Topaz

One beautifully composed death scene does not compensate for an otherwise tedious affair. The story is completely without focus, Stafford is like a charisma-free Sean Connery clone and there is no tension or suspense anywhere to be found. The worst thing is that I spent 135 minutes at least hoping that Hitch would pull off one of his trademark exciting endings... boy, was I disappointed.

There are a few good scenes, a couple of suspenseful moments worthy of being called "Hitchcockian", and the thing with the dress was lovely. But my lord, the rest of it is talky and dull. Most of it is an interminable borefest. The characters are almost entirely without personality. The narrative focus is all over the fucking place, robbing the viewer of any chance to get interested in any of the characters. Also, the music absolutely sucks. His heart clearly wasn't in this one at all.

Way too long and completely uninvolving. The only time it picks up at all is when it moves to Cuba. John Vernon is the best thing about the picture. Everybody else just kind of seems to be sleepwalking through it. Then there's the weird music that starts playing toward the end when they're tracking someone down--like it's a French farce or something. At the end you don't really feel like you've gotten to know any of the people at all. Suspense/thriller? Guess again.

pithy review: one of the duller gems in hitch's brilliant career. one sparkling moment: juanita de cordoba's last scene..... topaz: word origin derived (possibly) from the Arabic, meaning "the subject of the search". indeed this topaz does involve a search but by the time the culprit is unearthed i felt more like saying ho-hum, then aha! summary: i'm as big a fan of hitchcock as anyone but this "semi-precious" stone requires no examination, close or otherwise.

The problem was a structural issue with the script--each scene was a little too self-contained and you sort of had to reinvest in the characters and stakes of each new scene. Another issue was probably an overly realistic portrayal of a spy--one why employs others to do all the dirty work is accurate, but it makes for a less satisfying movie protagonist. Despite the problems, there is still a lot of classic Hitchcockian suspense within the scenes to make it decent.

This movie strongly reminded me of a Bond film, albeit with less action. I went into it knowing absolutely nothing, except that it was a Hitchcock movie. Every time I thought the movie was going to take a right turn, it ended up taking a left. I couldn't tell whose story it was going to follow at the beginning. Even after reading the summary, which does give it away, I feel like it wouldn't have been nearly as interesting at the start if I had known which character the story followed.

My problem with Torn Curtain was that it was boring and that I didn't care about what happened to the characters, Topaz suffers from an additional problem - it moves incredibly slow. By the end, I didn't want the reveal, I just wanted it to be over. Topaz actually starts with some promise and disorientation of the audience. I spent the first 20 minutes trying to figure out who was doing what and why - I was intrigued - but after those 20 minutes...

Bad accents, white guys as Koobans (their pronunciation, not mine), Invincible Roscoe Lee Browne, and a whole lot of talking about absolutely nothing. What a pile of suck.

If the post-silent Alfred H. has ever made a mediocre film, this is definitely it.

This was prob a good book but its a long boring movie that takes 2/3 of its runtime to actually arrive at the main plot. On top of that this film that goes from Denmark to d.c. to new York to Cuba to Paris is also visually uninteresting. Struggled to stay awake for this

Several well shot scenes but overall this is the weakest Hitchcock I have seen. It almost seems impossible to mess up a spy thriller, but this just didn't work for me.

Having seen this right after watching Torn Curtain, I feel like I'm repeating myself. Like TC, Topaz doesn't particularly capture a Hitchockian feel, probably because most spy thrillers are slow burns rather than always-increasing tension. Code Topaz is a bit like Rosebud; it appears briefly at the beginning and then is almost forgotten about until all the way at the end. I did love the supporting French cast, but not enough to turn this into a favorite.

Em honra do aniversário do Hitch (e do Fidel). Um dos poucos Hitchcocks que vi apenas uma vez há décadas atrás, na época não gostei muito, agora com um olhar mais treinado sua qualidade fique evidente, pelo menos há uma meia dúzia de momentos realmente dignos de Hitchcock, mesmo assim ainda é aquém do seu melhor, feito na efervescência da nova Hollywood, soa como um filme de James Bond com um grande diretor. O que valeu mesmo dessa experiência é dizer que os grandes Piccoli e Noiret

If only Hitchcock could have filmed the ending he desired. Some scenes are as good as anything in Army of Shadows of Battle of Algiers, while others fall flat.

Alfred Hitchcock a Marxist? The parallel betrayals in the world of emotional relationships and foreign policy, and the class solidarity displayed not only between NATO countries but even across the Iron Curtain are there for all to see. Too long, lacks suspense.

56.750

One of the lesser Hitchcock affairs, but it had some okay moments. In general, a fairly mediocre spy affair.

I honestly don't get all the negative reviews for this film. The score is great and classic Hitchcock, The acting is solid, and the pacing while slow never got bogged down, there was always something going on. The direction and camerawork were masterful. Not one of Hitchcock's best films but far from his worst. The ending was disappointing but I feel like it was done on purpose to make a statement and subvert expectations, still, it didn't work for me.

Seven viewings later and I still have no idea what this movie's about. I guess it's about 2 1/2 hours of two countries not speaking to each other. Unfortunately not as thrilling as it sounds.

I expect a masterpiece from Hitchcock by default, so this was pretty disappointing. No suspense, boring characters, and nothing memorable about it.

Long winded spy story which looks dated in terms of story, stereotyped nationalities and characters. There are a couple of enjoyable moments - Juanita's purple dress and the change in character of the Russian defector after a few weeks in America, but overall too many dull indistinguishable characters talking.

not bad, Hitchcock still keeps his quality

67.000

I'm always up for a globe-trotting, Hitchcockian thriller. Unfortunately, this film has about as much suspense as watching a pair of Dryer Balls tumble in the dryer.

Hitch's craft is beginning to show fatigue, and he struggles to keep the overly complex multi-protagonist spy-story flowing. Still, there are moments of the master's trademark suspense and the plot, long as it may be, is pretty interesting.

Another propaganda film by Hitchcock, following "Torn Curtain". Compared to its predecessor, "Topaz" is less probable, less effortless and definitely inferior. Yet, it is reflective of Hitchcock's finesse and style and makes for engrossing viewing.

yet more true blue american hitchcock. not much to say, though it was entertaining enough to keep me interested. maybe not quite as bad as expected. also, it marks the end of the hitchcock 'masterpiece' collection.

Reminds me of those meandering, ineffectual [Moore] Bond flicks. A few moments of genuine tension save it from being completely unremarkable.