Sabotage - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Sabotage Reviews

Page 1 of 12
August 11, 2016
Sabotage is well made and it has some quite interesting scenes in it, but it is mostly lacking in terms of suspense, the plot is neither memorable nor authentic, the characters are forgettable and it is so uneventful and never particularly riveting. It is very weak and oddly not suspenseful for the master of suspense.
August 10, 2016
Average for early Hitchcock.
June 30, 2016
It's quite incredible the number of great films Hitchcock made in the 1930's in London & how frequently he produced them.

This is a sensational thriller about a couple that run a cinema in London & although she is unaware her husband is plotting to Sabotage London & create terror in the streets with a criminal mastermind.

The film unravels so well & you as viewer journey with the wife to identify her husbands evil motives. The visuals & tension are second to none. It's engaging & perfectly directed, a must see early Hitch .
½ June 25, 2016
I thought I mightn't have enjoyed this as much as usual Hitchcock films as he was young & inexperienced, but then I realised it was 10 years into his career! Still, that's only the first quarter... Sabotage just didn't click for me - the protagonists weren't that interesting and the reason for their wanting to bomb London not greatly explored. For a 90min film, some slow, drawn-out moments, but a few surprises and jokes, including the final line. OK, but not great.
Antonius Block
Super Reviewer
June 4, 2016
In this 1936 film from Alfred Hitchcock, a foreign terrorist group is operating in London, and their agent (Oskar Homolka) operates a movie theater as a cover, along with his unsuspecting wife (Sylvia Sidney) and her teenage brother. Homolka is suitably creepy, glowering behind bushy eyebrows, and the kitten-faced Sidney may remind you of Myrna Loy. Scotland Yard is on to Homolka, and their man (John Loder) spies on him and cozies up to the family in an attempt to learn more. Unfortunately, with the exception of a couple of scenes, the film is rather slow and sedate, and is only of interest because it's one of Hitchcock's early pre-Hollywood efforts.

Spoiler alert from here on.

Hitchcock does provide tension in the pivotal sequence where, because of police surveillance, Homolka is forced to send the young boy out to deliver a package containing a bomb. He emphasizes the importance of getting to his destination by 1:30, knowing the bomb is set to go off at 1:45, but of course the boy doesn't know that and ends up being delayed on his way (comically being dragged into a demonstration by a peddler of toothpaste and shampoo at one point). While we feel the suspense, Hitchcock as a younger director exercises no restraint at all, melodramatically increasing the volume of the music and showing us the time on clocks repeatedly as it gets closer and closer to 1:45.

To Hitchcock's credit (or Joseph Conrad's, the author of the story) the bomb does go off, and it is a little shocking even today. Imagine what the reaction was like in 1936 to have an innocent boy, one moment playing with a puppy on a bus, the next minute gone, along with all of the other passengers. The shock presages other Hitchcock moments, such as the shower scene in Psycho. Unfortunately, in the wake of this, the emotional reaction of the characters doesn't ring true, though it does lead to what I think was the best scene in the movie - the mother thinking her son is running towards her on the street, which for a split second has us somehow believing, as she does, that he's survived.

Watch it for the bomb scene and for Sylvia Sidney, but it's certainly not a classic.
½ April 14, 2016
Totally unremarkable film by Hitchcock. The impact of a couple of suspenseful scenes is almost completely drowned out by the mediocre acting, the uninteresting characters, the lack of realism in their reactions and a fairly simplistic story. I personally found myself unable to sympathize with any of the heroes, and that's not a good thing at all. At a mere 75 minutes, "Sabotage" nevertheless feels like it outstayed its welcome.
Super Reviewer
½ March 26, 2016
Hitchcock knows how to combine an espionage plot with humor, and this film can also be very tense (especially in a key scene of a boy carrying a package throughout the city and on a bus), even if it is not always so effective and suffers a bit from some weak narrative choices.
March 18, 2016
A fairly formulaic plotline but it's lifted above the norm by Hitchcock's flourishes. The setting in the old cinema, the tension of the boy unwittingly delivering the bomb. Well worth seeking out.
September 21, 2015
It's a little slow at the start, and the acting is not always convincing, but this thriller does have a genuine element of mystery and one memorable moment of suspense involving the boy on the bus. 1001
May 17, 2015
well crafted but but considered by many to b one of Hitch's lessor efforts.
May 14, 2015
The plot has many twists. This movie is non stop action.
January 24, 2015
This accomplished slow-burning spy thriller focuses on the personal cost that is entailed for both sides of the national security game as well as for the innocents that get caught in the middle.
½ January 20, 2015
Uno de los films de la etapa brit├ nica de Hitch donde muestra su gran talento especialmente en la escena de la bomba en el autob˙s.
½ November 6, 2014
another early hitchcock film that seemed to have an interesting story but failed to deliver
September 3, 2014
Hitchcock made two films in 1936, both loosely adapted from books about secret agents in the war (Oddly "Sabotage" was adapted from a novel called Secret Agent, while "Secret Agent" was adapted from something else entirely). Of the two films with similar subjects made back to back, I preferred "Secret Agent", but this is decent isn't as fun as the previous film. Still worth a look for Hitchcock fans (and it still has a somewhat relevant terrorism plot), as he really hit his stride in the mid-1930s.
June 13, 2014
A very good movie...terrific suspense; Sidney is always good. B+
May 20, 2014
How did i ever miss this one... This was a pretty decent movie i must say. I'm not familiar with any of the actors at all, but that's besides the point. To be honest i was kinda surprised in the way the bomb scene was carried out, bold i must say. but Hitcock always took risks and that's why i admire him. The plot of the movie was very interesting you have people that want to make London come crawling to it's knees, so they hire the owner of the local theater to participate because he needs the money. His wife at first doesn't know what's going on, but later on she gets suspicious, via the FBI agent who pretends to have an interest in her in the beginning. I liked the different shots of London that were used in the movie. Overall i thought this movie was an undiscovered gem until now, i will definitely watch it again soon.
½ April 12, 2014
just too far out of date. typical english talkie and little more. i got through about 15 minutes and then quit watching
February 5, 2014
Decent little suspense film, not one of Hitchcock's best but it diffidently shows his work. The characters are alright, the drama is okay, and the overall ending is satisfactory.
Page 1 of 12