The film begins at an aircraft plant in America during WWII. Unexpectedly, there's an explosion and the place is destroyed--thanks to deliberate sabotage. Not only did someone start the film but they filled the fire extinguishers with gasoline!! Oddly, the police automatically assume that Barry (Bob Cummings) is guilty since he handed one of the extinguishers to a friend following the initial explosion. But Barry knows that a mysterious man, Mr. Fry, is responsible and he escapes and seeks out this character on a wild cross-country trek.
The very first time I saw "Saboteur", I really, really liked it--but that was almost 30 years ago. Today when I saw it again, I enjoyed it but also now realize that the film really isn't at all original. In many ways, it's a lot like two earlier Alfred Hitchcock films and one later one--"The 39 Steps", "The Girl Was Young" and "North By Northwest". All three have a man on the run from the law who is innocent and all three team up with a girl who is unwillingly pulled into the affair and all three have the woman come to believe in the man's innocence. Because of this, the film automatically loses a couple of points since it just isn't very original. Plus, while the sabotage angle was great for propaganda purposes back in 1942, today it makes the film seem a bit dated. Now don't get me wrong--it IS a good film.
An additional problem with "Saboteur" is that the film relies on a HUGE cliché--strangers who INSTANTLY assume the leading man is an innocent man and who help him escape the police. In real life, this would almost never happen--yet in this film it happens repeatedly.
Because of these serious weaknesses, the film is very uneven. While it is well-crafted by Hitchcock and the acting is nice, the story really is sub-par and poorly written at times. It's hard to score a derivative and clichéd film highly, even if it is well made. Watchable and interesting but flawed...seriously flawed.
The very first time I saw "Saboteur", I really, really liked it--but that was almost 30 years ago. Today when I saw it again, I enjoyed it but also now realize that the film really isn't at all original. In many ways, it's a lot like two earlier Alfred Hitchcock films and one later one--"The 39 Steps", "The Girl Was Young" and "North By Northwest". All three have a man on the run from the law who is innocent and all three team up with a girl who is unwillingly pulled into the affair and all three have the woman come to believe in the man's innocence. Because of this, the film automatically loses a couple of points since it just isn't very original. Plus, while the sabotage angle was great for propaganda purposes back in 1942, today it makes the film seem a bit dated. Now don't get me wrong--it IS a good film.
An additional problem with "Saboteur" is that the film relies on a HUGE cliché--strangers who INSTANTLY assume the leading man is an innocent man and who help him escape the police. In real life, this would almost never happen--yet in this film it happens repeatedly.
Because of these serious weaknesses, the film is very uneven. While it is well-crafted by Hitchcock and the acting is nice, the story really is sub-par and poorly written at times. It's hard to score a derivative and clichéd film highly, even if it is well made. Watchable and interesting but flawed...seriously flawed.