Topaz (1969)

terrible

I'm a fan of Hitchcock and have seen most of his films. I missed Topaz when it came out, so I borrowed the VHS tape. What a waste of time! This is the worst Hitchcock film I've ever seen and one of the worst films ever.

This is nominally a spy thriller, but at every point where suspense is possible, Hitch defuses the thrills. There's way too much talk, and the few action scenes are predictable and flat. The tradecraft is unbelievable: what intelligence officer waits across the street while his operative waves to him and then walks into a hotel filled with Cubans?

The actors are wooden and glum, with the exception of Phillipe Noiret, who manages to inject his character with some shades of feeling.

It feels like a bad propaganda film, one made by the State Department to warn the Russians that we're serious about the Monroe Doctrine.
April 27, 2008

Topaz

I saw this movie for the first time today and must say that it is a first rate espionage thriller. The movie has a great cast and a great cast of characters. It is smart and exciting. This is a cold war espionage movie of the first order and I rank it right up there with The Spy That Came In From The Cold and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Everything about this movie is top notch and I would expect nothing less from the master Alfred Hitchcock. January 27, 2008

A disappointing cold-war thriller from the Master

"Topaz" is a tired Cold War thriller from the Master.

After the disaster of "Torn Curtain", Hitchcock had a go at making another "Bond-like" film but once again he missed the mark and never tried it again. If he had not made the brilliant "Frenzy" three years later one could easily have come to the conclusion that he was well past his best.

One of the major problems with "Topaz" is that the actors are all second-rate - particulary Frederick Stafford in the lead role of a French intelligence agent.

There are some interesting touches - for example the scene in the flower shop where we can't hear what the actors are saying - but this film smacks of a once-great director struggling to find his feet in the "modern" cinema.

"Topaz" should be seen once by all Hitchcock fans, but despite the advocacy of Leonard Maltin and other reviewers, Hitchcock's third-to-last film doesn't have much to recommend it.
June 18, 2007

Much Better Than You've Aeard

I saw "Topaz" on television when I was in high school in the early 1990s and hated it. I never bothered watching it again. But since the film was included in Universal's "Hitchcock Masterpiece" DVD collection that I received for Christmas, I decided to watch it again out of curiosity. My opinion has completely changed.

This is a cleverly written, suspenseful film, particularly the first half. What I've always liked most about Alfred Hitchcock is how modern his films are. Because of that they age extremely well. The "problem" with "Topaz" is simply that it was ahead of its time. In working my way through the "Masterpiece" DVD collection, I've found that all of Hitchcock's later American films ("The Birds" through "Family Plot") have benefited tremendously from second and third viewings. I'm not about to say that these films are as good as the work he produced at his creative peak (the 1950s--"Strangers on a Train" through "Psycho"), but they're much better crafted and more textured than I originally gave them credit for being. I would argue that these late period films work much better with repeated viewings. January 1, 2007

Back from the dead.

The reasessment of Hitchcock's 1960's work continues, begun with the amazing Marnie. (Torn Curtain may be a lost cause, however.) It's fair to say that Topaz benefits from this ongoing reconsideration. It's just a very good movie.

The plot follows an episodic but compelling arc along the trail of French cold-war spy leaks. A number of satisfying (and inter-twining) sub-stories among the large cast are well presented. The parallel infidelities of the Stafford/Robin husband and wife are interesting and key to ultimate plot resolution. Some very nice "set pieces" are included, the tent poles that support Hitchcock movies. I found the location photography to be both realistic and refreshing. The film's main fault, of course, is the absence of a convincing ending. How Hitch believed that the "duel" ending would stand up is beyond me. I'm not sure how Uris ended his book.

Jarre's music is almost laughable, certainly in comparison with the monumental Herrmann. Topaz is a serious movie about serious themes (betrayal, good versus evil) and Jarre's music does nothing to advance these themes.

Finally, Leonard Maltin's commentary touches powerfully on Hitchcock's directorial powers, the likes of which are few and far-between these days. Outside of maybe Soderberg and Tykwer, most modern-day directors have little idea of where to place the camera, how to sequence images through cutting, et al. (Poster child of directorial ineptitude is Ron Howard who absolutely doesn't have a clue.) Suffice it to say that Topaz is a very well directed movie that delivers visual style and meaning in spades. August 2, 2006

More reviews at Amazon.com ...