Customer Reviews

Torn Curtain

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I wanted to give this movie a chance because I'm very into Hitchcock and his films. I read that this film wasn't very good, but a friend of mine said it was wonderful, so I decided to see for myself. It was better than Topaz (which I think is Hitchcock's worst), but only just barely better enough because I managed to sit through it until the end. I don't like Paul Newman - and I've given him chance after chance. He's like a block of wood. Julie Andrews seemed to be putting forth no effort here either, and I know she can act (see The Sound of Music and Mary Poppins for proof). I did think it a bit strange that she never burst into song either.

The pattern of the travels of Michael Armstrong and Co. was a bit hazy and unrealistic. I mean, in East Germany, you are not going to have all those narrow escapes. The woman in the strange hat and rainbow scarf was a mystery to me as well - what she really had to do with anything I don't know. The story was weak and pointless, really, and Paul and Julie extremely unconvincing as a couple madly in love. And contrary to my description of my location above, wire-taps did not play into this tale at all.

The scene when Gromek is following Michael through the museum is probably the only artistic moment in the whole movie.

The climax was not at all thrilling, just laughable. Fire, yells Paul Newman, but he had better look out that his wooden acting doesn't catch fire cause it's all he's got! But on the other hand, that might not be a bad thing, if it DID catch...

I do not recommend this movie unless you're a Hitchcock enthusiast. That's why I watched it and I will not watch it again... It's a good one-time experience, that's all, that is if you can stay awake.

"Torn Curtain" (1966) is a good Hitchcock movie, it just isn't an excellent one. From my point of view, this film is entertaining, but not something you will remember after watching it.

The main character is Michael Armstrong (Paul Newman), an American scientist that defects to East Germany, to the despair of his fiancée and assistant, Sarah Sherman (Julie Andrews), who decides to follow him. However, things are not what they seem, as the spectator will realize soon enough.

Is "Torn curtain" a movie you should watch? Yes, if you are a serious Hitchcock fan, or have nothing better to do with your time. Personally, I liked it, but not a lot, and I am in no rush to watch it again.

Belen Alcat

Every genius is entitled to one fall from grace...& this is definitely Hitchcock's. Paul Newman(looking absolutely beautiful here)& Julie Andrews are shockingly miscast, the suspense is minimal & Hitch himself was obviously bored. For true auteurs, you all know what that means. We'll be bored too...

Amazon's own reviewer says this is one of Hitchcock's "lesser efforts"... I disagree. There are some amazing scenes in this film, gorgeous cinematography, stunning action scenes, a great chase and tension everywhere. This is not "North by Northwest" or "Vertigo".... but it is just as exciting, if not more so than "The Man Who Knew Too Much", "39 Steps" and "Rear Window". Julie Andrews is stunning and superb as the wife who does not know who her husband seems to be working for. Paul Newman is perfectly cast as the mysterious and secretive husband... and the supporting cast is incredible.... especially Wolfgang Kieling was "Gromek", the relentless and sadistic kidnapper. Real life ballerina Tamara Toumanova who dances beautifully, but who comes complete with an "evil eye" on things. Lila Kedrova whos words "Will you be my sponsor?" will haunt you long after the movie ends.... and Carolyn Conwell, who is amazing along with Paul Newman's character in the farm scene! Wow!! The DVD transfer is superb and this film is a sure winner all the way.

I thought this was a great movie.I enjoyed the chemistry between Paul Newman and Julie Andrews.I think it added to the frustration that she felt,not knowing what her Fiance'was up to.I felt the murder scene of Gromeck was very shocking or at the very least grisly and graphic.I enjoyed the bus scene and the scenes where the older woman was trying to help the two lovers escape from their captors .
This is one of my favorite Hitchcock films.

Hitchcock's TORN CURTAIN may not necessariy be the disaster people sometimes make out to be...but when viewed alongside his best films, it sure seems like it!

It's easy to pinpoint the flaws here. The pacing here is sometimes painfully slow. There is almost zero rapport or chemistry between Newman and Andrews. Both seem ill at ease in their roles, ESPECIALLY Paul Newman. And poor Julie Andrews has to utter the terrible line "but...that's behind the Iron Curtain!" Andrews' role as written is shockingly dumb- the audience has figured out that somethings up with Newmans' supposed defection LONG before his own fiancee does!

Then...the scene where it Hitch reconnects- the murder of Gromek. Still not on a par with, say, his legendary windmill scene, or his cropdusting scene, Hitchcock is at least displaying some imagination, and supplying some tension to a film that, by this reel, desperately needs it.

However, the film then unravels and can't quite get itself together. If the Academy gave awards for overacting, Lila Kedrova would have been a shoo-in, because she goes WAAAAAAY over the top as the Countess.

I've been overall negative, because it should be admitted that TORN CURTAIN is still leaps and bounds ahead of many other films (hence my 3 star rating). However, if you do watch it, try not to catch in the same time period as viewing NORTH BY NORTHWEST, NOTORIOUS or STRANGERS ON A TRAIN. It will seem a much better film...

Not a trainwreck...but an overall disappointment...

I've read a lot of reviews trying to rehabilitate this mid-60's Hitchcock film from the dustbin into which history has thrown it. The film has all the elements that go into a Hitchcock classic: that high-toned gloss that he perfected in such 50s films as "Vertigo" and "Rear Window"; a servicable plot that allows for potential suspense set pieces; and the sure use of location which made "Psycho", "North by Northwest" and "Vertigo" so intriguing.

But the film is like soda pop left open too long: all the ingredients, no fizz. Hitch's staging is way off here - the film is slow at the start and it never shakes this lethargy. Paul Newman plays an American scientist defecting, supposedly, to East Berlin and Julie Andrews, his financee, follows him there. There's no banter or rapport between these two, unlike say Robert Donat and Madeline Carroll in "The 39 Steps" or Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint in "North by Northwest." Newman looks miserable here; he's drawn-in and remote; naturally, his character has to remain guarded but Newman closes the audience off too. It was rumored that he and Hitchcock frequently fought on the set and Newman, who can be sly and witty, is defensive throughout. He seemed a lot happier working on a prison farm in his subsequent film, "Cool Hand Luke."

As for Julie Andrews, she has nothing to do. Hitch sets us up to believe that her pursuing Newman into East Germany will trigger the action but its really an event totally unrelated to her - the murder of Gromek - that sets the story off. While Janet Leigh was cleverly set up as a MacGuffin in "Psycho"; here this strange enervation of Julie Andrews' role seems like poor plotting (and the interview scene at Leipzig Univ. a paltry attempt to correct this).

Hitchcock piles up the bad calls throughout. In his best films, you may have seen how Hitchcock was manipulating the story (and your emotions) but his style made it a perverse pleasure - witness Grace Kelly's breaking into Raymond Burr's apartment in "Rear Window." Here the wit and style are missing so the suspense mechanisms are laid bare. When Newman is racing against the clock to obtain a secret formula from an East German scientist, you know your heart should be pounding. But all I was thinking was... you mean that's it? Two actors writing mathematical formulas on a blackboard? And in the big escape from Leipzig, Hitchcock shows that it would take another 28 years, with "Speed", for a bus to be used as a dramatic intensifer.

Despite what its defenders claim, "Torn Curtain" is a failure; only the incomprehensible "Topaz" is worse. Its not just that this Cold War story seems especially moldly today; but what really kills it is the lack of any apparent conviction by anyone involved. A couple mildly suspensful scenes - and I'm sorry, the murder of Gromek is *not* the masterly set-piece that its often claimed to be - do not compensate for this thin gruel. Buy it if you're a Hitchcock completist but you're money would be better spent buying a second copy of "North by Northwest" (or "The Rules of the Game.")

There is one name that jars in this film, and a person who bears that name and marred the film for Hitchcock -in my view-, and it is Paul Newman. Those "actor's studio" guys know anything else apart from looking "tormented"? Apartently, not. Why a method actor -or whatever they call o called themselves- couldn't act straight like Cary Grant, for example?

Of course, an anti-communist film in the mid-sixties, so "revolucionary" (mmm...) couldn't fare well with the critics. But Newman is the name, he is out of place, and where he is in place, I'm usually not interested.

Sure, the chemistry with Paul and Julie isn't the best (nor is her wardrobe)but I enjoy this movie every time I watch it. Especially exciting is the bus sequence towards the end of the movie. Great suspense. This movie improves upon each viewing.

If the cold war, the iron curtain or spy novels is your thing, then this is a movie for you. If not, you still might enjoy the plot.