IMDb user comments for
Topaz (1969) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 7:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Index

62 comments in total

---

26 out of 27 people found the following comment useful :-
Atypical Hitchcock, 10 August 2000

Author: (patrick.hunter@csun.edu) from Northridge, Ca

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.

---

29 out of 34 people found the following comment useful :-
An underrated Cold War thriller, 24 July 1999
Author: (sundar1@aol.com) from Toledo, OH, USA

Based on Leon Uris' novel of the same name about the tense days of the Cuban missile crisis, Alfred Hitchcock's `Topaz' is an underrated cold-war thriller - - underrated by English-speaking audiences and critics probably because the chief protagonist is a Frenchman! The first half of the movie is especially exciting, starting as it does with the defection (very realistically filmed) of a top Soviet official to the U.S, who hints at the existence of Soviet missiles in Cuba.. Frederick Stafford very adequately plays Andre Deveraux, the French trade official with Cuban connections whose help is requested by the Americans. Karin Dor is excellent as his beautiful Cuban paramour. Hitchcock's initial portrayal of Castro's Cuba is that of a rather benign place, but quickly changes to a frightening place later in the movie when the director clearly delineates the full brutality of his terrible regime. Deveraux's allies in Cuba are tortured and killed. The last third of the film, set in France, is not as exciting. The movie takes it own time exposing the members of the Topaz spy ring. The transition of the action from Cuba to France is abrupt and is another weakness of this flick. Maybe, `Topaz' should have been filmed in 2 parts, one about the Cuban missile crisis and another about French fellow-travellers! This is, perhaps, the only movie in which Hitchcock seems to show some sympathy towards those who get murdered, as evidenced by the final scene, which shows the ironical contrast between the superficial newspaper headline about the Cuban missile crisis ending and the grim fates of the unsung secret agents who helped end it. `Topaz' is one of the best cold-war movies ever made. Critics should re-evaluate it. But it is only a good Hitchcock movie, not his best.

---

29 out of 36 people found the following comment useful :-
Interesting but unsatisfying, 9 September 2000

Author: nikodemus

"Topaz" is one of Hitchcock's least satisfying films, yet the same time it's one of his most interesting ones, as well. Usually people don't remember it, maybe because there are no famous Hitchcock stars. Either the director didn't get any, or he didn't want them, because the audiences should tightly concentrate on the complex plot.

The film clearly divides into three parts. The one in the middle, which takes place in Cuba, is the best of them. It involves the films most memorable scene, the beautifully photographed murder. Weakest part is the last one, where you might get confused with the messy intrigues.

There are too many characters in the movie, which leaves many of them just bystanders, for example the worried wife (Dany Robin), who doesn't do really anything. The films brightest spot is Karin Dor, who gives an excellent performance as the beautiful Juanita. Too bad that her screen time is quite short. And the ending climax shines with its absence: the film ends like bumping into a wall.

---

17 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
Truly Hitchcockian despite its weaknesses, 10 March 2003
Author: TheFerryman

Unfortunately, I'd only come across the weak ending version. Despite of that, it's a truly Hitchcockian film. The memorable scenes are pure and exclusively visual: the intriguing start, the stealing of the documents, the death of Juanita, the torturing of the cuban spies, the discovery of the body at Jarre's apartment, the meal of the french officers...

Hitchcock used to take technical challenges in every one of his films, I assume that here he committed to deliver the most complicated information concerning the plot without using dialogue, and he succeed.

There's a lot of subtle humor and some clever twists. The cuban officers are just great, absolutely surreal. I loved the atmosphere in that hotel room, with people doing paperwork, smoking cigars and drinking, and the detail of the hamburger wrapped in the document. I think the very broad differences in tone between the three main sections of the film affects the pace and the appreciation of the story as a whole.

It's amazing how Hitchcock managed to survive in it in the light of the multitude of trouble this film went through.

Watching the video version edited in Norway had its extra. Amazingly, all subtitles were delayed a good five, six minutes throughout the entire film, so you actually had text during the silent scenes and incongruities such as love words during killings.

---

15 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
Brilliant sequences in an unsung Hitchcock film, 8 April 2006

Author: Jugu Abraham (jugu_abraham@yahoo.co.uk) from Trivandrum, Kerala, India

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.

---

13 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
Serviceable, workmanlike spy thriller that will never end up in anyone's "Top 10 Hitchcock films" list, 1 May 2007

Author: gridoon

"Topaz" is at its best when Alfred Hitchcock lets the camera tell the story: there are several small but brilliant moments in this film. But while his direction is still masterful, his pacing certainly isn't - the film often feels talky and plodding. The abrupt ending is another problem - one of the alternative endings, the airport one, sounds much better (unfortunately I haven't had the chance to see it yet). Frederick Stafford is no Cary Grant or even Rod Taylor, but he does the job; so do the rest of the actors, with Phillipe Noiret a standout in a brief role and Karin Dor adding a touch of sensuality to the proceedings. On the whole, "Topaz" is not even among Hitchcock's Top 10 pictures, but his fans will still have fun spotting his touches here and there. His cameo - a wheelchair-bound man who suddenly gets up and starts walking (!) - is just one of them. (**1/2)

EDIT: I finally did see the airport ending: it is undeniably better than the present one, but still a bit too abrupt.

---

16 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
The French Connection, 2 April 2004
Author: ecarle

One aspect of "Topaz" that should be kept in mind is that while American and British critics were belittling Hitchcock as a "mere entertainer," the French New Wave critics, led by Francois Truffaut, were lionizing him and Truffaut even published a book-long interview with Hitchcock published in 1967.

Hitchcock hadn't worked in years and was desperately trying to get another movie going when Universal showed him the book "Topaz" -- about spies in the French government, with a French protagonist and climactic scenes in Paris. I think that Hitchcock may have -- unwisely -- decided to do "Topaz" so he could do a "French picture."

There are some great individual scenes in Topaz -- the opening defection in Copenhagen, the suspenseful mission to get secrets from the Cubans in Harlem's Hotel Theresa (Hitchcock in Harlem?!); the hero's dangerous mission into Cuba and the death of his key contact there.

But Hitchcock really didn't like making "Topaz," he was bored and ill and resentful (Universal had killed a project called "Frenzy" -- not to be confused with the 1972 film he made of that name -- and Hitchcock was bitter about it.)

So we end up with a very half-hearted Hitchcock movie with a few good scenes, no real stars, THREE failed endings (all available to see on the DVD), and an attempt to "make nice with my French friends."

---

12 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
not bad, not essential, 14 January 2004
Author: preposterous

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I've seen most of Hitchcock's films, most of them many times, and I've seen all his later films.

I like Topaz. It has its problems. First off, although it may seem unimportant to some, Hitchcock has long relied on Bernard Hermann for some great soundtracks. Not only was Bernard not contributing to this film, but the music is inappropriate, light hearted, and almost comedic. It helps to destroy whatever atmosphere has been built up.

(SPOILERS)

Although the most beautiful scene is the one where the woman is shot, there are plenty of Hitchcock moments in here. Perhaps the best scene takes place in a porcelin statuette shop. There are plenty of overloaded psychological images in here, such as women walking away with their backs turned, etc. The scene where the defectors are approaching the plane has some of that Hitchcock aura about it. If the soundtrack were more weighty, it might help complete the mood. For example, the wry thriller To Catch a Thief is helped along with an incredibly weighty soundtrack. If this scene had some of that music ... but I repeat myself.

As others have explained, the movie has four parts, one involving the defection, another involving some intrigue in NYC and Wash DC, a third part set in Cuba, and a fourth set in Paris.

The first part is a moderate success. This is familiar terrain for Hitchcock and he does not fail. The defection and delivery of the Russian agent and his family has all of the suspense and excitement one would expect of a moderately successful Hitchcock film.

The film begins to drag in the Washington DC and NYC segments. The casting of Vernon as the Cuban revolutionary is unsatisfactory. He doesn't project a Cuban persona. Hitchcock should have gone for the jugular, and cast a real hispanic person in this role and tried to deliver the aura. Instead, he used a white bread character, and it just doesn't come off, despite Vernon's excellent attempt. The black actor who photographs the documents - he does an excellent job and the film would have benefitted with more of him about. He manages to tread the line between ruthless/frightening and light-hearted/likable. I wouldn't know whether to trust him or to run from him.

Things get interesting again during the Cuban segment, but something always seems to drag them down. Maybe it's Vernon's character. There is clearly a play at the James Bond character taking shape here, with the other actor, except this is a slightly more complicated, and morally compromised character, which makes it more interesting.

The last segment of the film, in Paris, has the greatest potential to open up on a new work. I would have liked to have seen more about these characters. For once, we get some red-blooded characters, motivation, complication, emotion, desire, fear, intrigue, double-crossing, etc. This should have been the heart of the film: two men making a play for the same woman, where all three had fought together during the war, and now they play for opposite sides, with a love triangle thrown in. The French characters are good, believable, but this segment of the movie moves along and ends too quickly to ever amount to anything beyond a tease.

So, I like this film, but it's many grades below other Hitchcock films, no question. On the other hand, I think it's a little bit better than Torn Curtain. I shouldn't say that - Torn Curtain has some great scenes, probably better than Topaz, but I think Topaz had the makings for a better film - it's just not realized. They're very similar. Torn Curtain is more successful, but Topaz has a real plot, whereas Torn Curtain is pretty much a glorified chase scene.

---

10 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Not a great movie, but it has some fair moments., 22 March 2005

Author: wbeek from Netherlands

This movie is not the best one Hitchcock has ever made I totally agree, but it does have some very good scenes. For example the opening scenes are filled with action. And I don't mean the Rambo-kills-all-evil-guys kind of action, but the ways in which the scenes are shot and thereafter edited, the camera angles, this subtle creation of 'suspense' Alfred Hitchcock is so well known for. I also remember the scene in which Juanita is killed, where again the camera angle is chosen splendidly so that her beautiful dress fills the screen. This is one of the most aesthetic killings I've ever seen. So the superior talent of the unquestionable master surely is present some times. So if one learns to value these moments and neglects the terribly eclectic plot (Hitchcock was forced to extremely cut down the movie), it's not so bad a movie after all.

---

9 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Stodgy, Dated, French Spy Mixed Up In Cuban-American Hostilities Cold War Thriller, 1 September 2007

Author: ShootingShark from Dundee, Scotland

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

André Devereaux is a French intelligence agent persuaded by an American associate to acquire some secret documents help by a Cuban military leader. He succeeds, but at great cost to his personal life and his career, and there is a double-agent lurking in his past ...

Topaz is a rare thing - a dull Hitchcock film. Even he made the occasional dud (Waltzes From Vienna, Under Capricorn) and this spy thriller is all talk and not nearly enough action. The story, based on a book by Leon Uris, is good enough, with plenty of intrigue and counter-espionage, and the Cuban Missile Crisis backdrop was sensational at that time. But there are too many characters, none of which are either sympathetic or scary enough and endless scenes where they simply wade through piles of plot exposition. There's a good early sequence with Browne as the French-Caribbean agent trying to photograph the sneaky military pact documents, and Vernon is good as one of Castro's bully-boy lackeys, but lead Stafford is hard to like (he cheats on his wife and uses his family to do his dirty work) and doesn't really achieve much. The tone is uneven and atmosphere scarce; photography, editing and score don't really contribute much - contrast this with something like Psycho, where they are absolutely paramount. This is a lesser companion piece to Hitch's preceding Cold War thriller, Torn Curtain, and he followed it with one of his very best movies - the disturbing, hair-raising and hilarious Frenzy. I wish this movie had even one-tenth of the suspense or humour of that one. In the sixties - and only the sixties - the big movie studios really had no idea what to make; Topaz is one of many films which evidence this.

---

---

Page 1 of 7:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	External reviews	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history