Torn Curtain
|
List Price: Our Price: $9.29 You Save: $10.69 (54%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $6.69 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Torn Curtain
Movie Review: Cold War Spy vs. Spy Drama..
Summary: 4 Stars
Stars Paul Newman and Julie Andrews. Story of an American scientist who defects to East Germany. Did he really defect or is he out for something more...?? Hitchcock at his best...!!
Very good story and drama. Must See !!
Movie Review: Hitchcock not at the top of his game
Summary: 3 Stars
I think that one of the problems with this film is that it was made in the mid-sixties, when the style of film making was changing radically. In Europe you had Nouvelle Vague pouring out of France and comparable new styles coming from Sweden (Bergman) and Italy (Fellini, Antonioni).
In the US the Actors' Studio was changing the style of acting completely. Out was the old, glib, surface charm of the fifties, where Hitchock thrived and who actors such as Cary Grant shone. Paul Newman, coming out of Actors'Studio was wonderful in intense psychological dramas. He certainly has the looks and natural charm to make a splash in this film, but it obviously wasn't his style. He wanted to know what made his character say a certain line and Hitchcock replied "because it's written in the script, dear boy." Obviously the two were not on the same page and it really shows in this movie. Newman gives the worst performance I've ever seen him give.
Perhaps no one really had their heart in it. Hitchcock is reported not to have wanted to make it but did it only at the insistence of the studio. Apparently the studio wanted Julie Andrews, who was hot at the time, although Hitchcock didn't want her. That was a huge mistake. Hitchcock loved his beautiful actresses and got great performances out of them. Andrews just doesn't have the looks, or the charisma to make us believe that the Newman character would ever want to be on the same screen with her, let alone the same bed. The dreadful hairstyle and terrible dreary wardrobe certainly didn't help. (As another reviewer said, Hud met Maria von Trapp!) (or Mary Poppins). I think that if a more appealing actress had been cast, that the whole film might have come alive.
The supporting cast is terrific, though. The fellow who plays the original bodyguard, Gropek, is very funny with his American slang. Why do Eastern European villains wear those awful black leather coats? The famous farmhouse scene was hilarious, too. Carolyn Conwell who played the heroic farmer's wife was really wonderful. Some people felt the Leipzig professor was too over-the-top and I can see that, although I did enjoy him, especially in the restaurant, when he happened to mention, while a Viennese waltz was playing, that his sister was hit by a tram in Vienna. Lila Kedrova as the Polish countess was almost too good for the film. Her performance was so deeply moving that it broke through the surface of the film. She and Newman belong in their own film.
When you think of other Cold War spy films, this is so poor. None of it is convincing, so it fails on that level, too. All in all, it is a film that diehard Hitchcock fans will enjoy. Others, not so much.
Movie Review: as bad as widely thought
Summary: 3 Stars
Though it is of course hitchcock, this film is badly sub-par. Not only does it move too slowly, but there are so many scenes that don't ring true, either wildly improbable or unrealistic in their mechanics. There were a number of incidents that gradually diminished the credibility of the film until I was just waiting for it to get over with.
First of all, how could ANdrews have gotten on an airplane for East Germany without a visa? Perhaps this is an anachroinistic question, but without a return ticket at least she would have been questioned. Second, how could a trained security policeman both follow Newman into the countryside right after his arrival without radioing it in immediately (it is a totalitarian state, afterall) and then allow a university professor to off him so easily? He is a trained killer. This badly underestimates the lock control of a police state. Third, when Newman is trying to escape the university, it appears that he stumbles into the correct room, where help is waiting, this after he is forced to change course. That is way too awkward for what we expect from Hitchcock. Fourth, how could they ever have gotten past the check points? Newman surely would have been recognized. Moreover, how could the robber army guys ever have controlled their own territory? Fifth, how could the escape network people have kept themselves secret and safe? How could they be "non-political"? How could the authorities have shot at them in the street without the city shutting down?
THese questions being asked, there are a number of nice twists in the film. That fact that ANdrews unexpectedly came along adds a fun dimension, the spy having to escape with a fiancee. She is the most original character in the whole thing. The executive east German security professionals are also menacing in subtle ways, even if their bag men are rather bumbling. THere are plenty of nice moments of suspense, such as the double bus problem. The desperate, somewhat crazy woman was also well acted, as her indiscretions nearly doomed the pair while helping them. Finally, I did enjoy the arrogant academics, at once part of the state yet gullible seekers of scientific truth.
Unfortunately, Hitch squandered an opportunity to paint a better picture of East Germany. Perhaps this is expecting too much, but I wanted more atmosphere and sophistication. I would recommend this only for diehard Hitchcock fans.
Movie Review: Not as bad as widely thought
Summary: 3 Stars
TORN CURTAIN is widely considered to be one of Hitchcock's worst films, definitely one of his worst films after moving to the United States in 1939. An initial viewing of the film tends to underwhelm. But after seeing this again for the first time after several years, I was mildly surprised at how decent it was. Good? No. It is certainly not a good film by any standards. But neither is it a bad film.
The film was hurt both by a poor script and weak casting. Paul Newman was a great actor, but he was simply inappropriate for the lead in this film. He could be many things in various roles, but he simply was not convincing as a nuclear physicist. Julie Andrews in the film was a needless decoration, adding very little to it in any way and Hitchcock was very open about her being one of his least favorite leads.
There are a number of decent scenes and interesting moments. Hitchcock is not widely regarded as an experimental filmmaker or an avant-garde director, but in fact, throughout his career he was constantly trying out new techniques and new technology. For instance, in THE BIRDS he used, in conjunction with composer Bernard Hermann, an extremely early version of the synthesizer, perhaps the first time it was used in any film. In TORN CURTAIN, Hitchcock wanted to emphasize the recognition of Newman's character in a theater by a ballerina. He used an unusual freeze frame technique. As the ballerina, who had met Newman and Andrews on a flight into East Berlin, pirouettes, the film is briefly frozen as she looks out into the crowd. There is also an excellent scene in which a fake bus, which has left ten minutes earlier than a real bus, is overtaken by the latter.
But the highlight of the film, and one of the most memorable death scenes in any Hitchcock film, is the killing of the German agent in a small farmhouse in the East German countryside. In a scene in which Hitchcock wants to show how difficult it is to kill someone, Newman and the woman who lives in the house struggle over the course of several minutes to kill him. There is some great cutting reminiscent of the best moments of the shower scene in PSYCHO. It shows that even in some of his weakest films he could still do some remarkable things.
Movie Review: A little enjoyable repetition of old situations...
Summary: 3 Stars
In Hitchcock's "Torn Curtain," Newman plays an American nuclear scientist who pretends to defect to East Germany, so that he can trick a scientist into revealing a missile formula...
His bewildered, abandoned fiancée (Julie Andrews) follows to see what he's up to... Not wishing to involve her, he lets her think he's a traitor, but when her confusion jeopardizes his position, he tells her the truth... Overjoyed, she helps him, and they end up in a series of chases and escapes...
Newman does come across as unemotional, or at least not very warm; in fact, critics complained that he was too intense and gloomy in a part that they thought required humor... But coldness and seriousness are actually essential to the character and to Hitchcock's conception...
Initially, we are supposed to share Andrews' alienation from him... Later, when we learn that he's not a traitor, we may want to view him differently, but immediately afterward he commits a gruesome killing, of a most likable villain, which again distances us from him... From that point, even though he's apparently the "hero," his actions are never purely motivated... His attitude toward Andrews is indicative: by following him, she endangers herself, which concerns him slightly, but she also endangers the mission, which is what really troubles him...
Hitchcock, therefore, is portraying an anti-hero--not a glamorous spy, patriotically following his country's orders, or an innocent, sympathetic victim (Cary Grant in "North by Northwest"), but a man on his own, deliberately pursuing a selfish goal (the formula might get him back his job).
Newman is therefore well-cast: his indifferent rejection of the woman, his ruthlessness, his willingness to endanger lives and engender chaos, are familiar aspects of the Newman image... Here, since there isn't the balance of charm, humor or self-realization, he is non-involving... The "neutral" emotion may serve Hitchcock's plan, but it leaves the audience out in the cold...