Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Orla Zuniga It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

lasttimeisaw A Hitchcock thriller made in his UK years, SABOTAGE opens with its own definition in a dictionary, but there is little to be said apropos of the motivation behind the anarchists. It is an usual London night, all the razzle-dazzle is in full bloom, suddenly a blackout causes some commotion on the street and in the centre stage there is Bijou cinema, where patrons are baying for refund of their tickets, at the same time, its owner Mr. Verloc (Homolka) furtively sneaks back to his apartment upstairs, and pretends that he has never gone out when his wife (Sidney) surprisingly finds him on the bed. So it seems that this time Mr. Hitchcock doesn't play either the whodunit or the why-do-it card and clocking in a condensed 76-minute, the film even waive the possibility of a McGuffin to compel audience into the puzzle. Admittedly, there is no puzzle at all, Mr. Verloc is the said saboteur, whose blackout sabotage doesn't quite hit the mark (even being pilloried by the media) and he is tasked to up the antes, it doesn't take much persuasion for him to forgo his no-casualties-causing vow to collude with a professor (Dewhurst) who is excel at making "fireworks". In a straightforward manner, the story also sidetracks in the incipient attractions between Ms. Verloc and Ted (Loder), who works in the green-grocery next to the cinema, but his real identity is an undercover sergeant of Scotland Yard, and secretly stakes out Mr. Verloc. Ms. Verloc has no inking of her hubby's insidious deal, time and again she tells Ted that Mr. Verloc has the most kind-hearted soul she has ever met, which is a farcically self-defeating statement because whoever has eyes can palpably detect something amiss in Oskar Homolka's hammy affectation with all those mannered scowls and insincere oratory, one might seriously wonder how dumb a woman could be if she fails to sense that from the man she shares a bed every night, that's a disservice to Hitchcock's heroine, beautiful but dumb, yet, she still deserves a miracle in the end. Then there is that infamous "boy with a bomb" set piece, the story is a no-brainer, but the suspense never goes to seed under Hitchcock's rein. One must admit it is a left-field coup-de- théâtre (through a string of heightened montages) a first-time spectator barely can see it coming, Mr. Hitchcock really dares to corroborate that nothing is impossible on the silver screen, although in retrospect this only materializes as a flash in the pan because when he veers into the Hollywood thoroughfare, he will be inured to adhere to a more morally rigorous precept. A minor Hitchcock film can still be engaging, only its aftertaste tends to be a shade astringent.

zkonedog There's no question that Alfred Hitchcock is a master film director, seeing as how a movie this old can hold up decently in 2011. However, "Sabotage" lacks one key element keeping it from really being a classic: context.For a basic plot summary, "Sabotage" sees an English theater owner (Oskar Homolka) and his wife (Sylvia Sidney) get caught up in an espionage plot with shades of terrorism.This movie is classic Hitch through and through. It has the conflicted characters, moments of high tension, and the eventual "MacGuffin" that drives the story forward. For what it does accomplish, the film is quite good. Not overwhelming in any sense, but the tension (at times) is palpable and will hook viewers into wanting to see how it all turns out.The problem, though, is that the characters and events are given absolutely no context whatsoever. This "exposition" phase of the storytelling is skipped altogether. Thus, it is difficult to be 100% engaged in the story when it begins and ends so abruptly.Overall, this is a decent Hitchcock film that is more than worth a viewing from hard-core Hitch fans. It doesn't hold a candle to his later American works, but for what it is it's entertaining.

edwagreen Extremely boring 1936 film warning of acts of sabotage. Problem here is that the organization of the culprits is never fully identified. Why?What we get instead is an extremely dull, moody black and white film of a couple running a movie house in London. Trouble is that the husband, played well by Oscar Homolka, is in with a group of saboteurs and before the curtain comes down, tragedy has struck on a bus thanks to this group.Homolka steals the show here with his acting. His cold, calculating veneer is a joy to watch and his wife, Sylvia Sydney, does well, especially when she discovers what is occurring.John Loder, as a police officer, and smitten by Sydney is adequate for the part.

Jackson Booth-Millard Master of Suspense director Sir Alfred Hitchcock started his successful career in his home country, and this was one of the last films he made before going to the United States (although he did return home for Frenzy), I was interested. Basically Karl Verloc (Oskar Homolka) is a cinema owner and a member of a gang planning to sabotage operations in London, and he lives with his wife Sylvia (Beetlejuice's Sylvia Sidney) and her teenage brother Stevie (Desmond Tester). His wife and her brother know nothing about Karl's big secret, even after a big incident where many lights in a part of London were turned off, but there are worse things to happen than that. Suspecting something is going on with Verloc, Scotland Yard assigns undercover Detective Sergeant Ted Spencer (John Loder) to keep an eye on him, working near the cinema and investigate. Sylvia didn't originally know anything, but her suspicion arises, and at a reasonably good time because the gang assign Karl to put a bomb in the metro, so he sends young Stevie with a bag for him to "deliver", but he does not make it all the way to the right location for the explosion. In the end the villain Karl gets what he deserves being stabbed by his own wife, and London seems to be safe from anymore sabotage incidents, and Sylvia walks away with Ted. Also starring Joyce Barbour as Renee, Matthew Boulton as Superintendent Talbot, S.J. Warmington as Hollingshead, William Dewhurst as Professor A.F. Chatman, and Hitchcock's cameo is as the man passing looking up when the lights go back on. The acting is reasonable, the best scene is certainly unknowingly carrying the bomb in the bag, and there are some good tense moments you would expect from the great director, a watchable mystery thriller. Very good!