Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

A different way of telling a story

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

This is not your typical Hitchcock film, nor is it an easy film to follow and understand, but Topaz is a fantastic film! Took me many years of living and a few viewings over the decades to get it. Topaz is complicated, with a half a dozen McGuffins, tons of fascinating and intriguing international subplots, two parallel love stories, and an amazing cast of actors. After watching Hitch films for 50 years, and following the politics and spy craft of America, Cuba, Russia and France, all of which is needed to appreciate this film, for those who do their homework this film will be loved and seen as high quality Hitchcock with tremendous suspense and one awesome Hitchcockian murder scene. Visiting Cuba (yes - go!) and understanding the context of the geo politics in 1962, with respect to Russia, France and America will help greatly. My only fault with the film is the musical score which is subpar; a shame the great composer Bernard Herrmann was not able to work on this film. I will only say this: if you love Hitchcock and modern day geo politics you will love Topaz!

'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.

Easily the worst 'traditional' Hitchcock film, "Topaz" tells the tortuously dull story of a French espionage agent who goes undercover in Cuba just prior to the notorious missile scare before returning home to root out a double agent in the French intelligence service. One of these plots could have made a good movie; unfortunately, Hitchcock decides to include both of them and neither of them has anything in the way of a satisfying build-up or conclusion. This is hardly Topaz's only problem however. To start with, the film has the weird distinction of being over-the-top while lacking any sort of energy. To illustrate what I mean, all of the Cubans in the film look like they're trying to cosplay as Fidel Castro with their bushy beards and army uniforms even when they're sitting around in their New York City hotel room. One of the actresses also gets a ridiculously overwrought death sequence where her dress pools out beneath her as she dies. Yet, the acting of most of the cast is dull as dirt; all of these melodramatic elements in the script just come across as strange when the actors are so flat in their performances. The fact that almost no star power is present aside from Michel Piccoli (himself hardly a 'big' name and who is largely wasted in a supporting role) is puzzling, given Hitchcock's clout in Hollywood. As bad as these flaws are, it all comes down to the film's original sin: the awkwardness of how the two plots are stitched together. Just when you're looking forward to the movie being over, the second act begins. This disjointed feeling is compounded by the lack of any likable or interesting characters to keep the audience invested. The main French spy cavalierly cheats on his wife while on assignment in Cuba but he never reconciles (or even reveals these indiscretions) with her at any point. And yet, he's not presented as a flawed hero in any way. All these flaws, plus Hitchcock's rather outdated direction just makes the film look stale when compared to contemporary 1969 films. Thankfully, this was not the film the director went out on.

(32%) What to say about this film without bad-mouthing one of the greatest film makers of all time? Let me be kind and say that is very much of its time, though if one had any interest in the Cuban missile crisis before watching, then their appetite will be greatly diminished after, not by what one learns but through witnessing one of the least exciting, plodding films old Hitch ever put to film. The script (biggest culprit for films problems) is bland beyond belief and is a total wonder why it ever got picked up in the first place (slim pickings?) with its total lack of any real tension, uninspired dialogue, uninteresting characters or memorable scenes, couple that with some quite poor acting at times and some slightly sloppy editing. It's just so not what we love about the master's best work and probably would now be almost forgotten about if made by another, less well known or less respected director.