Rating: 
Summary: Decent Hitchcock espionage drama
Review: Frederick Stafford playing a French intelligence officer collaborates with John Forsythe, an American counterpart to garner information concerning Russia's involvement in Cuba in 1962. A high ranking KGB official defects from Russia and his debriefing prompts Stafford to enter Cuba, at the urging of the U.S., to conduct surveillance on the import of missiles.Stafford gathers intel provided by his Cuban mistress, a widow of a top revolutionary played by an attractive Karin Dor of James Bond fame. He manages to smuggle out the information under the suspicious eye of bearded Castro crony John Vernon. Learning from Forsythe of the existence of an espionage ring, code named Topaz, a group of French politicos spying for the Russians, Stafford sets out to smash it. Topaz lacked the gripping intrigue so often present in Hitchcock's work. My appreciation for his body of work led me to be generous with my rating.
Rating:
Summary: Decent Hitchcock espionage drama
Review: Frederick Stafford playing a French intelligence officer collaborates with John Forsythe, an American counterpart to garner information concerning Russia's involvement in Cuba in 1962. A high ranking KGB official defects from Russia and his debriefing prompts Stafford to enter Cuba, at the urging of the U.S., to conduct surveillance on the import of missiles. Stafford gathers intel provided by his Cuban mistress, a widow of a top revolutionary played by an attractive Karin Dor of James Bond fame. He manages to smuggle out the information under the suspicious eye of bearded Castro crony John Vernon. Learning from Forsythe of the existence of an espionage ring, code named Topaz, a group of French politicos spying for the Russians, Stafford sets out to smash it. Topaz lacked the gripping intrigue so often present in Hitchcock's work. My appreciation for his body of work led me to be generous with my rating.
Rating: 
Summary: Hitchcock's true face
Review: Hitchcock is a very skillful director even though he did not make a good character movie. In particular his suspense movies are enjoyable even if they are commercial. The movie "Topaz" showed his limit(that is,several scenes have tension, but he did not describe character well) Furthermore, he did not understand political situation well. Don't enjoy Hitchcock's political movies. Instead of that see his suspense movies.
Rating: 
Summary: Under Rated
Review: I think that this is one of Hicckcock's greatest films. It is filled with alot of suspense and intreague. It's also based on real happenings (according to the back of the case). If you like suspense then this is the picture for you.
Rating: 
Summary: One of Hitchcock's few mistakes
Review: If you have not seen this movie I highly suggest you either rent it or wait for it to be shown on AMC again. This is one of Hitchcock's worst movies. The character's and story are wooden and uninteresting. There is no signature Hitchcock humor and no exciting camera work. I am a huge Hitchcock fan and it is very hard for me to think of anything really positive about this film. It is simply not up to the Hitchcock standard. The only reason I gave it 2 stars is because a bad Hitchcock movie is still better than most other films made around the same time. If you want to see some good Hitchcock movies that you may have missed, I highly recommend the Criterion Collection DVDs of The Lady Vanishes and The 39 Steps.
Rating:
Summary: Hitchcock at one of his best
Review: O.K., Frederick Stafford and John Forsythe starring like salesmen and the leading ladys Claude Jade and Dany Robin are too worried, but it's very ironic to see some decades later the cold war and the agent's family. Also in the new version of the movie, since Hitchcock's 100th birthday, when Piccoli goes to Moscow and his counter-part Stafford says "Yes, that's the end of Topaz". Or like young Claude Jade says: "o I love the cubans, they are so wild!"
Rating:
Summary: does not even deserve the one star!
Review: That's a really unrealistic movie, a complete political fantasy. This guy didnt have any idea about Cuba and his political situation. He doesnt understand neither the cultural background. He confuses Cuba with Mexico, because he portrays the wife of the guerrilla leader as an adelita. But, that is just ridiculous, because adelitas are part of Mexican revolution not cuban. Also, the story is absurd and silly. That is why my inteligence is offended.
Rating: 
Summary: Had potential. . .
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Which parts are fiction?
Review: The story as I got it: Leon Uris writes books about the middle east for the most part. Exodus, Mila 18, QB VII, The Haj. He has an enormous reputation for well researched, gripping novels based on historical fact. What reason is there to believe he was willing to abandon that reputation for Topaz? In researching the book QB VII, I'm told, he stumbled across a story that he felt had to be told, and interrupted his work on QB VII to write Topaz. For reasons of drama, and personal security, it was necessary to rearrange some facts and personalities, but the story is said to be essentially true. As noted by another reviewer, the movie is good, but not great Hitchcock. Maybe, it has to do with the truthfulness of the story converting to an action movie. A similar situation arose in the attempt to make a movie out of Ken Follett's On Wings of Eagles. I think Hitchcock gave this movie the attention it deserved, but let's face it. It is easier for anyone to control the pace and action in a fictional work. The marvel of this movie and the novel upon which it was based, is the way that fiction was interwoven in an essentially true story, leaving the audience to wonder. Which parts were fiction?
Rating:
Summary: Uninvolving, but not entirely uninteresting spy film
Review: The wooden Frederick Stafford is not the kind of compelling , complex hero (like Cary Grant or James Stewart) of Hitchcock's earlier films, and the film (which lasts 127 minutes) seems a conventional spy story except, perhaps, in calling attention to the pile of corpses of those who helped the hero. Michel Piccoli is a conventional foil. Philippe Noiret is more interesting as a French NATO official, and John Vernon as a Cuban official. The Cubans are not demonized, though Karin Dor does explain her cooperation to him being because Castro has turned the island she loves into a prison. The film jumps from Copenhagen to Washington to New York to Cuba to Paris. Many of the key scenes are filmed from a distance at which the viewer cannot hear what is said. If the visuals were more interesting, this might work, but as it is, it only makes the characters and their fates seem remote in interest.
| 
