Topaz

Audience Reviews

View All (260)

Blu B The one strength this has is solid direction by Hitchcock in certain aspects. Camerawork, framing, set design, lighting is all good and this is the one thing that helps keeps the wheels on JUST long enough to limp across the finish line but BARELY. If this had been a lesser director I would've fallen asleep halfway. But that being said even with Hitchcock here all it does it makes everything passable. One of the biggest problems is the glorious medicore acting across the board. No one has any charisma or prescene to them and acts like it's a late 90's early 00's film. Boring monotone expressionless style of acting nonstop. Half the time everyone is just explaining plot and really doesn't have any interesting character. In fact there probably is too many characters in this which is the other big issue. There is no central character here most of the time. I get Andre is supposed to be but I don't know if it's his lack of screen prescene or what he's just there half the time. This is heavily plot driven rather than character driven which is like most Hitchcock films, but this one i'd say 55% of the time it jumps around to new characters. And with well over a 2 hour runtime it really weighs heavily. It gets hard to follow in the second half but I KIND OF get the general idea. It feels like the main defection plot goes nowhere and leads to the Topaz spy ring which is a completely seperate thing. It never generates tension and is stuck constantly feeling like it's just getting it's engines revved up. The ending is just a whole lot of nothing. It makes sense for the most part and isn't farfetched but it never takes the deception, twists and turns, and builds anything with it. It's just so flat the entire time and I just never really felt anything. Skip This. Easily the Worst Hitchcock Film I've seen but by no means is it a trainwreck. It's forgettable and meandering. Rated 3/5 Stars •  Rated 3 out of 5 stars 09/11/24 Full Review Shaun E Topaz is a film that left me conflicted. I watched the version with the 'airport ending' The overall storyline was fairly strong, but let down by this weak ending that could have been so much more. From what I have read, I am not sure that the other filmed endings were any better. I would have liked to see the bad guy sweat a bit. In terms of pace, the tempo is the film is fairly even, although perhaps a little long. There are few meaningful action scenes and so the story needs to work hard to drive the film forward, which it does reasonably well. The cast is not the strongest with a lot of weight on Frederick Stafford as the leading man in the film. He plays this role more than adequately and the film is clearly centred around him, but you do have to wonder if a more seasoned actor would have made more of the role. If I could, I would have given the film 3 1/4 stars. It felt better than just a three, but I wouldn't be recommending this to anyone other than diehard Hitchcock fans. Rated 3/5 Stars •  Rated 3 out of 5 stars 10/14/22 Full Review Audience Member Topaz is generally considered to be one of Hitchcock's weaker films, and yet I thought it was really terrific espionage thriller. After a Russian man offers some valuable information to the Americans, CIA operative Michael Nordstrom enlists the help of the French, in the form of French spy Andre Deveroux (perfectly played by Frederick Stafford). The film opens with a classic spy sequence in Copenhagen, whilst the Russian and his family defect to the west, where they eventually reveal that Soviet missiles (with nuclear warheads) are to be placed in Cuba. Needing physical evidence, Nordstrom persuades Deveroux to find pictures of the missiles, which are supposedly in a briefcase in Harlem. This particular sequence is one of Hitchcock's best; tension filled, and constantly exciting, leaving you with no inkling into the way it will end. Topaz, which is based on a 1967 novel of the same name, maintains its vigour and anxiety for its duration, and for my money isn't to be sniffed at in the way it perhaps has. As far as Cold War espionage thrillers go, it's one that's well worth a rewatch if you previously dismissed it. Rated 4/5 Stars •  Rated 4 out of 5 stars 01/29/23 Full Review Audience Member Since I can't even remember what was happening in this movie, I will get straight to the point. This has to be one of the most boring movies I have ever watched. An interesting premise set in the Cold War ultimately ruined by stupid performances, awful pacing, boring screenplay, too many characters/ subplots/ events to follow, Hitchcock's clichéd forced romance and a lot of propaganda against communists. It might have enough tense moments to be count on one hand and technical aspects of the films are nice, like the soundtrack and photography, but this movie is proof that you can't trust critics who say that Hitchcock is the all time greatest director, because he isn't. With the exception of masterpieces like Psycho, The Birds, Rebecca, Vertigo, Strangers on a Train, North by Northwest and Rear Window, his filmography is mediocre, to say the least. Rated 1/5 Stars •  Rated 1 out of 5 stars 02/22/23 Full Review Audience Member Thriller without any thrill. Not very Hitchcockian and the half baked way this was done suggests Hitchcock was not hugely motivated to do this film. Decent enough plot but tedious characters played by tedious actors. The only one to bring his character to life was John Vernon as Rico Parra. Other than that nothing positive to report. Rated 2/5 Stars •  Rated 2 out of 5 stars 01/16/23 Full Review Audience Member Cuban missile crisis thriller spy caper set mostly in Paris. Beautiful scenery including the cast. Enjoyable and plausible as it includes much based on real events. Rated 3.5/5 Stars •  Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars 02/05/23 Full Review Read all reviews

Topaz

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now