Torn Curtain (1966)

YES IT'S HITCHCOCK! BUT A FAR CRY FROM HIS BEST!

It's very hard to put down any movie by a director that has done so much for the industry as Alfred Hitchcock has. 'Torn Curtain' has all the ingredients to make a great film, but it fails, at least to the point that it is not one of his best films! It's a good movie that could have used some help in the editing room. It's got a great cast, but Newman and Andrews seem out of place in this sometimes tedious yarn of espionage. Although the one murder scene seems awkward I applaud "Hitch" for making a realistic murder scene where ordinary people are forced to kill someone and they might not do it in a efficient manner.

The DVD I watched in from the Box set and it has a nice crisp DVD transfer and audio. The features are interesting and well worth a look. September 13, 2008

Much better than I had expected -- a very underated film

I just watched TORN CURTAIN for the very first time. I had read many reviews which stated the film was one of Alfred Hitchcock's weaker efforts, so I didn't have very high expectations. But I now agree with those who think the film is vastly underated! I enjoyed the film quite a bit, and in fact found that it offered more suspense (as a whole) than quite a few of his other films I have seen. I thought Paul Newman and Julie Andrews were just fine in their roles, contrary to other reviews I have read. And the supporting cast were all very good. The fight with Gromek is a highlight, not just of this particular film but of Hitchcock's entire body of work, in my opinion. The pursuit through the museum and to the farm, the bus ride, the post office visit, the theater house -- all these scenes felt like "classic" Hitchcock to me. Very exciting and suspenseful. Of the 14 films in the Masterpiece Collection box set, I rank TORN CURTAIN solidy among the upper half. July 14, 2008

" EAST BERLIN !! Why, that's behind the Iron Curtain ! "

i have to say, i like this movie. not his best, awkward casting, a bad hairdo for the lead actress, a few dropped balls in the plot and logistics department--but still the basic spy story/plan is solid and was certainly one that was utilized during the era--, but still it's good of its kind. worth seeing, with some good set pieces. June 17, 2008

"It takes a scientist to pick a scientist's brain."

Torn Curtain (1966) may not be Hitchcock's best, but it's definitely not his worst. It was very enjoyable to watch. It has all the Hitch touches and some similarities with some of his other movies - particularly "The Man Who Knew Too Much."
Paul Newman plays Michael Armstong, an American scientist, working on a missile project, who goes behind the Iron Curtain to "pick" the brain of one of there most well-known scientist. Michael needs one last formula to finish his project and he has to get it from this scientist. So, he supposedly defects to Germany, leaving his fiancee Sarah Sherman (Julie Andrews) in Copenhagen. But she starts to get suspicious of him so she follows him to Germany.
Alfred Hitchcock had not wanted to cast Julie Andrews, but he was pressured into it because she was so hot - coming off of her amazing success in "The Sound of Music (Two-Disc 40th Anniversary Special Edition)" - everyone wanted to hire her. This never was Hitch's favorite movie, but the problem wasn't with his directing - the times were changing and people were watching different movies. This is a great movie! Worth the watch! April 17, 2008

Hitchcock not at the top of his game

I think that one of the problems with this film is that it was made in the mid-sixties, when the style of film making was changing radically. In Europe you had Nouvelle Vague pouring out of France and comparable new styles coming from Sweden (Bergman) and Italy (Fellini, Antonioni).
In the US the Actors' Studio was changing the style of acting completely. Out was the old, glib, surface charm of the fifties, where Hitchock thrived and who actors such as Cary Grant shone. Paul Newman, coming out of Actors'Studio was wonderful in intense psychological dramas. He certainly has the looks and natural charm to make a splash in this film, but it obviously wasn't his style. He wanted to know what made his character say a certain line and Hitchcock replied "because it's written in the script, dear boy." Obviously the two were not on the same page and it really shows in this movie. Newman gives the worst performance I've ever seen him give.

Perhaps no one really had their heart in it. Hitchcock is reported not to have wanted to make it but did it only at the insistence of the studio. Apparently the studio wanted Julie Andrews, who was hot at the time, although Hitchcock didn't want her. That was a huge mistake. Hitchcock loved his beautiful actresses and got great performances out of them. Andrews just doesn't have the looks, or the charisma to make us believe that the Newman character would ever want to be on the same screen with her, let alone the same bed. The dreadful hairstyle and terrible dreary wardrobe certainly didn't help. (As another reviewer said, Hud met Maria von Trapp!) (or Mary Poppins). I think that if a more appealing actress had been cast, that the whole film might have come alive.

The supporting cast is terrific, though. The fellow who plays the original bodyguard, Gropek, is very funny with his American slang. Why do Eastern European villains wear those awful black leather coats? The famous farmhouse scene was hilarious, too. Carolyn Conwell who played the heroic farmer's wife was really wonderful. Some people felt the Leipzig professor was too over-the-top and I can see that, although I did enjoy him, especially in the restaurant, when he happened to mention, while a Viennese waltz was playing, that his sister was hit by a tram in Vienna. Lila Kedrova as the Polish countess was almost too good for the film. Her performance was so deeply moving that it broke through the surface of the film. She and Newman belong in their own film.

When you think of other Cold War spy films, this is so poor. None of it is convincing, so it fails on that level, too. All in all, it is a film that diehard Hitchcock fans will enjoy. Others, not so much.
March 18, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...