Why so much hype?

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Boring

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

'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.

It's a shame to go into a film by a director with a massive, amazing career and reputation and knowing that this particular film isn't regarded well. I put off seeing Topaz for years, and I'm not sure why now seeing it: it's not a terrible film or an embarrassment. It even has some very good things to say about it. But I can see why the reputation came with it as it did: it's Hitchcock's longest film at 143 minutes, and there's times dialog doesn't exactly bog the movie down as much as it *sounds* like movie dialog, it doesn't always have the natural flow as it does in other Hitchcock films. Does it need to be 'lighter'? Of course not. But when there's this much exposition and the characters are mostly meant to move the pieces along, the charm and excitement found in other works by this director - outside of the technique, when it was down to a great script and great actors making it a combination - the depletion of quality can be felt.To say some positive things: Hitchcock at this stage still has a grip on set pieces, and the opening is terrific. It's mostly done without much dialog, if at all, as characters are following other characters, others then notice they're being followed, subtle little things happen like the knocking over of a glass doll, and always the camera and editing make this kinetic while calling just enough attention (i.e. that first shot after the credits where the camera pirouettes, or I should say the zoom lens, from a view into a small window/mirror to the actors leaving a building and then following).And certain individual shots and moments, like seeing exposition happening but not hearing it (we don't have to hear it, of course), or a couple of key over-head shots in a set-piece involving a man having to kill someone he doesn't want to but has no choice left... I mean, there are moments where it's hard not to get the 'Hitch gives on a spine-tingling sensation).Oh, and I must point out John Vernon, easily the best consistent part of the movie acting-wise; it's interesting that a white guy who clearly shouldn't be playing a Cuban doesn't show that it's miscast. He completely sold me on this character of this Castro acolyte and makes him intimidating and on occasion soulful. I thought he'd only be in one scene and when I saw he'd be a key antagonist, I was thrilled.I think even the story itself, when you look at structurally how it's laid out and the little twists and turns it takes, is compelling enough to keep attention, or at the least it's not unwatchable. I think what hurts this is that most of the other actors, even John Forsyth, who worked with Hitch before, are flat and especially so with Frederick Stafford.On the DVD extras Leonard Maltin may say he's a "good" actor, but I'm not so sure. Maybe in material that wouldn't require so much, if it just was a part that asked for swagger or a little 007-rip-off charm, then fine. Here, this is a character that should have a little complexity even as the straight-man lead spy. Dany Robin is alright too, but not given much to do; I thought it interesting that the writer Samuel Taylor tried to put in some comment on infidelity in the film with this couple, but it gets lost in the scope of this plot.I might have been even kinder and found this to be a good movie instead of just fairly decent (and, yes, one of the lessor Hitchcock films... which still means it's *not bad*, I need to emphasize that), if it had a strong ending. It's now some film history that there are alternate endings, yet I got the wrong impression from one of the books I read and thought this ended with the duel set-piece (which makes sense, as this needs a final confrontation between the two characters involved in this). I should only comment on how this *does* end, but that sucks so I'll review briefly these alternate endings: the 'duel' one is conceptually brilliant, but I think the lack of the director on set (he had to be called away before it could be shot so a producer stepped in to shoot it) can still be felt despite the storyboarding; the 'airport' ending, which is different than what is on the DVD of this full director's cut, is actually amusing in the way that maybe the rest of the film isn't, but it works well in a way that's unexpected in giving a big shot of ambiguity.And then there's the third ending, which was screened in the shorter 127 minute prints on its original release, where a character goes and kills himself after receiving some troubling news. This looks awkward, but there's a brief montage showing everyone who died in the line of all of this espionage and that, superimposed over a newspaper headline about the missile crisis being over, is extremely affecting and effective. It almost shouldn't feel earned, but that is a good little gut punch at the end of all of this.So, I don't know. None of them are completely satisfying, but it turns out to be a case of there not being a sufficient ending, which is a problem. All the same, Topaz isn't some disaster, and isn't as boring as you've heard. It's simply part of that weak period someone this filmmaker fell into after (the underrated) Marnie and his last hurrah in true diabolical fashion with Frenzy.

I am fond of "old", Cold War spy movies and I try to watch/re-watch them bit by bit. True, they have multiple similar type of characters and solutions, particularly with the entrance of James Bond movies, but in the event of smooth plot and pleasant performances, you will not have blah feelings. I can't remember I have seen Topaz before, but, on the alike many other viewers here, I was not "put off" by the name of Alfred Hitchcock; as I knew the plot briefly, I did not expect any thrilling suspension in the style of Psycho.Nevertheless, I liked the movie in general, particularly direction and cinematography; as for the cast, there were no excelling performances, Frederick Stafford as André Devereaux was not very charismatic, and the French actors made conversations in English even if talking to themselves (a feature seldom visible in recent movies where dubbing or subtitles are used in scenes concerned). The plot was okay as well, especially the places I have visited, but decades later, and if we consider that the Cuban-Western crisis is not totally over until now... The events were nicely round-up, twists were explained at some point, and general logic was maintained throughout the movie. And last but not least: Topaz is a color movie, enabling to enjoy beautiful landscapes and city space.

Russian KGB official Boris Kusenov defects with his family to the States. He is arrogant and gives some partial info to the CIA about Cuba. CIA agent Mike Nordstrom gets his French intelligence agent friend André Devereaux to investigate the Russians' involvement in Cuba. Meanwhile the defector discloses a French spy ring codename Topaz.The defection works great. It is an exciting start to the movie. But I feel that there are a lot of static stationary scenes. It doesn't have enough movement to denote the needed action. On the plus side, there are other things here like the jealous wife of the French agent, and the spy craft minutia. But mostly it's a little bit slow.The fact that the main protagonist agent is French may be a hindrance to this movie. This is not a Bond movie. But it's also not morally ambiguous. Director Alfred Hitchcock has made something in between. It's a French Bond without much of the action. And the ending just fizzles out. It is a fairly average spy movie with some interest Hitchcock-style scenes.