Spikeopath Torn Curtain, in spite of what some may believe, was not a flop. Critically mauled, it did however not fail at the box office. This can most likely be attributed to the fact that it's directed by Alfred Hitchcock and stars Paul Newman and Julie Andrews, three of the biggest names in cinema history.It's a film that isn't as awful as you may have been led to believe, in fact it's a passable Cold War suspenser, but it's just that it's a muted picture on auto pilot, an overlong spy caper encompassing a thematic beat about fidelity and trust. Plot involves defection, double agents, undercover missions and a whole host of shaky spy like shenanigans. However, these things are never developed into a thrilling movie. It exists, and cheekily for a while it holds the interest.Atmosphere is set at bleak, which is in keeping with the atmosphere behind the scenes of the production - casting decisions, fall outs et al - so really it's not a must see movie. There's some merit here, with ironic smarts and genuinely good ideas, it's just that come the 90 minute mark you will be looking at your watch and thinking the big names involved should be producing something a whole lot greater. 5/10

Michael_Elliott Torn Curtain (1966) ** 1/2 (out of 4) American professor Michael Armstrong (Paul Newman) goes on a vacation where he plans on dumping his fiancé Sarah Sherman (Julie Andrews) so that he can attend to business. The fiancé ends up following him and she's shocked and horrified to see them end up in Germany behind the Iron Curtain. Soon the woman begins to fear that her fiancé has sold out America and plans on helping Germany.Alfred Hitchcock apparently hated making this film and hated being forced to use Newman and Andrews. The film isn't nearly as bad as the legendary director made it out to be, although there's no doubt that it's not a classic by any stretch of the imagination. As for Hitchcock's hatred, I'm going to guess he spoke even worse about the film simply because the studio didn't give him the cast he wanted.As far as the film goes, it's pretty entertaining and I think Hitchcock was wrong when he criticized the two lead performers. Yes, I think both Newman and Andrews are quite good here and they're certainly believable as the couple behind the Iron Curtain trying to find a way out. I thought Newman was very believable in the role of the scientist and I think Andrews does good during her more emotional scenes. Lila Kedrova, Hansjorg Felmy and Wolfgang Kieling are also very good in their supporting roles.The film also benefits from some nice cinematography and a good music score. As for the flaws, there's no question that the story itself really isn't anything fresh or original. In fact, the spy genre was at full force during this era due to the James Bond movies so TORN CURTAIN does feel a tad bit old fashioned and its story just seems like something that would have been better twenty years earlier. Also the 128 minute running time is a bit too long. With that said, the cast is good and there are some nice suspense scenes so TORN CURTAIN is still worth watching.

brchthethird I knew this moment would come, and that I'd eventually find a Hitchcock film that I didn't care for too much. TORN CURTAIN, while certainly topical in its examination of Cold War politics, nuclear secrets and double agents, largely fails to do what every other Hitchcock picture I've seen so far has done, i.e., be entertaining. Granted, there are a few sequences that recall classic Hitch, but they are barely enough to distract from how dull this was to get through at times. In what would be his last usage of "marquee" talent, Paul Newman and Julie Andrews star as a couple of scientists who publicly defect to East Germany at the height of the Cold War in order to gain access to an important formula or nuclear secret. Honestly, as the film's MacGuffin, this piece of information doesn't really matter (to the audience, at least). And that's fine. However, matters aren't helped by having such weak characters despite being capably played such talented actors and Newman and Andrews. Even the chemistry between them was barely better than Connery and Hedren in MARNIE. There was also no memorable villain. Still, at the risk of beating down too much on the film, there were a few sequences that I will probably remember for while. The best of these happens close to halfway in, and involves a tense brawl between Newman and an East German agent who has gotten onto his secret plans. It plays out sans score, and was incredibly tense. Towards the end, there was also a bus-riding sequence and a scene in a theater that recalled the climax to THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH. It wasn't as good as the former, but still stood out. If there's one thing that's sorely missed, it's Bernard Herrmann as composer, here replaced by John Addison. I did like a number of the cues, but I can only imagine that Herrmann's score would have been much better. Even so, I liked the jazz-inflected touch that Addison brought to the material. Ultimately, though, TORN CURTAIN suffers by having terrible pacing and taking too long to really kick into gear. The last 40-45 minutes, minus a pointless semi-comic detour, is able to salvage some of what came before, but the film is still overall kind of boring.

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.