AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Asad Almond A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

dromasca I love seeing films half a century after their initial releases. It's not only a cinematographic experience that in many cases brings up unexpected gems, but also an opportunity to compare the acting and directing styles, the technical means, and the perspective on events, which some were actuality at the time the films were made and became history since then. In some cases it's also the opportunity to compare a fresh viewing with our own memories about the film, although this is not the case here with Torn Curtain , a late film by Alfred Hitchcock, whose Cold War theme seen from the Western perspective had no chance to pass the filter of the censorship in my native Romania at that time.There are many interesting elements in this story about a an American scientist (Paul Newman,) who plays spying games and simulates a crossing of the lines to East Germany in order to discover the status of a key weapon in the rockets arsenal of the Communist block. When his unknowingly fiancée (Julie Andrews) joins him against his will, his mission becomes more complicated. It's at the same time a psychological thriller (the fight of the minds between the American professor and his East German counterpart), an action movie, and a relationship story with some of the Hitchcock touch. As in many of his films, Hitchcock succeeds wonderfully in the thriller part, partially succeeds (or partially fails) in the action area, and fails completely in the romantic zone.50 years later, the very interesting part of the film is the rendition of the Cold War atmosphere. I have seen several films about that period, some more recent, and I was surprised how well Hitchcock succeeded to catch the feeling of the area without falling in any black-and-white clichés, describing a world close to what I knew, with people living under the pressure of a dictatorship, but still managing to joke, eat, drink, dance even under the scrutiny of the portraits of Karl Marx. There are less credible scenes - for example the whole auto-bus episode (why were these people traveling together at all?), but they belong to the action part of the script. Acting is decent, with Newman and Andrews doing what I remember they were supposed to do, but the most wonderful surprise is a poignant scene with the Russian-born actress Lila Kedrova which some may remember from Zorba the Greek . Her role there was unforgettable, so is the one here if you have the chance to see the film. A few daring Hitchcockian camera takes build the thriller part. A film to watch, especially if you are Hitchcock fans.

HotToastyRag Since Alfred Hitchcock had a penchant for icy blondes, it's a puzzlement why he cast Julie Andrews in Torn Curtain, since she's neither icy nor blonde. In any case, Julie Andrews tries to shed her sweet image in this Cold War complicated drama.Julie is engaged to Paul Newman, and when she finds out he's in cahoots with Germany, she has to decide whether or not to abandon him or stand by her man, even though he's obviously been lying and hiding secrets for years.To me, the most memorable scene in the film is when Paul Newman is giving a lecture on how to spot a liar in the interrogation room. He plays a tape for his audience and asks them what they notice. He points out that the man repeated his answers verbatim, which gave away his lie. Normally, people vary their language when telling the same story two or three times, but if a man uses the exact same words, he's rehearsed it. I loved that scene. It was so interesting to me.If you like Cold War films, this is a great one. The audience is constantly confused, wondering who the good and bad guys are, including the two leads!

zkonedog In my opinion, great (or even just good) movies must contain some facet that goes above and beyond the other fare, whether that rests with the characters, plot, direction, or any number of different things. "Torn Curtain", despite being a Hitchcock production, stands out in absolutely no area.For a basic plot summary, this movie focuses on the unexpected defection of American scientist Michael Armstrong (Paul Newman) to Soviet Russia. He is followed by his assistant (and subsequent love interest) Sarah Sherman (Julie Andrews) as she tries to ascertain the reasons for his strange behavior.There is nothing abhorrently wrong with the overall plot of this movie, but it just doesn't generate any excitement in any facet of the experience. It is a very typical "Cold War spy" tale that could have been written by anyone from amateur to seasoned film veteran. Seeing Hitch's name attached to such a pedestrian project makes one pause considering his other incredible works.The only thing that can save a mediocre plot, of course, is terrific acting, and this film fails to deliver that piece of the puzzle as well. Newman is decent as the leading man, but Andrews is pretty much a blank slate as the female lead. I don't even think it is the "Mary Poppins/Sound of Music" typecast bias here, either. Her role is just not crafted very well at all in the script.Overall, then, "Torn Curtain" is one of the poorer Hitchcock movies I've seen (even the middling "Topaz" packs more thrills than this one). It isn't "bad" in the traditional sense of the word, but it isn't "classic Hitch",

rangeriderr Take two outstanding stars; add a handful of top notch character actors; a celebrated director, and you should have a first rate film. Instead, you have wooden performances by Newman and Andrews. Add to it backgrounds that are so unrealistic looking that they are obviously Hollywood stages with artificial lighting and uncreative photography.Worst of all is the plot. The so-called excitement or tension predominantly arises from an unbelievably stupid slip-up by Newman. He draws the mathematical symbol for Pi in the sand of a farmhouse to indicate to a non-English speaking German woman the purpose of his visit. She then introduces him to his contact, but he doesn't erase the symbol with his foot, which any idiot would do, no less a supposedly brilliant scientist.As a result, the East German surveillance bad guy sees the symbol, so he has to be bumped off, and all the subsequent chases derive from this single piece of Newman's stupidity. I would have thought that a film late in Hitchcock's career would have had more substance, and from all standpoints, been creatively better. I skimmed through parts of it, since the dialogue was pretty uninspired and there wasn't much to miss.