Topaz (1969)
Average Rating: 6.4/10
Reviews Counted: 18
Fresh: 13 | Rotten: 5
No consensus yet.
Average Rating: N/A
Critic Reviews: 1
Fresh: 1 | Rotten: 0
liked it
Average Rating: 3/5
User Ratings: 6,040
My Rating
Movie Info
Filmed on locations ranging from Denmark to the Universal backlot, Alfred Hitchcock's Topaz is based on a novel by Leon Uris. Frederick Stafford, a veteran of European-filmed James Bond rip-offs of the 1960s, is cast as Andre Devereaux, a French secret agent assigned to snoop around Cuba in the months prior to the 1962 missile crisis. Someone is supplying Castro -- and, by extension, Moscow -- with NATO secrets; it is up to Devereaux to liquidate the "mole." Aiding Devereaux is CIA agent
Jan 1, 1969 Wide
Mar 6, 2001
Universal Pictures
Watch It Now
Cast
-
Frederick Stafford
Andre Devereaux -
Dany Robin
Nicole Devereaux -
John Vernon
Rico Parra -
Karin Dor
Juanita De Cordoba -
Michel Piccoli
Jacques Granville -
Philippe Noiret
Henri Jarre -
Claude Jade
Michele Picard -
Michel Subor
Francois Picard -
Per-Axel Arosenius
Boris Kusenov -
John Forsythe
Michael Nordstrom -
Roscoe Lee Browne
Philippe Dubois -
Lewis Charles
Mr. Mendoza -
Roberto Contreras
Munoz -
Tina Hedstrom
Tamara Kusenov -
Sonja Kolthoff
Mrs. Kusenov -
Don Randolph
Luis Uribe -
Carlos Rivas
Hernandez -
John Roper
Thomas -
Edmon Ryan
McKittreck -
George Skaff
Rene d'Arcy -
Sandor Szabo Sr.
Emile Redon -
John Van Dreelen
Claude Martin -
Roger Til
Jean Chabrier -
Anna Navarro
Mrs. Mendoza -
Lew Brown
American Official
ADVERTISEMENT
Topaz Trailer & Photos
All Critics (24) | Top Critics (3) | Fresh (15) | Rotten (5) | DVD (11)
Topaz is not only most entertaining. It is, like so many Hitchcock films, a cautionary fable by one of the most moral cynics of our time.
One of Hitchcock's weaker films, this Cold War espionage tale lacks tension and suspense but it bears some artistic merits, including color scheme.
The muddled Samuel Taylor screenplay smelled so bad I wouldn't wrap fish in it.
Not Hitchcock's best work, but Hitchcock nevertheless.
Rather tedious Hitchcock, but still heads above most suspensers.
Not Alfred Hitchcock at his best.
Audience Reviews for Topaz
Super Reviewer
Super Reviewer
Discussion Forum
There are no discussion threads for Topaz yet.
What's Hot On RT
The Last Stand, Side Effects
Trailer for new Coen Bros movie
Fast & Furious cars gallery
Blockbusters ranked!
Featured on RT
- In Pictures: The Cars of Fast & Furious 0
- Digital Multiplex: Warm Bodies and Aftershock 5
- Discover the Best-Reviewed Films in Summer Movie Scorecard 2013 0
- RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: The Last Stand and Side Effects 16
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: Star Trek Softer Than Expected at #1 85
- Weekly Ketchup: Will Smith to Star in Wild Bunch Remake? 39
- Critics Consensus: Star Trek Into Darkness is Certified Fresh 107
Top Headlines
-
Which Film Franchise Has Been the Best for Female Characters?
3
-
Damon Lindelof Talks Tomorrowland
0
-
10 Movies About Really Fast Cars
1
-
Poltergeist Remake Synopsis Hints at Plot Differences
6
-
Kristen Wiig Says Welcome to Me
1
-
David Fincher's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea Gets Bumped
0
-
Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance Remake in the Works
0
Foreign Titles
- Topas (DE)
- Topaz (UK)


Top Critic
Now, it's not a terrible film per se, but it certainly doesn't have a lot going for it. The plot is the old Cold War spy intrigue/mole hunt sort of thing, with emphasis on a French operative diving into Soviet and Cuban dealings around the time of the Cuban Missle Crisis. The storyline is heavily fact based, and as a result, is pretty cut and dried, and not really as compelling as it should be.
It doesn't help that Hitch made a lot of films like this already, most of them better, and ones I saw before this one. Even though it has ties to reality, the film is dull, not engaging, and kind of a bore. I really didn't care what was happening most of the time, and that's really not a good sign considering the film's long running time.
The film's not all bad though. It has a lot of merit from a technical standpoint, with some good locations, sets, and camerawork. Maurice Jarre's score is also really good, and probably the film's highlight, aside from the film scene Karin Dor is in. Speaking of actors, this could probably have benefited from some serious star power. That wouldn't be a guarantee that it would've helped, but you never know. I do think the highlight as far as acting goes to John Vernon, and his portrayal of a Cuban revolutionary is both bewildering and awesome. I t probably wouldn't fly today, and, while I'm not sure why they got a Canadian to play a Cuban, I won't complain either, as I think Vernon was a solid character actor.
All in all, the film is just kinda 'meh'. I mostly just think the film falls because it all feels very routine and phoned in. Of course, when you're Hitchcock, I guess it's okay to not be on the top of your game all the time...even though it happened to him a few times, especially during the latter years. See it if you want, but just know that its reputation is pretty true.