I really like Torn Curtain. I don't understand why it's only a 6.4/10 ??? For me it's an 8.5/10. I enjoyed this film as much as vertigo or rear window (only psycho is better). My favourite scene is the bus scene, when they try to escape.
shareI'm surprised that it rates so high among imdb voters. There must be people who think Hitchcock a cinematic god (Wilder or Kurosawa, perhaps, but not quite Hitch). It is a poor story, which makes everything fall from the masterwork category to bargain-bin material.
6.4 is not a high rating. Ratings lower than 7 are not considered high.
share
I rate it a "5", which indicates a not-very-good movie.
In my opinion, anything rated above 7.80 fits into or near the "250 Best". Anything above 7.00 is very satisfying. 6 to 7? Good but not great. In the 5's? Entertaining, but empty or flawed. Some interesting elements. Below 5? Watch at your own risk and be forewarned. Really-low ratings (3's, 2's, and 1's) are for movies of catastrophically ineptitude or that can appeal only to people within narrow demographics, such as Pokemon junk that can appeal only to those who will most likely outgrow it and find it embarassing a few years later or crappy, exploitative failures.
Trust me on this -- if you were to try to show someone how great Hitchcock could be, then you would not choose Torn Curtain.
Torn Curtain would have been helped immensely if Hitch had allowed Bernard Herrmann's score to be used. I can't help but think that the weakest part of the movie is the music score.
"Nostalgia...it just ain't what it used to be" (unknown)
'I'm surprised that it rates so high among imdb voters. There must be people who think Hitchcock a cinematic god (Wilder or Kurosawa, perhaps, but not quite Hitch). '
First of all, 6.4, in my opinion, isn't all that high. It's one and a half points away from Top 250 territory, which is actually quite a bit considering the probable thousands of movies not in the top 250 with higher scores than that. And I would argue that Hitchock is a cinematic god. He is responsible for more than half a dozen of the greatest movies ever made, and many lesser but still highly entertaining films. Rear Window, Vertigo, North by Northwest, Strangers on a Train, Psycho, Notorious, Rebecca, The 39 Steps, and Shadow of a Doubt are all among the greatest movies ever made (and all on the Top 250, and several are on the AFI lists, along with Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" and Leonard Maltin's "100 Must-See Movies." The Birds, Spellbound, and The Lady Vanishes, among others, don't quite rank as masterpieces but are still highly entertaining films. He truly is the 'master of suspense.'
Don't get me wrong, I love Billy Wilder, and Akira Kurosawa, but Alfred Hitchcock is also a cinematic god, along with Stanley Kubrick and Orson Welles (among others.)
While Torn Curtain isn't one of my favorite of his movies, I thought it was still a pretty good effort with an interesting story and a fair amount of Hitchockian suspense.
Note: The above comments are exclusively my opinion.
---Respect---
i'd say it was far too long byt also a really good certainly underrated pictures.
around 15 minutes shorter i think around 7.5
i think this was probally a bad film because after "the birds" he lost a lot of respect
agree?
It wasn't bad. It was mediocre. Disappointing for an ALfred Hitchcock film. The acting and direction were good, but the score was disappointing and the script is filled with plot-holes.
sharei'm surprised how everyone is dumping the score. it's not that bad, and under the interesting circumstances of the scores used i'd say it did it's job well, even if it wasn't as good as Herrmann's.
this movie isn't a bad movie. because it's hitchcock. if McG or Pitof or some other director almost no one cared about made this, few people would like it i think.
now don't get me wrong. i'm a huge fan of hitchcock and actually enjoyed this movie. but i also have to admit it's the worst (sorry, least-best) of all the movies of his i've seen (i haven't seen Topaz, however, and i hear that's worse).
anyways....i forgot what i was talking about. cheers.
In a way Torn Curtain is testament to Hitchcock's genius, in that it's an uninteresting story and a bad script, but still he manages to make it a worthwhile film
shareI have to confess that I've only ever seen 3 other Hitchcock films; North by Northwest, Psycho, and the Birds. I personally liked Torn Curtain, but then I've been on a Paul Newman kick lately. Of those I've seen, Torn Curtain doesn't compare to Psycho or North by Northwest, but I think it's better than the Birds. I'm definitely not an expert, but the acting really wasn't bad and, while I don't know much about the "iron curtain," I thought the plot wasn't terrible. I also appreciated the chance to practice my German, so I didn't think it was Hitchcock's worst...
Wait! We can't stop here! This is bat country!
One of the problems with Torn Curtain was interference of Universal Executives. Torn Curtain looks far better with Herrmann's music score in it.
I usually watch Torn Curtain with Herrmann's music score. Jon Addison's music score has nothing special in it.
The script was just ok. Hitchcock knew that there were flaws in the film, but it wasn't his fault.
The shooting began before Hitchcock was satisfied with the script. So Hitchcock wanted to rewrite the whole script. But due to the lack of time, he hired Keith Waterhouse and Willis Hall to do extensive rewrites on the script.
Hitchcock didn't loose respect after THE BIRDS that film was a huge.hit ..rather after the debacle of MARNIE people started to wonder if he had 'lost his edge" being that PSYCHO and THE BIRDS were very 'now' and 'hip' films and MARNIE was decidedly old fashioned with its sets and backdrops, etc..but as weird as MARNIE must have been, when TORN CURTAIN came out with it's cliche score and out of place actors and because of this , the story gripped no one...well it seemed like Hitch was down and out but in hindsight we know that he had some very interesting projects on the table that Universal Studios killed and made him do more conventional stuff like this film and the next TOPAZ..(and even CURTAIN could still have been good if the cast had been different ) .very big mistake and a real head scratcher...why lawyers and agents would tell a master film maker coming off a more than ten year run of huge hits how to make films and what subjects to do???? strange and depressing that the years that Hitch could have still made great films were spent doing what the execs at Universal thought would be good ,, ...even David O Selznick had more sense than that !!!!
share[deleted]
Alfred Hitchcock is also a cinematic god, along with Stanley Kubrick and Orson Welles (among others.)
There's not a single film I've seen him in where I wouldn't have recast Gregory Peck with someone else. For an example of 'Hitchcock lite' try Arabesque, where he's simply awful in the Cary Grant role. In a straightforward action role, such as The Guns of Navarone, he also comes up short (in that movie, there's a scene where he loses his temper with the David Niven character, shaking a gun at him - I can never, ever keep a straight face at that part).
Eva Marie Saint was beautiful, but a bit on the dull side, imo. She was the weakest aspect of North by Northwest, probably my favourite movie.
I like all of Hitch's films. His best for me was "Dial M for Murder.
The Birds fell flat for me. No chemistry between Tippi Hedren and the leading man who I can't think of name. Rod something. He was in the movie of the "Time Machine.
Hitchcock originally wanted someone like Cary Grant or Farley Granger. In the end, he had to go with Rod Taylor. I thought Rod Taylor was good. But not great.
Everyone has their opinion of course, but when criticizing Hitchcock please bear in mind his longevity. Before he went to America he gave us the first British suspense film, The Lodger (1927), and the first British talkie two years later, thirty-seven years before Torn Curtain.
There are always going to be quibbles about plot-holes or scores etc, but Hitchcock did it for a hell of a long time, and he pretty much deserves every accolade he gets.
Eva Marie Saint was perfect in North By Northwest! There was no "weak" aspect to that film, except for the censors. Hitch did what he could to get things past those censors, from the not to subtle hints at sexual tension on the part of Landau towards Mason, to the verbal foreplay between Grant and Saint. Although, Eva's line "I never make love on an empty stomach," didn't get through fully intact...
Hitch had his final laugh with the ending though.
As for Peck, I thought he was at his greatest when he played intelligent characters in thoughtful films like Spellbound, To Kill A Mockingbird, Gentleman's Agreement, Roman Holiday, etc. He probably would have been good in Torn Curtain, but the script would have still been weak.
Hitchcock was very dissatisfied with the script and the casting. He wanted Eva Marie Saint for the leading female role. But the studio forced him to cast Julie Andrews.
Hitchcock wanted to do extensive rewritings on the script. But he couldn't do it, because of limited availability of Julie Andrews.
I gave it a 3. And that was because I was feeling generous.
They made it up as they went along.
The fight in the farmhouse was the worst fight I have ever seen in a movie.
Hitchcock must have been asleep when he made the film.
I might have enjoyed it more if I had also been asleep.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I can't understand the hate and low rating either;
I thought it was one of the most suspenseful Hitchcocks.
The tension just doesn't let up;
first the creepy distrusting nazi atmosphere in East-Germany, then Gromek who gets killed, Gromek missing police searching for him, Gromek's body found, Newman had to leave at 10am and was still trying to get the information from the professor, the bus escape with the second bus catching up (my fav too), the post office, the ballet; geez, there was no breather in it, I was on the edge of my seat the whole movie.
Well done Hitch!
I agree. This film was superb. I guess I can see how it would alienate people—in the way that Looney Tunes alienates people who don't like sarcastic cartoons. I don't know what people expect of Hitch, but he did what he does best. I had an issue with the "Fire" scene, but I'm going to say that Gromek makes up for that entire sequence.
Gromek... with his leather jacket (this film had awesome foley work), his gum chewing, his American idioms, the lighter that he couldn't get to work—and yet we find out later that it does—and his creepy eyes. His low voice. Gromek was an amazing character, the most 3-dimensional in the entire film.
Julie Andrews, whom I have trouble watching because I can't get "whenever God closes a door, somewhere he opens a window" out of my head every time I see her, was not only drop dead gorgeous, but was so low-key and managed to underplay her part brilliantly—and along with that wild hair—I barely recognized her.
Paul Newman was Paul Newman
I was on the edge of my seat the whole time too. Great stuff. And here I actually "believed" the IMDb ratings for a moment. Shame on me.
Sexually active since 1994!
I'm not sure people are alienated from the film, I think they're simply not as engaged as with other of Hitch's work . . . Miss Andreews does look good in the film . . .
share[deleted]
I like Paul and Julie together. Paul was very handsome as always and Julie was beautiful. I enjoyed the movie very much.
share