User reviews

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!

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.

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.

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.

"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)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

It is bad to judge Hitchcock movies. Look at all the masterpieces the man has on his filmography list -- from the classic Secret Agent and 39 Steps to Rebecca and Lifeboat to Strangers on a Train and Psycho to The Birds and Marnie. The man NEVER had a BAD movie. Torn Curtain possesses all aspects of classic Hitchcock -- interesting locations, clever storyline, suspense, humor, stellar acting, stars, music, among other features. Perhaps this movie was criticized on pre-production. Julie Andrews was under contract and her shooting time was very limited. This posed a problem for Hitchcock who had to rush into production. Hitchcock also had a problem with his newly trained actor Paul Newman, who would always have it his way or the highway. Torn Curtain is highly supsenseful and on DVD is a gem. Presented in widescreen it also features the trailer, a documentary, and scenes with Bernard Herrmann's unused score. Thank god Herrmann didn't get the job to score this movie -- as much as Herrmann proved to be perfect for classics like Vertigo and Marnie (known as his best) -- he was way out of his league here. Torn Curtain was very ahead of it's time dealing with suspense, romance, and the Cold War. John Addison performed an excellent score fitting the movie well with the recurring theme that can either make you jump or cry. Andrews was excellent (good to see she can also do straight movies without music), as was Newman and the ensemble. See it on DVD. ****/*****

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

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 ****

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.

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.

Too bad Hitchcock had to create this film in 1966. The spy vs. spy craze was at its height with super-spy James Bond played by ebullient Sean Connery at the top of the movie ladder. Dozens of Cold War espionage thrillers were marketed that year. Even non-spy films touched on espionage from time to time. Adding to the spy mill in 1966 were several espionage television series including the classic spy spoof show "Get Smart," created by the comedic giants Mel Brooks and Buck Henry. So to most movie goers of the day "Torn Curtain" was just another film capitalizing on the spy vs. spy trend. "Torn Curtain," however, is one of Hitchcock's best with two scenes that are among his most intense, the almost endless killing of communist agent Hermann Gromek, played with skill by Wolfgang Kieling, and the bus getaway that will keep you on the edge of your seat. The crying fire in a crowded theater is exciting but predictable--the viewer is just waiting for Professor Michael Armstrong (Paul Newman) to jump from his seat and yell.

Lovely Julie Andrews has a juicy role as Dr. Sarah Louise Sherman, the soon to be Mrs. Armstrong if the good professor doesn't run away and leave her. When my wife watched this movie for the first time, she asked in a surprising tone of voice, "Is that really Paul Newman and Julie Andrews together?" This unlikely combination works. It works better than the movies Newman made with his wife, Joanne Woodward. The role of Dr. Sherman is also somewhat unique in that she is unwittingly involved in espionage without her knowledge, following her fiancée to Communist East Germany without knowing that he is on an extremely dangerous assignment which only a nuclear scientist can carry out.

Hitchcock's film making was beginning to taper off in the twilight of his years. But the masterful hand was still orchestrating film techniques highly original and creative. Lesser directors would have used just anyone to play the small but significant part of the prima donna Countess Kuchinska. Instead Hitchcock searched and found just the right person with the right face and attitude for the role. Lila Kedrova was chosen because she could actually sing opera and because her face and mannerisms stand out in a crowd. In her first appearance when she is getting off the plane, she becomes agitated because Professor Armstrong is receiving all the attention from the press. Hitchcock zooms the camera in for a closeup of her face with its distinctive features. It's well over an hour later that Countess Kuchinska reappears. This reappearance is crucial for the development of the film. Because of Hitchcock's methods, the viewer automatically recognizes the Countess, instantly remembering that she had been upset with Professor Armstrong because of all the attention taken away from her and showered on the professor. She definitely has an ax to grind.

Though it has not received much attention compared with many other Hitchcock films, "Torn Curtain" is among his best and should be savored by all. Even though political conditions have flip flopped since 1966 and there is no longer a communist East Germany, this Cold War delicacy is worth a bite. Oh, and watch the somewhat hidden ironic humor at the beginning where there's a room full of top scientists during the Cold War and the heat doesn't work.

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.