Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Diagonaldi Very well executed

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

kjs2525 This is not your typical Hitchcock film, nor is it an easy film to follow and understand, but Topaz is a fantastic film! Took me many years of living and a few viewings over the decades to get it. Topaz is complicated, with a half a dozen McGuffins, tons of fascinating and intriguing international subplots, two parallel love stories, and an amazing cast of actors. After watching Hitch films for 50 years, and following the politics and spy craft of America, Cuba, Russia and France, all of which is needed to appreciate this film, for those who do their homework this film will be loved and seen as high quality Hitchcock with tremendous suspense and one awesome Hitchcockian murder scene. Visiting Cuba (yes - go!) and understanding the context of the geo politics in 1962, with respect to Russia, France and America will help greatly. My only fault with the film is the musical score which is subpar; a shame the great composer Bernard Herrmann was not able to work on this film. I will only say this: if you love Hitchcock and modern day geo politics you will love Topaz!

ElMaruecan82 ... yet "Topaz" had none of these. I don't know if it was a movie buff instinct or just a coincidence, but it never topped my Hitchcock watch list, maybe it was the title, the cast or the faded fame. But a few days ago, I saw "Torn Curtain" again and the film convinced me to check out "Topaz". Hitch couldn't possibly make two misfires in a row?Now, I saw "Topaz" (or should I say 'endured') and frankly, when the movie ended, I wanted to reconsider every negative thing I said about it's ill-fated predecessor. Maybe it was Hitchcock's displeasure with working with box-office stars like Paul Newman and Julie Andrews that convinced him to cast 'unknown' actors for mass audiences, but I think it was a tragic miscalculation. Newman and Andrews didn't make "Torn Curtain" a better film, but no matter how uninteresting most of the plot was, they made you care about how strangely uninteresting it was, in "Topaz", there are so many unfamiliar faces that you can only count on the action to engage you, but most of the first act consists on cold and sophisticated discussions between well-tailored and well- spoken men with a central figure, no disrespect toward Frederick Stafford, is too stiff to be sympathetic. How can you care for what a character does if you don't care for the character? That's the question the writers should have asked themselves. You never know where the film is going, we only get that the Cuba Missiles crisis works as a backdrop, the problem is that it takes for granted our attention because the international stability is supposedly at stakes. The problem is that Hitchcock understandably prefers economical directing, so we never get the big picture, there's no real illustration of the political climate, there's a sort of intimacy in the directing that doesn't really evoke some high-scale life-and-death situations, it's just a succession of mini- plots and subplots involving no more than two or three players each time. Costa Gavras' "Z", a political thriller of the same year is the perfect counter-example. This aspect wouldn't have been a flaw if the protagonists were interesting, but for me, only Robert Vernon as the Fidel Castro copy (with his icy blue eyes) and Roscoe Lee Browne as the French Agent did make an impression. Apart from a few little thrills, Hitch never found the proper way to engage the viewer into the story, and I think the real issue here is with the actors, I mean, if you don't have stars, have a great story, if you don't have a great story, have stars. But "Topaz" had none, and I read many comparisons with another political thriller of the same period "The Day of the Jackal". Fred Zinnermann had the merit of clarity and it was a simple plot but one hell of a race against the clock combined with a cat-and-mouse chase, transcended by a meticulous and heart-pounding editing. We knew the mission would fail since De Gaulle couldn't be killed, so the point was to make the Jackal a compelling character, here in "Topaz", we know the mission will succeed, but it doesn't make things any more interesting. Of course, the movie is a legitimate serious spy film, but why should we be indulgent just because it's from the Master of Suspense who certainly had the best intentions? I saw the film on DVD, and I know by experience that the better a Hitch film is, the longer and richer the Bonus Features are. I wasn't the bit surprised when the bonus of "Torn Curtain" only consisted on a short documentary praising the qualities of the film though acknowledging it didn't fit among the Top 10. The case of "Topaz" is even more telling, you don't have a critic but a defense. Vincent Canby said that had Hitch made only "Rear Window" or "Vertigo" or "Psycho", it was enough to stand a legacy, he made certainly twenty high-caliber films and then indisputable masterpieces, so we can accept a few misfires. But "Topaz" is then relegated to "second-tiers". I don't think it belongs to the second category either, after all, why were people so enthusiastic when he made "Frenzy" if it wasn't for finally ending that spy-oddities' streak. "Frenzy" was pure Hitchcockian delight, "Topaz" is an odd and perplexing film with a few good moments, and some beautifully shot ones. Of course, the opening crane shot is a technical prowess followed by the suspenseful porcelain store chase, not to mention the magnificent purple dress falling like a pool of blood which is perhaps one of Hitchcock's cleverest tricks and the Pieta composition with the tortured prisoners, is haunting, but when critics or viewers need to keep saying how much they love some shots, you know there's something wrong in the content. The visual quality can never overshadow the story. And the story had potential but it seemed like espionage wasn't Hitch's strong suit, and he said it himself, he didn't enjoy directing the film, which is probably why he felt the need to go back to his roots with "Frenzy". Regarding the DVD features, I learned that there were three endings to the film, I don't think the ending was the main issue. The problem was the lack of a climax, there was absolutely none, so when it ended, I was like "okay, that's it", frustrated and also relieved because it was over, but who knows which bits have been cut out the editing room, dull bits? Could they be duller than the absurd intervention of the son-in-law, the rather casual ways they got rid of the French villains, played with panache by French actors Michel Picolli and Philippe Noiret. The ending betrayed a lack of motivation and a desire from Hitch to get through the whole thing. So why should we feet so hot about one of his most disliked creations anyway?

Ed-Shullivan If you are into thrillers and especially espionage and spy versus spy versus spy then maybe this picture is designed for you...or maybe not. Personally I was disappointed. I thought the presence of John Forsythe, John Vernon and Frederick Stafford and the film being directed by Alfred Hitchcock would lead to a blockbuster film but it just did not appeal to me.First of all, Hitchcock tried to keep us guessing who were the good spies and who were the bad spies. After the first hour of the film I just did not care anymore. Not that I found the film was confusing, no, I just found the story boring and the acting less than suspenseful. After several scenes where the interaction of both the male and female stars are exchanging information related to Russia's military involvement and support of Cuba against the United States it began to remind me of the famous Abbott and Costello comedy skit, "Whose On First?" I mean come on man, if Hitchcock had the last say on editing (which I assume he did because the films length was an extended 2 hours and 23 minutes) than maybe he should have positioned who were the good spies and who were the bad spies a lot earlier and cut the films length by at least 20-30 minutes. As for Hitchcock's trademark cinematography style of shooting wide angle overhead shots these were also below par for a Hitchcock directed film. As two examples, the early scene where U.S. agent Michael Nordstrom played by John Forsythe is leading the defection of a Russian diplomat and his wife and daughter on to a plane that is headed to the U.S. and also in a latter scene when French diplomat Andre Devereaux played by Frederick Stafford is running up an endless apartment stairwell to see if his son-in-law has been hurt was not the classic and suspenseful scenes that we have become accustomed to in Hitchcock films. As the film Topaz was one of Hitchcock's last few films I think it just shows that what worked for Hitchcock in the past two decades for his superb use of his cameras, cinematography, sound, as well as with his noted ability to generate continued suspense was clearly missing in Topaz as was Hitchcock's magic mojo also absent.The films ending was pretty flat and boring as well. I give Topaz a passable 5 out of 5 and maybe that is even a bit too generous.

brchthethird TOPAZ, based on a novel of the same name by Leon Uris, was Hitchcock's second (and final) foray into the Cold War, and is about a French agent who gets caught in between the Americans and the Russians. By this point in his career, Hitchcock was quite content to plagiarize himself, as a lot of elements in TOPAZ can be found in his other (better) films, but I did find this to be a slight improvement over his previous effort, TORN CURTAIN. Without the star power behind this as was in TORN CURTAIN, TOPAZ's story, as labyrinthine and convoluted as it is, is brought to the foreground. As always, Hitch's use of camera-work and editing to create suspense is as evident here as it is throughout most of his other work. The sequence which stood out the most to me was a prolonged, mostly silent scene in which a Martinique agent gains access to a hotel where he will get some documents important to the plot, all while his French contact watches from the other side of the street. There was also a just-before-death confession reminiscent of one in THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, and an exquisitely filmed death scene in which a woman's purple dress fills most of the screen. Still, the plot this time was a bit unwieldy. As there weren't any stars in the film, there wasn't as much focus in the story as I would have liked. At first you think it will be about some Russian defectors, later American NATO agents, and then it settles on a French NATO agent who works on behalf of the Americans to get some information on Russian activities in Cuba. Although it will probably benefit from watching it a few more times, on first viewing it was a lot of take in and keep track of. Still, the complicatedness of it all allowed for some interesting double and triple-dealings. From an acting standpoint, I thought that most of the performances were rather wooden. Considering that this is perhaps the most talkative Hitchcock movie I've seen so far, it was a little difficult to watch in that regard. Still, it wasn't all bad. John Forsythe (THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY) had a supporting role as an American NATO agent, and he did fine. And even though badly miscast, John Vernon did alright for himself as Cuban Rico Parra. Switching composers again, Maurice Jarre provided the score, and while not in the same league as Bernard Herrmann (after all, who is?), his cues and main theme set the tone of the film quite nicely with some occasionally quirky touches. The title sequence, set over a Russian parade, also had a stirring martial quality that perfectly set the mood for the tense opening scene. Overall, I would say that TOPAZ has more immediate entertainment value than did TORN CURTAIN, although the plot is more complicated and the acting isn't as good. Still, TOPAZ is as eloquently produced as anything Hitchcock laid his hands on and provides enough thrills to balance out the long running time.