Featured Audience Ratings

• Chris W

  
  I had heard that, among the lesser films of Hitchcock's filmography, this was basically the bottom of the barrel, and you know what? That's not completely wrong. Now, it's not a terrible film per se, but it certainly doesn't have a lot going for it. The plot is… More
  I had heard that, among the lesser films of Hitchcock's filmography, this was basically the bottom of the barrel, and you know what? That's not completely wrong. Now, it's not a terrible film per se, but it certainly doesn't have a lot going for it. The plot is the old Cold War spy intrigue/mole hunt sort of thing, with emphasis on a French operative diving into Soviet and Cuban dealings around the time of the Cuban Missle Crisis. The storyline is heavily fact based, and as a result, is pretty cut and dried, and not really as compelling as it should be. It doesn't help that Hitch made a lot of films like this already, most of them better, and ones I saw before this one. Even though it has ties to reality, the film is dull, not engaging, and kind of a bore. I really didn't care what was happening most of the time, and that's really not a good sign considering the film's long running time. The film's not all bad though. It has a lot of merit from a technical standpoint, with some good locations, sets, and camerawork. Maurice Jarre's score is also really good, and probably the film's highlight, aside from the film scene Karin Dor is in. Speaking of actors, this could probably have benefited from some serious star power. That wouldn't be a guarantee that it would've helped, but you never know. I do think the highlight as far as acting goes to John Vernon, and his portrayal of a Cuban revolutionary is both bewildering and awesome. I t probably wouldn't fly today, and, while I'm not sure why they got a Canadian to play a Cuban, I won't complain either, as I think Vernon was a solid character actor. All in all, the film is just kinda 'meh'. I mostly just think the film falls because it all feels very routine and phoned in. Of course, when you're Hitchcock, I guess it's okay to not be on the top of your game all the time...even though it happened to him a few times, especially during the latter years. See it if you want, but just know that its reputation is pretty true.

• Graham J

  
  Hitchcock most European film is very interesting look at the Cold War.

• Anthony L

  
  Topaz isn't all bad but it's certainly not one of Hitchcock's best. I liked the way the agent with a double life was portrayed in the film and unlike a lot of the critics at the time, I'm glad it starred reasonably unknown actors for a change. The lunch scene… More
  Topaz isn't all bad but it's certainly not one of Hitchcock's best. I liked the way the agent with a double life was portrayed in the film and unlike a lot of the critics at the time, I'm glad it starred reasonably unknown actors for a change. The lunch scene towards the end of the film was quite good as was the 'florist' scene but these are all just echos from a director who just wasn't as great towards his later films.

• AJ V

  
  For the most part this movie is incredibly dull, and deals with politics, war, and spies. Although Hitchcock has done spy movies before, none were ever as boring as this one. And where did he find his cast? I don't think I've heard of anyone in this cast list before. It… More
  For the most part this movie is incredibly dull, and deals with politics, war, and spies. Although Hitchcock has done spy movies before, none were ever as boring as this one. And where did he find his cast? I don't think I've heard of anyone in this cast list before. It was an interesting idea to not use the same stars he'd been using before, but none of them really stand out as great actors you'd like to see again. The story too is unknown, I mean we do find out what Topaz is, but then we don't get a very clear ending, and we wonder why everything we saw happen happened. Overall, not a good movie, but it could've been worse, at least there were a few action packed scenes.

• Pierluigi P

  
  Even a Hitchcock misfire has more to offer than other director's best attempts. Yes, the plot may be dull, uneven, unexciting but it has some brilliant touches of pure cinema scattered all over it. Artificiality in the sceneries and no presence of big hollywood stars were two… More
  Even a Hitchcock misfire has more to offer than other director's best attempts. Yes, the plot may be dull, uneven, unexciting but it has some brilliant touches of pure cinema scattered all over it. Artificiality in the sceneries and no presence of big hollywood stars were two things that hurt this film irreparably. It was more like a thinking man's thriller with a european feel and a clinical view of espionage as a dirty business that went completely misunderstood and neglected by the critics and public of its time. A masterful dominion of visual storytelling can lift anything from mediocre to interesting.

• Conner R

  
  A half great film and a half mediocre film. The beginning of Topaz is brilliant, it’s Hitchcock at his finest. Some beautiful visuals, a perfect setup and some very interesting characters and plot points. However, the second half follows with a terrible lead and a lot of corny and… More
  A half great film and a half mediocre film. The beginning of Topaz is brilliant, it’s Hitchcock at his finest. Some beautiful visuals, a perfect setup and some very interesting characters and plot points. However, the second half follows with a terrible lead and a lot of corny and recycled clichés. I think had Hitchcock broken away from the so/so novel and done his own interpretation, it would’ve been an amazing Cold War film.

• Randy T

  
  Several factors come together here to adversely affect the appeal of <i>Topaz</i>. First, there is a noticeable absence of star power. Gone are the Cary Grants and the Jimmy Stewarts, replaced by Frederick Stafford (who?) and Philippe Noiret (who?). Missing still are… More
  Several factors come together here to adversely affect the appeal of <i>Topaz</i>. First, there is a noticeable absence of star power. Gone are the Cary Grants and the Jimmy Stewarts, replaced by Frederick Stafford (who?) and Philippe Noiret (who?). Missing still are the Kim Novaks and the Grace Kellys, instead we find Karin Dor (who?) and Dany Robin (who?). Topaz also seems to suffer from a decline in the quality of cinematography. There are no memorable shots of characters clinging to Mount Rushmore or the Statue of Liberty. No Vertigo-ish disembodied heads or Psycho-ish falls down flights of stairs. And last but not least, the scoring. There was a time when you could close your eyes and listen to the music of the picture and just know it was an Alfred Hitchcock film. About the only thing you can discern from the orchestrations of <i>Topaz</i> is that it was made in the late 60's or early 70's. All in all, the film isn't horrible, in fact it's not really bad at all, it just isn't up to the standards we've come to expect from one of the world's greatest directors.

• jay n

  
  A miss for Hitch.

• Cassandra M

  
  While Leon Uris' book is a good read, Hitchcock's adaptation of the book for cinema captures much of the book's selling points. The killing of Juanita by Rico Parra is central to book and the film. The book has a sensual scene where Juanita distracts Parra to allow… More
  While Leon Uris' book is a good read, Hitchcock's adaptation of the book for cinema captures much of the book's selling points. The killing of Juanita by Rico Parra is central to book and the film. The book has a sensual scene where Juanita distracts Parra to allow Andre to escape before she is killed. In the film, Hitchcock dispenses with the sexual distraction to go directly to the killing. The killing of Juanita captured by the overhead camera, shows the purple gown spreading in the floor as blood would have spread. No blood is shown?only the gown. What a brilliant shot from Hitchcock and cameraman Jack Hildyard! The second remarkable facet of the movie is the performance of Phillip Noiret as a French bureaucrat and spy. The lunch sequence (a typical Hitchcock food event) may look simple but the montage of shots capturing Noiret's apparent interest in the food than the conversation is truly engaging. Noiret is a fine actor. So is Michel Piccoli. The two of them outshine Frederick Stafford and John Forsythe. The third most fascinating shot is post-torture interrogation of Mrs Mendoza?the whispered response from a posture that reminds one of Michelangelo's Pieta?with her dead husband replacing the dead Christ. Hitchcock's perseverance with "marriage" continues. Andre blandly tells his daughter of his wife "She left me. I did not leave her" after a tryst with his lover in Havana. The Michel Piccoli character says of Andre's wife "Andre, his wife and I were very close. She married him." We know later that Andre's wife was cheating on him as she recognizes the Piccoli character's phone number at his secret love nest. The defection sequence in Copenhagen might look clumsy?but Hitchcock's style is everywhere?faces in mirrors, close up of a porcelain figure about to be dropped with no music in the background, etc. What was most amusing was the criticism of the American espionage agents: "We would have done it better" and the exchange of words by the defector in Washington, D.C. Andre's outburst to his bosses on the outcome of French intervention in the defection would lead to the defector's assassination is equally poignant had the film ended with the French spy defecting to Russia (one of the alternate endings). Finally, Hitchcock's use of the newspaper headlines during key scenes in the background was interesting: The Pieta shot had the newspaper shot in the background and the newspaper left behind on a bench in Paris is the final shot. The alternate endings?the duel and the departure of the spies to two cold-warring countries would not have served well as well the suicide of the spy suggested by the gunshot in his house.

• The Movie W

  
  Following his defection to the United States, a Russian General informs the C.I.A of his nation's plans to position nuclear missiles on the island of Cuba. The C.I.A seek the aid of a French secret agent (Stafford) who manages to steal documents, confirming the plans, from a… More
  Following his defection to the United States, a Russian General informs the C.I.A of his nation's plans to position nuclear missiles on the island of Cuba. The C.I.A seek the aid of a French secret agent (Stafford) who manages to steal documents, confirming the plans, from a Cuban official (Vernon) visiting the United Nations in New York. Stafford heads to Cuba to investigate further and also meet up with his mistress (Dor), a leader of the anti-Communist Cuban resistance. Meanwhile, the C.I.A have uncovered information regarding a Soviet spy-ring known as 'Topaz', working within the French intelligence network. Of all his films, 1969's 'Topaz' is arguably the least "Hitchcockian". With it's rambling plot and overly talky script, it resembles the work of a modern Hollywood hack rather than a master film-maker. Hitch had absolutely zero interest in adapting Leon Uris' novel but, following the commercial failures of 'Marnie' and 'Torn Curtain', Universal forced the best-selling book on him. The production was a troubled affair, with scenes being written as late as the night before they were due to be filmed. This infuriated the director, who had spent his career working in a strict, organized manner. He's often quoted as saying how his films were made long before the cameras began to roll, with every last detail worked out meticulously. This was far from the case with 'Topaz'. After a cheap, stock-footage utilizing, credits sequence, Hitch gives us an impressive opening. The defecting general and his family leave the Russian embassy in Copenhagen, planning to rendezvous with the C.I.A men who will aid their escape. Through a great crane shot, it's revealed that they have been seen leaving the building and are followed by two men and the creepiest female Russian agent since 'From Russia With Love''s Lotte Lenya. Hitch builds a suspenseful, dialogue free, set-piece as the family are followed through downtown Copenhagen by the villains. We're on familiar Hitchcock ground here but it's one of the few occasions in this film's lengthy running time. This opening sequence apart, there's about two minutes at best of classic Hitchcock on display in 'Topaz'. The film's most famous moment comes when Dor is discovered to be a traitor by Vernon, who holds her in his arms before shooting her. When he releases her lifeless body from his grip, she collapses to the floor, her purple gown spilling out like a pool of blood, all shown in a stunning overhead shot. (Spielberg paid homage to this moment in 'Munich', replacing the gown with a shattering milk bottle). Just as he used the roar of a jet engine to prevent us from hearing plot details in 'North by NorthWest', here Hitch has two characters hold a discussion behind a thick sound-proof door. We can see them but can't hear a word they say. For the most part, 'Topaz' is a humorless affair but there are a couple of moments of absurd comedy. They both feature Hitch's great love - food! In one scene, Vernon is searching for a document he seems to have misplaced. He finds it doubling as a napkin for a half-eaten burger, its text smeared with grease. (Once again America has meddled with Cuban affairs). The second comes courtesy of photographic equipment, hidden by spies inside baguettes. When seagulls fly off with the bread in their beaks, it alerts the villains as to the whereabouts of the spies. These brief sprinklings of note are rare and mostly only of interest to Hitch buffs. On the whole, the film is a terminal bore, like watching a Bond movie under the influence of heroin. The plot seems to ramble on for an age, eventually leading to an unsatisfying conclusion. Three endings were filmed as Hitch and his screenwriter Samuel Taylor struggled to wrap it all up. The final line of the movie comes from Stafford, "That's the end of Topaz". It's a relief to hear it.

• Eric B

  
  I was in utter disbelief at just how dull this film was. Wow. And the score is so bad, it's laughable -- it's as if the studio saw the rough cut, realized the film was a snooze and instructed the composer to goose the action as aggressively as possible. Meanwhile,… More
  I was in utter disbelief at just how dull this film was. Wow. And the score is so bad, it's laughable -- it's as if the studio saw the rough cut, realized the film was a snooze and instructed the composer to goose the action as aggressively as possible. Meanwhile, there's a puzzling lack of star power for an Alfred Hitchcock film. John Forsythe, Roscoe Lee Browne and Dean Wormer? Really? That's the best he could do?

• Brian R

  
  In 1962, the highly ranked Russian intelligence officer Boris Kusenov defects to the United States of America with his wife and his daughter under the protection of CIA agent Michael Nordstrom. In Washington, Boris discloses the Russian movement in Cuba, and Nordstrom asks the French… More
  In 1962, the highly ranked Russian intelligence officer Boris Kusenov defects to the United States of America with his wife and his daughter under the protection of CIA agent Michael Nordstrom. In Washington, Boris discloses the Russian movement in Cuba, and Nordstrom asks the French agent and his friend Andre Devereaux to get further documents from the Cuban leader Rico Parra using his anti-American corrupt secretary Luis Uribe. Then Devereaux travels to Cuba to get additional evidence of the Cuban Missiles with his mistress Juanita de Cordoba. When Devereaux returns, he receives orders from the French government to return to France to explain his participation in Cuba. However Nordstrom schedules a meeting of Devereaux with Boris and the ex-KGB official tells him about Topaz, the codename for a group of French officials in high circles who work for the Soviet Union. Further, he tells that the French NATO representative Henri Jarre is the second in the chain of command of the spy ring Topaz, leaking classified information to the soviets, and the head of spies in known only by the codename of Columbine. Devereaux realizes that he can not reveal the truth before finding who the traitor is. "Topaz" is not one of Hitchcock's best but it's not a bad film. The problem has to do with the ending and the film's pace, audiences (including myself) will have a difficult time understanding the secret agent lingo. The movie is very well casted and the performances is well acted. I especially enjoyed watching the scenes between the late actor Frederick Stafford and the beautiful Karin Dor. Hitchcock had problems with the studio and the test audiences, and reshoots but was able to complete it nonetheless. "Topaz" imo is still enjoyable to watch and just to slowly savour.

Read all 12 featured audience ratings