Product Description

The Master of Suspense Alfred Hitchcock brought a best-selling spy novel to the screen with riveting results in this spellbinding espionage thriller. John Forsythe stars as an American CIA agent who hires a French operative named Devereaux (Frederick Stafford) to go to Cuba and check out rumors of Russian missiles and a NATO spy called Topaz. In Havana Devereaux s investigation becomes dangerous leaving behind a wake of shaken governments murder betrayal and suicide. His mission complete Devereaux returns to France but as he moves in to expose the double agent the danger and the suspense builds to a heart-pounding conclusion in this lavish globe-trotting thriller.System Requirements:Running Time: 143 minutesFormat: DVD MOVIE Genre: ACTION/ADVENTURE/THRILLERS UPC: 025192831423 Manufacturer No: 28314

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #21450 in DVD
• Brand: Universal Studios
• Released on: 2006-06-20
• Rating: PG (Parental Guidance Suggested)
• Aspect ratio: 1.85:1
• Formats: Color, Dolby, DVD, Original recording remastered, Subtitled, Widescreen, NTSC
• Original language: English
• Subtitled in: English, Spanish, French
• Number of discs: 1
• Dimensions: .25 pounds
• Running time: 143 minutes

Amazon.com
Alfred Hitchcock hadn't made a spy thriller since the 1930s, so his 1969 adaptation of Leon Uris's bestseller seemed like a curious choice for the director. But Hitchcock makes Uris's story of the West's investigation into the Soviet Union's dealings with Cuba his own. Frederick Stafford plays a French intelligence agent who works with his American counterpart (John Forsythe) to break up a Soviet spy ring. The film is a bit flat dramatically and visually, and there are sequences that seem to occupy Hitchcock's attention more than others. A minor work all around, with at least two alternative endings shot by Hitchcock. --Tom Keogh

Customer Reviews

Back from the dead.
The reasessment of Hitchcock's 1960's work continues, begun with the amazing Marnie. (Torn Curtain may be a lost cause, however.) It's fair to say that Topaz benefits from this ongoing reconsideration. It's just a very good movie.

The plot follows an episodic but compelling arc along the trail of French cold-war spy leaks. A number of satisfying (and inter-twining) sub-stories among the large cast are well presented. The parallel infidelities of the Stafford/Robin husband and wife are interesting and key to ultimate plot resolution. Some very nice "set pieces" are included, the tent poles that support Hitchcock movies. I found the location photography to be both realistic and refreshing. The film's main fault, of course, is the absence of a convincing ending. How Hitch believed that the "duel" ending would stand up is beyond me. I'm not sure how Uris ended his book.

Jarre's music is almost laughable, certainly in comparison with the monumental Herrmann. Topaz is a serious movie about serious themes (betrayal, good versus evil) and Jarre's music does nothing to advance these themes.

Finally, Leonard Maltin's commentary touches powerfully on Hitchcock's directorial powers, the likes of which are few and far-between these days. Outside of maybe Soderberg and Tykwer, most modern-day directors have little idea of where to place the camera, how to sequence images through cutting, et al. (Poster child of directorial ineptitude is Ron Howard who absolutely doesn't have a clue.) Suffice it to say that Topaz is a very well directed movie that delivers visual style and meaning in spades.

Had potential. . .
THE MOVIE:
Topaz is one of those movies that when I watch it I keep checking the time to figure out how much longer I have to watch it. The reason is simple. There are some great scenes and there is an okay story but it takes to long to actually get to the story. The movie picks up for me whem Frederick Stafford goes to New York. I think the movie could have included only a little bit of the things that happened before since we are told that there is a defecting russian (Credits). Then have the russian defector tell what he knows. Finally John Forsyth commissions Frederick Stafford in his hotel room and the movie starts like that. I would take other bits here and there out. It could have been a great hour and 45 minute movie! It would have had it's problems but it would be enjoyable. (Many would disagree that so much could be taken out but this is my opinion.) This brings me to ----

THE DVD:
I like that there is an uncut version on the dvd- the problem is the SHORTER theatrical version should have also been included! It needed the trimming that was done for it's theatrical release! Why didn't they include both versions, or the theatrical version with a deleted scenes archive (prefferably both versions)? The fact that the un tightened version is all that is included adds to what was wrong with the film - even in it's theatrical release. Once again I like the fact the uncut version is included but it shouldn't be ALL that was included.

The documentary rocks. I enjoyed it. It isn't the best documentary in the Universal Hitchcock dvd library but it rocks just the same.

I like that they included the three different endings as well...

The trailer isn't his best but is worth a look as well.

The other extras are rather standard but it is nice to have them anyway.

Much Better Than You've Aeard
I saw "Topaz" on television when I was in high school in the early 1990s and hated it. I never bothered watching it again. But since the film was included in Universal's "Hitchcock Masterpiece" DVD collection that I received for Christmas, I decided to watch it again out of curiosity. My opinion has completely changed.

This is a cleverly written, suspenseful film, particularly the first half. What I've always liked most about Alfred Hitchcock is how modern his films are. Because of that they age extremely well. The "problem" with "Topaz" is simply that it was ahead of its time. In working my way through the "Masterpiece" DVD collection, I've found that all of Hitchcock's later American films ("The Birds" through "Family Plot") have benefited tremendously from second and third viewings. I'm not about to say that these films are as good as the work he produced at his creative peak (the 1950s--"Strangers on a Train" through "Psycho"), but they're much better crafted and more textured than I originally gave them credit for being. I would argue that these late period films work much better with repeated viewings.