terrible turkeys as well. If you want a great espionage film, try THE IPCRESS FILE, THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD, THE GOOD SHEPHERD, or the TV series of TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY and SMILEY'S PEOPLE...