← Back to Reviews
in
Torn Curtain -
I couldn't get into this Hitchcock spy thriller, which follows American scientist Michael Armstrong (Paul Newman) and fiancée Sarah (Julie Andrews) as they try to sneak a nuclear bomb-stifling mathematical formula out of East Germany. Speaking of formulas, all the elements are in place for a successful movie of its kind like clandestine conversations, searching for contacts, chase sequences, etc., so what's missing? Lead characters worth giving a darn about, I guess. Paul Newman seems bored and out of his element as Armstrong, and since he doesn't seem invested in the character, I couldn't be either. To be fair, Armstrong is just not that interesting and provides little to work with, so I can't fault Newman that much for his performance. As for Andrews, she's given even less to do and is essentially along for the ride. As a result, each sequence I mentioned is only entertaining in theory. The highlight, despite a heavy use of rear projection that has not aged well, is a getaway sequence on a commuter bus. The whole time, I couldn't care about whether Michael and Sarah would make it, so I was left examining what makes the sequence successful and how it compares to similar ones in other Hitchcock spy movies as if I were in a screenwriting class. The latter, though, may be the overarching problem: Hitchcock has done this movie many times before and better. I will say it is a nice-looking movie overall and while the leads disappoint, most of the supporting players do not, especially Ludwig Donath's eccentric German professor Lindt and Lila Kedrova's dramatic Countess Kuchinska. Unfortunately, it's not enough to save this from being one of Hitchcock's most middling efforts.
I couldn't get into this Hitchcock spy thriller, which follows American scientist Michael Armstrong (Paul Newman) and fiancée Sarah (Julie Andrews) as they try to sneak a nuclear bomb-stifling mathematical formula out of East Germany. Speaking of formulas, all the elements are in place for a successful movie of its kind like clandestine conversations, searching for contacts, chase sequences, etc., so what's missing? Lead characters worth giving a darn about, I guess. Paul Newman seems bored and out of his element as Armstrong, and since he doesn't seem invested in the character, I couldn't be either. To be fair, Armstrong is just not that interesting and provides little to work with, so I can't fault Newman that much for his performance. As for Andrews, she's given even less to do and is essentially along for the ride. As a result, each sequence I mentioned is only entertaining in theory. The highlight, despite a heavy use of rear projection that has not aged well, is a getaway sequence on a commuter bus. The whole time, I couldn't care about whether Michael and Sarah would make it, so I was left examining what makes the sequence successful and how it compares to similar ones in other Hitchcock spy movies as if I were in a screenwriting class. The latter, though, may be the overarching problem: Hitchcock has done this movie many times before and better. I will say it is a nice-looking movie overall and while the leads disappoint, most of the supporting players do not, especially Ludwig Donath's eccentric German professor Lindt and Lila Kedrova's dramatic Countess Kuchinska. Unfortunately, it's not enough to save this from being one of Hitchcock's most middling efforts.