 |
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Movie Reviews of TopazMovie Review: Who's on first? Summary: 4 Stars
As so many people are I'm a Hitchcock fan. For some reason I've never seen this movie before. What a treat to happen upon an old friend in new clothes! This movie is based on Leon Uris' Cold War/Bay of Pigs novel of the same name. Agents and double agents, people changing allegiances, no way to tell who's telling the truth or even why they're saying and doing things. The photography (as is almost always true with Hitchcock) is startling. He does an omniscient thing by photographing from above so often interspersed with his signature WAY too close up shots. I was most struck by the actor who played Deveraux. I haven't read Uris' book so I'm not sure what his intent was but there doesn't seem to be any one character who you feel completely sympathetic with so it was hard to feel fully `present'. Not one of Hitchcock's best movie but hey, it's still Hitchcock.
Movie Review: A fine story of Cold War espionage Summary: 4 Stars
I liked this movie a lot. "Topaz" is based upon the Leon Uris novel of the same title, and I consider that novel to be perhaps Uris' finest work. While the movie does not quite measure up to the excellence of the novel, it makes a brave attempt to do so. This is an engrossing and realistic film about the Cuban Missile Crisis and retains its relevance today. Without giving away too much, the story revolves around a French espionage agent who supplies vital intelligence information about the Soviet missile buildup in Cuba. This film is multidimensional, with engrossing characters, a solid storyline, and historical relevance. Not to be missed.
Highly recommended. RJB.
Movie Review: A disappointing cold-war thriller from the Master Summary: 3 Stars
"Topaz" is a tired Cold War thriller from the Master.
After the disaster of "Torn Curtain", Hitchcock had a go at making another "Bond-like" film but once again he missed the mark and never tried it again. If he had not made the brilliant "Frenzy" three years later one could easily have come to the conclusion that he was well past his best.
One of the major problems with "Topaz" is that the actors are all second-rate - particulary Frederick Stafford in the lead role of a French intelligence agent.
There are some interesting touches - for example the scene in the flower shop where we can't hear what the actors are saying - but this film smacks of a once-great director struggling to find his feet in the "modern" cinema.
"Topaz" should be seen once by all Hitchcock fans, but despite the advocacy of Leonard Maltin and other reviewers, Hitchcock's third-to-last film doesn't have much to recommend it.
Movie Review: Not his best. Summary: 2 Stars
It became generally assumed after "Torn Curtain" and even more so after "Topaz" that the great Hitchcock had finally fallen victim to the march of time. It turns out what he had actually fallen victim to were idiots at Universal Studios who insisted he hop on the "evils-of-communism" bandwagon. The results turned out to be exactly what these meddlers deserved. "Topaz" is, simply put, a misguided failure on just about every count. Hitchcock loathed location filming, and this film required extensive location work. Music had always been an integral part of the Hitchcock "recipe". Since he had lost his favorite composer, Bernard Herrmann (again precipitated by studio meddling on "Torn Curtain") the score was composed by the fine Maurice Jarre who, unfortunately, just didn't seem able to fill Herrmann's shoes. It is obvious in scene after scene that Hitchcock just didn't give a damn about this film. And the lesson cost Universal over $4 Million, nearly five times as much as Hitch had spent on "Psycho" a few years earlier.
The fact that Hitchcock was still fully capable of making a good film was proven when he came roaring back some three years later with the remarkable "Frenzy" and, a couple of years later, with his valedictory, the lovely "Family Plot".
"Topaz" is a slight blemish on a remarkable career. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
 |
|
|
|