Too much of everything

the audience applauded

Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Being directed by the Master of Suspense, "Topaz" indeed contains an interesting plot. The trouble, however, is that it moves at such a glacial pace that it requires a bit of effort to finish.For a basic plot summary, "Topaz" is an espionage tale focusing on Andre Devereaux (Frederick Stafford), who (along with wife, child, Latin lover, and national government) finds himself in a mess of government secrets involving the Cubans, French, and Russians.The actual espionage portions of this film are quite interesting and compelling. Hitchcock keeps you guessing up until the very end, when he then throws twist after twist at you until the ultimate climax. Though the overall plot is a bit slow to develop (like everything else in the movie), by the end you'll really want to see how things turn out.The trouble, however, is that "Topaz" is far too slow-paced to generate any really momentum from plot point to plot point. There is none of the usual witty Hitch-style humor or snappy dialogue in this one. Instead, it bogs down in sappy romance and erstwhile character development.Thus, I consider "Topaz" to be a weak Hitchcock film. Though the overall kernel of story is interesting, it lacks the usual Hitch suspense & tension. Unless you are a die-hard Hitchcockian, this one can easily be skipped.

This is a Hitchcock film that "Got Away" as it is one of his films that few people seem to be aware of. It starts off OK with a Russian Official, along with his wife and daughter, attempting to defect to the Americans in Copenhagen. The Russian Defector tells the Americans that there is a French Spy ring codenamed "TOPAZ" who are passing NATO secrets to the Russians. He also states that the Russians are shipping materials into Cuba although he doesn't know what these materials are. John Forsythe who plays a CIA man then tells his friend in the French Secret Service who is played by Frederick Stafford. Stafford agrees to go to Cuba to find out what is going on. After his return he then attempts to track down the French spy ring. All this is taking place in 1962. As previously stated, the film starts off OK then chugs along, briefly coming back to life with a long scene in a New York Hotel which is full of Cubans. Finally, however, the film kinda stalls and by the end has sort of fizzled out. An interesting Hitchcock film, but not a memorable one.

Hitchcock's attempt to do a movie of Uris's cold war spy novel is entertaining, as all Hitchcock's films are, but I would wager that he agonized over this one. He was very good in the scenes where the politicians/intelligence agents are meeting over 'who knows what about whom, and what does it mean, and who is going to leak what to whom, and how will this affect everyone, and let's do whatever it takes to find out.' Hitchcock is always a genius in the one-on-one close-ups whereby body language so betrays the hidden dark secrets, but I am not so sure about the scenes that are supposed to explain to a movie audience just who is an enemy of whom, and who is out to stab whom in the back (if you know what I mean). Personally, I think Cubby Broccoli does a better job of these kinds of spy stories in the James Bond series.The Hitchcock action sort of stops and starts in jerky movements, like a car with a faulty engine. Copenhagen, to Washington, to Cuba, to Paris, back to Washington. Getting on planes, getting off planes. From unhappy wives to anxious daughters to an ambitious son-in-law (his loyalty was to whom? And what exactly was his purpose in the film?) From enigmatic mistresses to servants who are agents (for whom? and why?) The only explanation: "Cuba is a prison." Huh? In the early days Castro was a saint! To me, the best scene in the movie is that of getting the defector and his family out of Copenhagen. That was pure Hitchcock. Hitchcock never gave attention to the blatant "kissy, kissy" stuff in his movies like he did in this one. The romance was almost also implied, which made it even more magic. Those particular scenes in this one felt like A) filler or B) everyone in Hollywood is doing it; we should also do it.This movie was to me one of the weakest of the Hitchcock events. It is painful to compare it to "North by Northwest," "Rear Window," "Witness for the Prosecution," "Dial M...,' etc, etc, etc. The morale of this experience is, stay true to yourself and your craft, no matter what.

I don't care who made it, TOPAZ is a dreadful film. The acting is terrible - John Forsythe and Frederick Stafford make Greg Morris and Peter Lupus in MISSION IMPOSSIBLE look like Olivier and Gielgud. John Vernon looks exactly like one of those stock Latin American revolutionaries that the IMF force overthrew every week. As a thriller, it simply does not thrill. The dialogue is execrable - the dubbing worse. The only interesting bits are when - mercifully - hardly anybody speaks. The blurb on the 2005 DVD describes TOPAZ as a 'riveting' and 'spellbinding espionage thriller.' By the end, 'the danger and the suspense builds to a heart-pounding conclusion in this lavish, globe-trotting thriller.' Ask for your money back - but you won't get it. I think Hitchcock is greatly over-rated: he made some great films, yes, but some terrible turkeys as well. If you want a great espionage film, try THE IPCRESS FILE, THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD, THE GOOD SHEPHERD, or the TV series of TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY and SMILEY'S PEOPLE...