User reviews

Like so many Hollywood talents, Hitchcock was stereotyped. Also like so many Hollywood talents, whenever he tried to escape stereotyping, he would get criticized. That certainly was the case with TOPAZ. Although not as humorous, nor as romantic, nor even as exciting as the director's best films, the movie is nonetheless an intelligent and intriguing spy drama, one that compares more to a motion picture like DAY OF THE JACKYL than usual Hitchcock fare.

His other spy dramas, like NORTH BY NORTHWEST, may be more fun, but none of them are as realistic. In fact, very few spy films have the authenticity as TOPAZ. The story is based on fact. In 1962, a Russian top-level KGB defector informed the U.S. that some very high-level French diplomats, in a group called "Sapphire", were selling secrets to the Soviet Union. TIME Magazine printed this story in April 26, 1968, and did so using the same source that Leon Uris did: the U.S. sympathizing (and exiled) former Chief of French Intelligence, Philippe Thyraud de Vosjoli.

Incidentally, a viewer needs to know the chronology and key events surrounding the 1962 Cuban Missile Crises as background, or else the film will be confusing. I suspect many critics condemn it because it's easier for them to dismiss the film rather than confront their own ignorance.

Not that this movie is without weaknesses. Hitchcock was no realist, and the grim world of films like THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD is probably the type of ambiance it should have presented, but doesn't. However, I definitely join the camp of those who consider it underrated. I read writers on Hitchcock who unthinkingly rank TOPAZ with his worst stuff, and yet many of us prefer it over THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY, MR. AND MRS. SMITH, and other Hitchcock works that don't get castigated as nearly as much. I can't help but suspect they receive less criticism because they are more typical Hitchcock. This film is atypical Hitchcock, so readjust your expectations accordingly.

Topaz (1969) is the 51st Alfred Hitchcock movie.In the year 1962 there's the cold war going on.The story takes you to Denmark, NYC, Washington DC, Paris and Cuba when it was ran by a man named Fidel Castro.Remember? Topaz is based on the novel by Leon Uris.This is not Hitchcock's best work but it's not bad either.He couldn't make a bad movie.Hitchcock at worst would be a masterpiece to some directors of our time.One thing this movie was criticized about was that it didn't have any big stars there.That may be a little problem, but just a little.There still are some great actors performing their parts.The most known name would be the now 90 year old John Forsythe.Also the late Roscoe Lee Browne is in the movie.Frederick Stafford is there.Michel Subor, Michel Piccoli, Philippe Noiret and so on.There are many French actors in this movie and people were probably expecting Cary Grant or Jimmy Stewart.Nevertheless this is a good movie.Not the best of Hitch but for a man with so many masterpieces under his belt you couldn't expect him hit the jackpot every time.

When a russian defects, he reluctantly tells what he knows. It's not much. And the american agents must tread carefully, since they cannot be connected to any shady dealings. So they convince french agent devereaux (stafford) to do the dirty work. In cuba. This is during the cuban missile crisis, just after the failed bay of pigs operation. Devereaux's wife doesn't like him working as an agent, and is spoiling everything with her gossip. Co-stars roscoe browne. Some fun spy shenanigans. Early footage of ché guevara and fidel castro. It's a good story, with some history thrown in. Directed by hitchcock, the king of suspense. Based on the novel by leon uris, towards the end of hitchcock's directing career. Good spy intrigue.

I personally found Topaz engaging and interesting. But I found myself wondering why the lead character was written to have a wife and very blatantly a lover in a different country. It didn't make him less likable and that in itself is interesting. For some reason, the lead male character is sympathetic despite his blatant disregard for his wife's feelings. It is obvious a man wrote this story. A woman would have found the infidelity of the lead character appalling. That aside, Topaz is interesting to watch even if it becomes a bit like a soap with the dramatic interpersonal relations and the emotions so closely shot on the character's faces. The movie is well done and well acted but very complicated. Lot's of on ___location shots make the atmosphere good but at times it seems a bit over dramatic. Still, Hitchcock fans will probably enjoy this. The ending seems a bit odd but the DVD has 3 different endings so you can pick your own out of the three.

Firstly let me make it clear I'm an avid Hitchcock fan.

Secondly this film is flawed, but then it's hard to name a Hithcock film that isn't. He was an artist but often produced some very clumsy scenes as well as outstanding and innovative ones.

The ending of this film is abrupt especially after the lengthy talky scenes of the final (French) part of the film (which had some great scenes especially with Philippe Noiret & Michel Piccoli). Abrupt - this is Hitchcock being clumsy again (Needed a bit more time spent on in to polish it up, that's all), but probable - so not unsatisfying.

The 2nd part stands out, most notably in the exceptionally filmed murder scene; Hithcock is at his best when he's being arty - beautiful (Full honours to Karin Dor!).

The opening defection scene is pure Hitchcock.

The score, often fine, is inappropriate at times (Either by being there at all, or too light a mood).

I think this film has been sadly underrated. It may lack the action modern films seem to require but it is a good counter balance to the OTT espionage films like Bond (Which I have to admit I also enjoy, Roger Moore aside).

'Topaz' is quite different than most of the previous movies in the filmography of Alfred Hitchcock and also lacks the (American movie) stars in its distribution, as his fans were accustomed in the 20 or 30 years that preceded its release in 1969. These may be two of the principal reasons that the movie is less credited in by the critics and historians of cinema. There are, however, sufficient reasons of satisfaction for the movie fans, and the film does not fall in my opinion lower than 'Torn Curtain' that preceded it by three years, and also brought to screen a Cold War spy story. On the contrary, I would say.

The film brings to screen a novel by Leon Uris which tells a true story of a Soviet spy ring in the high French political environments during the critical days of the Cuban missiles crisis. The events in the fall of 1962 that brought the world closer than ever to an atomic war were since then the subject or background of many books and films, but Hitchcock was the first well-known film director to bring what was at that time very recent history to screen, in a moment when the story was still under censorship in France. However, this was not in the area of comfort for Hitchcock who liked to be very involved in the writing of the story and building of the suspense, an opportunity that was lost with 'Topaz' . This may be also why there is less Hitchcock thrill in this film than we are used. There is yet quality, but more in the details than in the overall architecture.

One of the best parts of the film is the rendition of the atmosphere of the time and places where the action takes place. Washington, Moscow, Copenhagen, Paris are all well served by filming on ___location, the only exception is Cuba, for obvious reasons. We can say that Hitchcock was a pioneer (also) of the international spy thriller, and we can only imagine what would have happened if he had been trusted with a James Bond movie. He also uses in a flawless manner the combination of documentary clips cut and edited together with filmed fiction. The lead actors are not doing great service to the movie, but we can see a progress and less stiff acting than in previous films. It is with the supporting roles that the good surprises appear, with the beautiful and exotic Karin Dor in the Cuban episode, and the French stars Michel Piccoli and Philippe Noiret giving style and credibility to the French episode of the action. It is in the humor of dialogs and situations, in the use of music (composed by Maurice Jarre) and in the creative games of colors that we find some of the Hitchcock touch. Otherwise, we can just enjoy a good action movie based on a Cold War story which has the merit to have been filmed at the time of the Cold War. Not a bad film, but not really one of the best Hitchcock films either.