Torn Curtain (1966) User Reviews

An Unusual But Still Suspenseful Classic Hitchcock Thriller

[vlevensonnd-1 · 7/10 · 25 June 2011]

I'm not sure what made this Hitchcock thriller seem so different from his other classics. Maybe it was just simply odd to see Andrews in such a film. Maybe it was just simply odd to see Newman in such a film. Maybe it was the odd combination of Andrews and Newman together. I think it was all the above, however, it was still a very good movie.

Andrews did a superb job playing the completely confused, emotionally injured, and betrayed woman. Newman was good at playing the typical American man - silent and brooding when in a very concerning situation. They're characters were played in a very honest and realistic manner, especially the scene in the farmhouse, where you can see that Newman's character, being involved in a situation where a man needed to be 'silenced', was in shock and didn't quite know what to do. You could tell he was thinking it was all too surreal - and due to his incapacitation, the poor farm wife had to do most of the work. One may think 'What a pansy', but I don't believe that most men are created to be like a James Bond character, or a professional hit-man.

Lila Kedrova was wonderful, as usual. She didn't need a leading role to be effective or memorable. The character of the old professor was fantastic, especially in the scene at the chalk-board, LOL!!

I think this is a fine Hitchcock film that any Hitchcock lover shouldn't miss! It should have also received higher ratings!

Torn Cardboard

[littlemartinarocena · 6/10 · 14 December 2007]

It may have sounded like a perfect commercial operation. Two huge box office stars, Paul Newman and Julie Andrews with Hitchcock no less, at the helm. Paul Newman and Julie Andrews have the sexual chemistry of two white slices of bread and Hitchcock didn't have Bernard Herrman at his side. In fact Hitch and Herrmann broke off their successful marriage during this production. Pity. I love Hitchcock. There is a detachment here never seen before in a Hitch flick. As if the master was tired or uninterested. Paul Newman seems in a hurry to get the hell out of there - no pun intended. Julie Andrews seems bewildered and whatever little she's ask to do it's way beneath her. Lila Kedrova comes as a welcome relief. I can't believe the ones who accused her of being over the top. Over the top? Of course she was over the top, brilliantly. I love actresses and actors who chew the scenery but are believable, moving, entertaining, hysterically funny...Bette Davis, Charles Laughton, Geraldine Page, Kim Stanley... Lila Kedrova chew the scenery but you didn't forget her and in "Torn Courtain" you were grateful for someone chewing something. I also enjoyed Tamara Toumanova in her funny self parody. Her spotting Newman at the theater was one of the highlights of this minor Hitchkock film.

It's a pretty good film.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 7/10 · 2 September 2023]

Brilliant American Scientist Professor Michael Armstrong defects to East Germany, his mission, to take his research behind the iron curtain, but he is followed by his fiancée and Secretary Doctor Sarah Sherman.

It's been so interesting working my way through Hitchcock's great catalogue of films, and reading many reviews from fans, this one doesn't seem to be universally loved, for what it's worth, I quite liked it.

I enjoyed the complexity of the plot, there was definitely a degree of cleverness about it, it also had a certain amount of suspension and tension, it's not in the same league as Rope or Frenzy, but it's still a very watchable film.

The standout moment, without giving anything away, was the scene in The Kitchen, tense, gripping, unsettling, pretty violent, with shades of Psycho.

Well acted, Paul Newman and Julie Andrews did a fine job, they had a pretty good chemistry I thought.

Not exactly gripping throughout, it reminded me of Topaz, similar story, similar pacing, but this is the better movie.

7/10.

Better Than What It Was Made Out to Be

[Hitch-26 · 9 September 2000]

Hitchcock's 50th movie, Torn Curtain, is considered by many experts to be a major disappointment, but I didn't see it that way. It is not one of Hitch's top 10, but it is still a very good movie. Both Paul Newman and Julie Andrews give fine performances and I loved Ludwig Donath, who was excellent. The scene in which Professor Armstrong murders Gromek is classic Hitchcock, and the blackboard scene between Newman and Donath is great, too. I think that this movie suffers from the fact that the 2 main stars were really mismatched for Hitch. There is a story that Hitchcock along with his wife insisted that Newman drink wine with them. Newman refused, wanting a beer instead and he wanted to drink it from the can! This request mortified Hitch and his wife. Needless to say those 2 had their differences. As for Andrews, she was suffering from "Keanu Reeves" syndrome. "Keanu Reeves" syndrome is when an actor or actress is hugely successful in a role and then is never taken seriously in any other role, especially something radically different, e.g. Reeves as Ted in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure was never taken seriously in movies like Speed, Point Break, etc. The same for Andrews who was coming off Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music. This is unfair, but it is true. I feel that if this movie was remade with 2 people who were more suited to the roles, then this become a masterpiece.

an unappreciated gem -- watch it with an open mind!

[bbbbarry · 7/10 · 3 September 2000]

First of all, do yourself a favor and only watch the newly restored version of this film!! Frequent complaints about how dead and colorless it looks are only due to the bad video transfer of a deteriorated copy. The restored version shows full wide-screen (letterbox), and is sumptuously colorful, in the best Hitchcock tradition.

I think this makes a huge difference in how the viewer enjoys the movie.

**warning: I've tried to be careful about plot spoilers, but there are some mentions -- only in the most general terms, though, and nothing crucial.**

The pacing is masterful. Others find it boring, but if you put yourself in the master's lap and let him tell the story to you, it's amazingly well done, with numerous set-pieces that have been commented on before here:

--the playfully sexual opening scene, which, without showing anything but the lovers' faces, is remarkably sensuous and one of the only realistic depictions of lovers in bed in movie history -- and by the way, give Julie Andrews a chance: she shines in this movie and in this scene especially, but many don't want her to move beyond their preconceptions of her.

--the unhurried yet nervy chase through a museum, in which the only sound is the clacking of the men's shoes.

--the tense murder scene, with its classic Hitchcocky looming camera angles, and again no music or sound at all except for the grunting of the struggling characters.

--the marvelous use of dramatic concealment, in which we are as in the dark as Andrews's character is for the entire first part of the movie.

--the depiction of behind-the-iron-curtain tenseness, which Hitchcock got spot-on, both in the behavior of Westerners and East Germans -- it brought back painful and amusing memories of my time there during that period.

--the excruciating bus escape, which feels like it's filmed in real time.

--the scene in the theater, in which Newman and Andrews become visibly claustrophobic as cops stack up all around. The scene of mayhem (in which Newman yells "Fire," which in German is "Feuer" and sounds very similar) is genuinely troubling as we see Andrews and Newman getting propelled through the human surf.

This film is a real treat, especially as most of us *haven't* seen it a thousand times, like other Hitchcock films. Get hold of a good video of it, and enjoy!

Decent Hitchcock film, but rather disappointing

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 17 November 2009]

I didn't hate Torn Curtain, but I didn't love it either. I think it is a decent film, but I admit I was disappointed. Torn Curtain is a good cold-war espionage thriller, however it doesn't rank in my favourite Hitchcock movies list(like North By Northwest, Psycho, Rebecca, Vertigo and Rear Window). I did prefer The Birds, Stage Fright and Spellbound over this.

My main problem with Torn Curtain was the pace. It was a good length, but the pace was disappointingly sluggish. Another problem was the script. I will agree that there are flashes of interest and suspense, but on the whole the script came across as rather underdeveloped and turgid. There are some nice sets, but there are also some phony-looking ones, especially the hill on which the characters go up to to chat.

Many have complained about John Addison's score. I can understand this, I found it nice but forgettable sadly. Bernard Hermann (whose score for Vertigo especially was full of suspense and induces goosebumps though my favourite score for any Hitchcock movie is Miklos Rosza's for Spellbound) would have been a much better choice as composer, the score in the film just wasn't suspenseful enough. I don't really blame Hitchcock for any of these problems. If anything I blame the studio. They should have let Hitchcock do what he wanted rather than forcing him to get the score changed and change his casting choices.

I always found Hitchcock to be a great director. While reported to be uninterested and dissatisfied with the film, the direction wasn't too bad at all. There are some elements of Hitchcockian suspense. The plot was intriguing enough, a little confusing in places, but a very nice idea that starts off very promisingly. One of the recurring themes of Hitchcock's movies is the plight of the common man caught up in uncommon circumstances. It is this theme here, with the plot telling of a woman believing that her fiancé intends to defect to East Berlin in order to get funding for his pet project.

The acting was a mixed bag. I had no problem with Paul Newman, seeing as he gave a very brooding and intense performance. I have loved Julie Andrews in films like Mary Poppins and Sound of Music, but I for one found her an odd casting choice. She wasn't bad, she was merely okay, but what did disappoint was the lack of chemistry between the two leads and the fact that Sarah Sherman isn't exactly the fully fleshed out character Hitchcock would have liked. Wolfgang Kieling is great as Gromek, the sinister villain of the piece though.

It may look as though I hated Torn Curtain. I didn't, far from it. The cinematography was very nice, with dark colours and pretty looking scenes. It is one of the most beautiful looking late-Hitchcocks. The costumes are pretty to look at too. And while there are pacing problems throughout, there are some truly effective scenes. One that springs to mind is the film's highlight, the murder scene. It was shockingly graphic, and one of the most realistic and graphic murder scenes in any thriller. I was impressed with the ballet scene too. The choreography was impressive, and the music featured was Tchaikovsky's Francessca Da Rimini. Brilliant music, shame really you don't hear it in its entirety it is really something. There are some entertaining bits as well, notably Armstrong's conversation with Lindt.

All in all, deeply flawed Hitchcock film, but it is at least watchable and it could have been much worse than it was. I was disappointed I admit that, but I would watch Torn Curtain again if given the choice. I think perhaps it is underrated, because while far from the master's best it is a decent film. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Very good, but not a Hitchcock masterpiece

[jhaggardjr · 7/10 · 17 June 2000]

"Torn Curtain" is an exceptional Alfred Hitchcock film that is for the most part intriguing, suspenseful, and entertaining. But it's not a masterpiece. Paul Newman stars as an American scientist who appears to be defecting to Germany. Julie Andrews, coming off her Oscar-winning film debut in "Mary Poppins" and her Oscar-nominated role in "The Sound of Music", plays Newman's associate and girlfriend who tags along for the ride. Along the way they run into an assorted bunch of odd but colorful supporting characters. "Torn Curtain" isn't as good as "Psycho", "The Birds" and "North by Northwest", but that doesn't make this a bad movie. Even though the movie moves a little slow at times, it's still an interesting and sometimes funny movie, well acted by Newman and Andrews.

*** (out of four)

Underrated and if no "gem" still fascinating for Newman alone...

[secondtake · 7/10 · 9 October 2009]

Torn Curtain (1966)

Hitchcock was on an odd path in the 1960s toward more contained and artificial films, beginning in a way with North by Northwest (a masterpiece of control, for sure) but getting overtly stylized in Birds and Marnie. Here, in a bizarre casting choice, we replace the doubtfully capable Tippi Hedron with doubtfully appropriate Julie Andrews, fresh out of The Sound of Music. And of course, there is Paul Newman, who had recently filmed Harper and before that, Hud. A weird mix, and it has its moments. In fact, the chemistry between the two leads in the first scenes is surprising and you might expect or want more of that later on--and you won't get it.

Add to these actors a tense milieu from the time, Cold War defections and the atom bomb, and you have an intriguing basis for making a movie. You can see why he gave it a go. The plot, for what it's worth, is ultimately thin and not convincing (hints of Cloak and Dagger with Gary Cooper way back in 1946) but Newman, at least, pulls off his role as Dr. Armstrong, atomic scientist, with intense restraint. Andrews? She doesn't sing, and there are no children to be seen (except briefly, on Hitchcock's lap in his cameo!), and frankly, sadly, she comes off a little out of her element. But then, her character as Armstrong's assistant is also meant to be a bit out to sea. We don't see too much of her. We do see lots of various bit characters, little known and not very interesting men, mostly, with Swedish or German accents. (I say it that way because they are almost just cardboard props for types of people--you know, those cold hearted Stasi types or the cool and cunning Swedes you can't quite figure out, neither of which is especially true or helpful for the plot.)

Of course, Hitchcock doesn't intend to make this a Cold War commentary. (The Spy Who Came in from the Cold with Richard Burton the previous year is the film to see for that.) Hitchcock uses the East German scene as a backdrop for the suspense of deception, and of ordinary people trying not to get caught, a perennial theme he manages so well. Besides Newman, there is a fabulous small role by the great Soviet actress Lila Kedrova that brings the last half hour to life. In the middle of the movie there is one scene that's totally brilliant and wordless, with Newman and Carolyn Conwell in a farmhouse, and it's worth the ride alone. Don't miss that for the world.

This can't be Hitchcock's or Newman's or Andrews's best movie for a lot of reasons. But it's a very good movie, which is enough for most of us, and an essential for any Hitchcock fan, and a enlightening surprise for anyone who thinks they know Paul Newman and want to see yet more of his impressive range.

In many ways, Hitchcock often wore the same pants.

[plaidpotato · 8/10 · 28 January 2004]

Hitchcock made a few clunkers in his day, but this isn't one of them, despite its reputation. I don't know if I could get away with saying it's one of Hitchcock's ten best features, but I found it to be easily one of his top ten most entertaining. I enjoyed watching Torn Curtain a lot more than some of his established classics, like Notorious and the Birds, even if it's not quite as psychologically complex as those films.

The main thing about Torn Curtain is the photography. It's full of pretty pictures--one of the most beautifully filmed of all Hitchcock's films, with lots bold swaths of primary colors and attractive and constantly changing locations--some scenes look like they were shot on location, while others are wonderfully artificial studio creations, and they're blended together perfectly. Another cool thing about Torn Curtain is that it's constantly on the move. It never stagnates. The pacing is deliberate, but engaging. It's well-plotted and suspenseful.

It's full of fantastic little directorial touches, like the scene where Paul Newman ducks into a bathroom to read his secret spy message. Hitchcock never shows us the room. He keeps the camera tight on Paul Newman, so we can't tell who or what might be in that room with us, just out of frame. It's totally simple, but it creates a highly effective feeling of uneasiness and paranoia. This movie also features one of the strangest and best-filmed death scenes I've ever seen. Hitchcock was still on top of his game here.

Most of the bad reviews for Torn Curtain seem to focus on the acting. I don't know why.

A lot of people bash Julie Andrews just for being Julie Andrews, and that hardly seems fair. Typecasting sucks. And while I wouldn't say she turned in one of the most memorable and overpowering performances of all time, her role didn't call for that. Torn Curtain wasn't a complex character study, it was a plot-based thriller. And Julie Andrews was perfectly adequate for that, even pretty good when she was given a chance to be.

Paul Newman was perfect. He wasn't his usual charming self here. He was grim and tight-lipped and stiff--as would be appropriate for a scientist feeling out of his league, playing a spy in a hostile country, having to pretend to be a traitor--a role which he found objectionable--all with his girlfriend annoyingly tagging along and complicating everything.

I understand that Paul Newman found working for Hitchcock objectionable. It makes me wonder if Hitch deliberately made life unpleasant for Paul just to get this kind of tooth-gritting performance from him. Whatever, Hitch and Paul were both great.

And so was this film.

Nothing special

[Bored_Dragon · 6/10 · 8 January 2018]

This is the last Hitchcock movie with huge stars in main roles. When you hear names Hitchcock, Paul Newman and Julie Andrews in same sentence you expect masterpiece, but you'll get just a decent thriller without bigger flaws, but which does not stand out from the average in any way. If you decide to see this film you won't be bored, but I honestly doubt that tomorrow you'll even remember what you saw. Unless you are true fan of some of the above mentioned legends, I recommend skipping it.

6/10

Stealing What's Locked Up in the Grey Cells

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 23 June 2006]

Paul Newman nuclear physicist has volunteered for an unusual espionage mission. He's to fake a defection in order to get close to East German scientist Ludwig Donath and find out what advances he personally has given the Soviet bloc.

As he says to agent Mort Mills, he's one of the few people in the world who would know exactly what to look for. The trick is to make Donath write it down.

Nice plan, except for that fact that intrepid Julie Andrews, Newman's fiancé suspects something's up and follows him first to Copenhagen and then East Berlin. It would have run so much easier without her, but then again there would have been no film.

This was Alfred Hitchcock's last star vehicle. His last three films were done with second rank players. At the time this was made Julie Andrews was fresh from Mary Poppins and had all kinds of roles offered her. I suppose she couldn't turn down a chance to appear in a Hitchcock film, but she and Newman really have no chemistry at all. I suppose Newman also wanted to work with Hitchcock.

There are some good moments in Torn Curtain. The highlight easily has to be the killing of an East German security agent by Newman and Carolyn Conwell with the creative use of a gas stove. The agent is played by German actor Wolfgang Kieling and has the best role in the film. Funny how during World War II, Germans were sometimes shown as colossally stupid, Kieling is not. He's a very tough and shrewd adversary who catches on to Newman's scheme and has to be eliminated.

Hitchcock also stole from himself here. The ride and Newman and Andrews take on a bus from Leipzig to East Berlin that is stage managed by David Opatoshu is ripped off from Saboteur and the bus passengers are just like the circus people in Saboteur. Good, but done before.

Devoted fans of the stars and of Alfred Hitchcock will want to see Torn Curtain, others might want to for curiosity's sake.

Under-rated Hitchcock gem.

[David-240 · 10/10 · 21 May 2000]

This hardly ever appears in the lists of the master's best films, but it is a real gem - superbly acted, inventively filmed with great music, dialogue and plot. Julie Andrews and Paul Newman work really well together - a very sexy scene early in the film is a delight, filmed in extreme close-up. And Lila Kedrova's cameo is Oscar worthy. This is also a memorable look at the Cold War at its height, and although the pro-West propaganda is a little thick at times, there is still a sense of the absurdity of the situation. And there is a murder scene of unbelievable savagery that really left me shaken - excellent work here from Newman and Carolyn Conwell. The most memorable scene is the bus pursuit sequence, and the theatre audience turning into an hysterical mob when Newman yells "fire" is a great Hitchcock moment. One of his best cameo appearances too. I think this film deserves re-examination.

Intriguing and suspenseful story set behind the Iron Curtain

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 3 June 2009]

During Cold War a professor named Michael Armstrong(Paul Newman stars as a stoic and subdued scientific)and his fiancée/secretary named Sarah(an enticing Julie Andrews) find in a Sweden science congress. But the espionage embroils the couple in escape and murder.The scientific poses as a defector at Berlin in order to discover details of the soviet missile program by professor Lindt, located in Leipzig. Once again the protagonists get an information that comes across something what place them in jeopardy and winds up being chased all over the country. Then happens a violent grisly killing, filmed on an exciting and nail-bitingly images , proving how difficult it actually is to murder someone. The duo is being pursued by the communists and they go a bus guided by a resistance fighter(David Opatoshu). Newman apparently defecting to East Germany but the secret police are soon on his tracks, the couple go on the run and encounter a refugee Polish countess(an extravagant Lila Kedrova) who helps them. They attempt to escape the freedom , hiding into a costume baggage of a Czech ballet company but they're denounced by a ballerina(Tamara Toumanova).

Tense/suspense/mystery abounds in this thriller from Hithcock who combines the elements of spy-genre with romance, drama and pursuits. Newman as a scientist pretending to be a defector, in one of his best performances , Julie Andrews as his fiancée whose tidy life is disrupted when she uncovers what Newman is a traitor. The first part is based on Julie Andrews's point of sight and after under point of Paul Newman. By time the film and acting received negative reviews , today is better considered. Colorful cinematography by John Warren, habitual cameraman from the 'Hour of Alfred Hitchock' and suspenseful musical score by John Addison. However I miss the Hitch's customary, the musician Bernard Herrmann and photographer Robert Burks. As usual ,Hitch's ordinary cameo, this time as a man in hotel lobby with baby. This good thriller by the master himself, who preys on the senses and keeps the suspense at feverish pitch.Hitchcock tells that inspiration about this movie resulted to be the disappearance of two English diplomats , Burguess and McLean, who left their country and defected to Russia. The movie is directed among ¨Marnie(64)¨and ¨Topaz(69)¨his worst movie, later Hitch directed ¨Frenzi¨ and ¨Family Plot¨ his last film. Rating : Better than average, worthwhile seeing thanks some Hitch's touches.

Curate's Egg

[robertconnor · 5/10 · 11 February 2006]

On a conference visit to Scandinavia in 1965, an American scientist tells his assistant/fiancé that he must make an unscheduled visit to Sweden but refuses to allow her to accompany him. After a row, she decides to return to the U.S., but then discovers he actually plans to travel to East Germany. She follows him there and is horrified to discover that he plans to defect to the East.

In 'Torn Curtain' Hitchcock returns to one of his favourite areas - espionage. Yet somehow, as with 'Topaz' later, there is more fizzle than sizzle on display. It's hard to determine the problems, but certainly we know he wasn't thrilled with the studio-enforced casting of Andrews and Newman, and he admits to a few errors in judgement in his conversation with Truffaut, not least the dodgy 'backdrop' reel used during the bus chase. Curiously, whilst Hitchcock was crafting interesting, often strong-willed female characters during this period (Psycho, The Birds, Marnie, North By Northwest), with Andrews' Sarah Sherman he fashions a more passive woman, and consequently gives Andrews little to do but look either adoringly or woundedly at Newman. Newman fares better (although I never truly 'believe' Michael loves Sarah), but as usual Hitchcock fills the film with wonderful supporting characters and actors - Kedrova in particular blows the leads off the screen and her sequence is fantastic. So whilst 'Torn Curtain' is riddled with beautiful Hitchcock touches (the long shot of Michael approaching the farmer across the field; Gromek's very disturbing, prolonged murder - an electrifying performance by Conwell - the prima-ballerina's noticing of Michael in the audience), in the end it is one of his lesser works.

Those 'in the know' ....

[retrodaze · 21 December 2003]

... have 'know' idea what they're talking about. It may not be Hitch's best movie, but 'watch at your own risk' is an utterly ridiculous appraisal of this movie. But yes, when discussing a Hitch movie, all the normal conventions of movie analysis fly straight out of the window; now it's time to take out the REALLY big magnifying glass. The nitpicking borders on the outrageous. The story is actually quite enjoyable, no more implausible than that of many of his other films, and contains the usual Hitchcockian set pieces and camera work. Whats not to love? Ya, Newman doesnt exactly carry around Jack Nicholson-like expressiveness; there may have been better actors up to the task, and the Old Woman scene feels strange and out of place not to mention over-acted, but even these cant bring the movie as a whole down. Seems like for years this film has the unlucky honor of being the scapegoat in the Hitchcock stable...unfortuanate, really. If you haven't already, see it for yourself, you wont be disappointed

A little enjoyable repetition of old situations...

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 7/10 · 2 July 2005]

In Hitchcock's "Torn Curtain," Newman plays an American nuclear scientist who pretends to defect to East Germany, so that he can trick a scientist into revealing a missile formula…

His bewildered, abandoned fiancée (Julie Andrews) follows to see what he's up to… Not wishing to involve her, he lets her think he's a traitor, but when her confusion jeopardizes his position, he tells her the truth… Overjoyed, she helps him, and they end up in a series of chases and escapes…

Newman does come across as unemotional, or at least not very warm; in fact, critics complained that he was too intense and gloomy in a part that they thought required humor… But coldness and seriousness are actually essential to the character and to Hitchcock's conception…

Initially, we are supposed to share Andrews' alienation from him… Later, when we learn that he's not a traitor, we may want to view him differently, but immediately afterward he commits a gruesome killing, of a most likable villain, which again distances us from him… From that point, even though he's apparently the "hero," his actions are never purely motivated… His attitude toward Andrews is indicative: by following him, she endangers herself, which concerns him slightly, but she also endangers the mission, which is what really troubles him…

Hitchcock, therefore, is portraying an anti-hero—not a glamorous spy, patriotically following his country's orders, or an innocent, sympathetic victim (Cary Grant in "North by Northwest"), but a man on his own, deliberately pursuing a selfish goal (the formula might get him back his job).

Newman is therefore well-cast: his indifferent rejection of the woman, his ruthlessness, his willingness to endanger lives and engender chaos, are familiar aspects of the Newman image… Here, since there isn't the balance of charm, humor or self-realization, he is non-involving… The "neutral" emotion may serve Hitchcock's plan, but it leaves the audience out in the cold

Uneven, but eventually gripping

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 6 February 2021]

TORN CURTAIN might just be Alfred Hitchcock's most uneven movie, but even uneven can be totally gripping in the master's hands. For the first hour this is a ho-hum slice of Cold War hokum, a very poor show compared to the same era's grittily realistic THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD. Paul Newman is an acceptable leading man but Julie Andrews in particular is quite dreadful, a gaping hole where a warm-hearted and spirited female lead should be; imagine Grace or Doris in this! Then, after an extended farmhouse set-piece, the film gets a lot more interesting and starts to resemble a Hitchcock thriller in the classic mould: chases, bravura shots and set-pieces, and locations used to their utmost to add to the tale. The suspense builds to an excellent extended bit on a bus (like the SPEED of its day) before a fine ballet scene (shades of THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH's climax) and an ending that never lets up. It's one I look forward to rewatching - once you get past that oh-so-slow and bland first half.

Despite incredible moments, a disappointment from the Master of Suspense

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 24 July 2005]

American nuclear scientist Paul Newman defects in East Germany, but is he serious or just setting the Germans up as pawns? Espionage drama from director Alfred Hitchcock, with Julie Andrews a curious choice as the proverbial girlfriend (she was forced upon Hitch by the head of Universal). The production is extremely plush--too plush for the gritty on-screen happenings. Some of the set-ups have that carpeted, artificial Hollywood look that doesn't do much for the players on-screen nor the audience. The screenplay is heavy with talk, and Hitchcock can't shake out the cobwebs; the pacing is dirge-like most of the way. Newman and Andrews give just-OK lead performances, but there are the requisite pleasures in such a film, particularly one colorful murder scene involving an oven. Not a memorable film by any means, but passable for Hitchcock completists. **1/2 from ****

mildly interesting but that's about all

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 27 February 2006]

This is a rather ordinary film from Alfred Hitchcock than looks very little like his previous films. And this is a problem, as many in the audience will no-doubt expect more suspense and a psychological thriller--which this is not. Paul Newman plays a scientist that defects from the West to the Soviet Bloc. His wife, Julie Andrews, impulsively follows--this all takes her by surprise but she must find out why Newman would do such a thing. And, as the movie unfolds, you too discover why he did this. Unfortunately, the real reason really doesn't come as that big a surprise and the film, though original in some ways, just isn't all that interesting. All-in-all, a bit of a letdown.

A good plot and an interesting movie.

[frahm-2 · 10/10 · 21 June 2001]

The movie might not be one of the best Hitchcock thrillers, but it is still a movie, with a very good plot. You feel the suspence right till the last scene. The movie is also correct in so many other ways. For example is it good to see, that the Germans speak German and the Danes speak Danish in contrast to so many other movies, where they just speak English with an accent. The downside of this movie might be, that you are able to enjoy it fully, if you do not have a certain background knowledge about the East German regime.

Patchily Effective

[BJJManchester · 6/10 · 9 May 2006]

Alfred Hitchcock returns to one of his familiar themes;namely the spy thriller,though the results are disappointingly mechanical and rather lethargic,with many scenes and situations recalling earlier,more superior efforts.Hitchcock was apparently unhappy with the lead casting,and it shows in a surprisingly dull performance from Paul Newman and a miscast Julie Andrews(why didn't they use an American actress?).Having said that,there are some good scenes,notably a brutal and prolonged murder sequence involving Communist agent Gromek(Wolfgang Kieling).This was apparently German actor Kieling's first English Language role,and he shows a considerable assurance in the part both in his accent and characterisation;his is easily the best performance in the film,and comes across as the most rounded,if not most sympathetic character,which makes his killing all the more shocking;Newman himself comes across as a bit of a incompetent bumbler,hardly the sort to be a double agent! Wolfgang Kieling's fine performance ensured other English-speaking roles in several other US and UK films.His role here though is still all too brief despite his modest excellence.

Later scenes are reworked from better Hitchcock films such as SABOTEUR, THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH and THE 39 STEPS which have some suspense and are quite well handled,but TORN CURTAIN arguably was the beginning of the winding down of Hitch's career;age and declining health ensured there would be only three more films after this:TOPAZ,FRENZY and FAMILY PLOT.One last point;how come there was panic in the theatre when Newman shouted "FIRE!!";it was in a German-speaking venue,not an English one! Enough people must have understood.

Cannibalizing His Own Art.

[nycritic · 4/10 · 30 October 2005]

If MARNIE was the Director's first out-right failure in more ways than one -- it didn't make money, it was reviled by critics who failed to read into the story, and tensions between he and Tippi Hedren came to a standstill -- TORN CURTAIN didn't help. The story of a double agent and his involvement on both side of the political wall was too convoluted and too unfocused to create any real tension, any suspense, and according to accounts, Hitchcock became totally uninterested with the product. So did I on viewing this.

The introductory setup is good. Michael Armstrong (Paul Newman) defects to East Germany and his girlfriend (Julie Andrews) follows. There he meets Gromek (Wolfgang Kieling) who has been sent to do away with him. Their encounter leads to one of the most excruciating murder sequences committed to celluloid, and this is by far the best part of the movie. From there on, the plot meanders and it's as if Hitchcock had decided to go on autopilot and let matters resolve themselves, most notably in a lousy theatre sequence in which Armstrong, in an escape sequence, yells "Fire!" into a room full of non-English speakers.

That it could have been better is obvious, but I believe Hitchcock had succumbed to the times and was in his short Cold War transition in which some of his technique shows but his choice of actors and story fails. Newman and Andrews have zero chemistry together and Andrews at times doesn't seem to know why the hell she's in this movie anyway. Lila Kedrova sticks out as a sore thumb -- why would a countess of all people be panhandling for American sponsors when her diplomatic status would have her able to come to the US with no problem? A complete distraction. Snippets of the theatre sequence are interesting, as when ballerina Tamara Toumanova whirls around in dance and spots Newmann hiding among the crowd: in photographic freeze-frames she pinpoints him out.

Other than that this is a fairly routine effort, like the many routine efforts directors sometimes do when they're either in an unsettled period or want to buy themselves out of their contract with a studio. Hitchcock would do one more Cold War themed film, the disastrous TOPAZ, before returning to almost full form (and his English roots) in FRENZY.

Butch Cassidy meets Mary Poppins in a different life of pi

[lee_eisenberg · 8/10 · 18 August 2015]

The common understanding of Alfred Hitchcock's career is that 1964's "Marnie" was the end of an era: his final movie to feature an icy blonde, and his final movie scored by Bernard Herrmann. Using this logic, one would conclude that "Torn Curtain" was the beginning of the end of Hitch's career. But that doesn't do the movie justice. The Sultan of Suspense didn't create any mind-blowing scenes for this movie like he did in "Psycho" or "The Birds", but there's a scene towards the end that has no shortage of suspense.

Paul Newman plays an American scientist whose fiancée (Julie Andrews) discovers that he's headed for East Germany...but there's more than meets the eye. Newman is in top form naturally, but I'd say that the movie belongs to Andrews. She gets to play a role very unlike those with which she's associated. Far from the happy-go-lucky performances as Mary Poppins and Maria von Trapp, her character here is a tense, scientific-minded person who understands geopolitics (although unlike a lot of Hitchcock's female characters, hers is not a "guilty woman").

In the end I would say that even though Hitch had passed his prime, he hadn't lost his touch. I recommend the movie. He went on to complete three more movies after this one, and was planning another one when he died.

So, the next time that you hear Julie Andrews sing about a teaspoon of sugar or a name to call myself, just remember that she also starred in a Cold War thriller.

Watch for a young Wilhelm von Homburg (Vigo in "Ghostbusters 2") towards the end.

not too bad

[emisue02 · 7/10 · 13 April 2003]

Being a huge fan of Hitchcock, Julie Andrews, and Paul Newman, I should hate this movie because none of them were particularly fond of it. With that said, you know what's going to follow: I don't hate it. It's not my favorite movie, or the best work from any of those three great talents, but it's actually pretty good. I love how we find out things in this movie as Sarah (Julie's character) finds them out, particularly about the "real" reason Michael (Paul's character and Sarah's assistant/fiance) is in East Germany. It has all the suspense of Hitchcock's best films and even though you're pretty sure what's going to happen at the end, just knowing that Hitchcock directed it makes you question until the end. Could have gotten by just fine without Julie's bushy hairdo, but for a chance to gaze into Paul Newman's eyes I'll take what I must. The chemistry between the two stars isn't like hers with Christopher Plummer or his with Joanne Woodward, but it's not a total fizzle either. They're believably in love, and if they weren't, the movie wouldn't work since Sarah would have much less of a reason to care about what happens to Michael. That is the driving force of the movie, and it works. Again, not the best, but not the worst way to spend a few hours either.

How could they?

[RickManhattan · 4/10 · 3 June 2012]

First you wonder how could a couple as attractive as Newman and Andrews consider betraying the West? Not to worry, we find out they are as red-blooded-patriotic as they look like they should by all rights be, and then the silliness accelerates. But wait, anyone in their right mind would have discerned from the beginning this was a setup, so the second thing you wonder is how East German authorities could be such dopes when this guy is giving signals all the way he is not sincere. No adequate explanation.

Later you get to wonder how a state with as many secret police as East Germany could miss the fact that the good scientist who has just defected finds his way to a farm in the middle of the country, or that there are bus loads of disaffected citizens riding around between Leipzig and Berlin in fake buses. Finally, how could a director as talented as Hitchcock and actors as good as Newman and Andrews end up carryout out such a travesty of cold-war thrillers?

It appears Hitchcock assumed the passion of anti-communist sentiment would overcome dramatic and logical inconsistencies. Wrong. You have to conclude it was just not his métier and they were seduced by the chance to work with an otherwise brilliant director. In short, could have been so much better with a better story, better script ... and better score.