As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

I love seeing films half a century after their initial releases. It's not only a cinematographic experience that in many cases brings up unexpected gems, but also an opportunity to compare the acting and directing styles, the technical means, and the perspective on events, which some were actuality at the time the films were made and became history since then. In some cases it's also the opportunity to compare a fresh viewing with our own memories about the film, although this is not the case here with Torn Curtain , a late film by Alfred Hitchcock, whose Cold War theme seen from the Western perspective had no chance to pass the filter of the censorship in my native Romania at that time.There are many interesting elements in this story about a an American scientist (Paul Newman,) who plays spying games and simulates a crossing of the lines to East Germany in order to discover the status of a key weapon in the rockets arsenal of the Communist block. When his unknowingly fiancée (Julie Andrews) joins him against his will, his mission becomes more complicated. It's at the same time a psychological thriller (the fight of the minds between the American professor and his East German counterpart), an action movie, and a relationship story with some of the Hitchcock touch. As in many of his films, Hitchcock succeeds wonderfully in the thriller part, partially succeeds (or partially fails) in the action area, and fails completely in the romantic zone.50 years later, the very interesting part of the film is the rendition of the Cold War atmosphere. I have seen several films about that period, some more recent, and I was surprised how well Hitchcock succeeded to catch the feeling of the area without falling in any black-and-white clichés, describing a world close to what I knew, with people living under the pressure of a dictatorship, but still managing to joke, eat, drink, dance even under the scrutiny of the portraits of Karl Marx. There are less credible scenes - for example the whole auto-bus episode (why were these people traveling together at all?), but they belong to the action part of the script. Acting is decent, with Newman and Andrews doing what I remember they were supposed to do, but the most wonderful surprise is a poignant scene with the Russian-born actress Lila Kedrova which some may remember from Zorba the Greek . Her role there was unforgettable, so is the one here if you have the chance to see the film. A few daring Hitchcockian camera takes build the thriller part. A film to watch, especially if you are Hitchcock fans.

Torn Curtain, in spite of what some may believe, was not a flop. Critically mauled, it did however not fail at the box office. This can most likely be attributed to the fact that it's directed by Alfred Hitchcock and stars Paul Newman and Julie Andrews, three of the biggest names in cinema history.It's a film that isn't as awful as you may have been led to believe, in fact it's a passable Cold War suspenser, but it's just that it's a muted picture on auto pilot, an overlong spy caper encompassing a thematic beat about fidelity and trust. Plot involves defection, double agents, undercover missions and a whole host of shaky spy like shenanigans. However, these things are never developed into a thrilling movie. It exists, and cheekily for a while it holds the interest.Atmosphere is set at bleak, which is in keeping with the atmosphere behind the scenes of the production - casting decisions, fall outs et al - so really it's not a must see movie. There's some merit here, with ironic smarts and genuinely good ideas, it's just that come the 90 minute mark you will be looking at your watch and thinking the big names involved should be producing something a whole lot greater. 5/10

Did Hitchcock choose to name the bad guy 'Hermann' as a pun towards Bernard Hermann whom he sacked during the shooting? Hermann Gromek is one of the most memorable Hitchcock crooks that I spontaneously can think of, a sleazy, shrewd and intimidating type of a guy.Otherwise the movie is some kind of a travel brochure with all its locations and swift changes of means of transport.Newman's acting wasn't bad but I find it hard to accept that he didn't bother to learn German before 'defecting', being an academic and so on. Being an academic myself, I expect - out of experience - other academics to know at least three languages with reasonable command.Andrews. Terrible woman. I have true difficulties in watching anything where she's cast as she is completely in lack of sex appeal and annoying British accent. (I find Grace Kelly's accent annoying too, but that girl had IT, so to speak.) I don't believe that Hermann's score would have done anything to improve this! The sequences where Newman and the East German scholar doodle formulas on a blackboard, are those formulas authentic or random inventions?Besides Gromek, the ballerina was great.

In the 1960's the tensions of the Cold War ensured that the spy genre was at the height of its popularity both in films and on TV. After the financial failure of Marnie (1964), Alfred Hitchcock chose to play it safer and moved away from the complex psychological aspects of that film and into the more populist, less ambiguous spy thriller territory with his next two films Torn Curtain and Topaz (1969). Unfortunately, the decision did not pay off, as both of those were equally as unsuccessful at the box office as the darker, less straightforward Marnie. For me, Marnie is easily the best of Hitchcock's three 60's box office bombs but of the two spy thrillers, Torn Curtain is superior to Topaz. It's less flabby and more concise, yet both films share a similar characteristic where they begin very well but lose their way somewhat in their final third. With Torn Curtain, the initial set-up is somewhat intriguing and paced very well; it also includes a classic Hitchcock scene where a man and a woman kill a communist security agent in a farmhouse in a particularly protracted an messy fashion, going against cinematic norms and illustrating the sheer difficulty of killing someone. But psychological edginess is eventually disregarded and the plot essentially mutates into a chase movie which is a bit of a let-down considering the potential that has been put in place in the set-up.Its story has an American nuclear physicist defect to East Germany but finds his situation complicated when his fiancé follows him. This one is also typified by featuring two actual mega-stars of its day in Paul Newman and Julie Andrews. It has to be said though that neither of them seem to be at their best here and their performances almost feel a bit forced. Seemingly Hitchcock did not work well with method actor Newman and this clash of styles could be at least partially responsible for the uneasy feeling on-screen. Torn Curtain is hardly a disaster though as it does contain some great moments and benefits from a very polished look. And in fairness, even though it is somewhat routine, it's no less so that a few of Hitchcock's earlier more lauded thrillers. I do feel though that this director is at his best when he is working with material with more psychological edginess, as opposed to the more straightforward suspense embodied in Torn Curtain. It's a solid but unspectacular affair.