Rating: 
Summary: This movie is better then most people say it is.
Review: Hitchcock traded horror and suspence for more humor and wild adventure in this movie made in 1966 where Paul Newman and Julie Andrews play a couple of scientists who semmingly defect to the Russians, but are in actually trying to uncover a new screat Formula that will revolutionize the nuclear arms race. The movie mainly deals with how they can get out of the Iron Curtain once they get their hands on the numerical formula. The film then goes to rather intense lengths to show them on the run from the police, trying to find the needed contacts, and then make it across the border without getting shot. Except for one long fight scene, this is a rather exciteing film and is in keeping with many of Hitchcock's style of film making.
Rating: 
Summary: Not Terrible, But FAR From His Best...
Review: Hitchcock's TORN CURTAIN may not necessariy be the disaster people sometimes make out to be...but when viewed alongside his best films, it sure seems like it!It's easy to pinpoint the flaws here. The pacing here is sometimes painfully slow. There is almost zero rapport or chemistry between Newman and Andrews. Both seem ill at ease in their roles, ESPECIALLY Paul Newman. And poor Julie Andrews has to utter the terrible line "but...that's behind the Iron Curtain!" Andrews' role as written is shockingly dumb- the audience has figured out that somethings up with Newmans' supposed defection LONG before his own fiancee does! Then...the scene where it Hitch reconnects- the murder of Gromek. Still not on a par with, say, his legendary windmill scene, or his cropdusting scene, Hitchcock is at least displaying some imagination, and supplying some tension to a film that, by this reel, desperately needs it. However, the film then unravels and can't quite get itself together. If the Academy gave awards for overacting, Lila Kedrova would have been a shoo-in, because she goes WAAAAAAY over the top as the Countess. I've been overall negative, because it should be admitted that TORN CURTAIN is still leaps and bounds ahead of many other films (hence my 3 star rating). However, if you do watch it, try not to catch in the same time period as viewing NORTH BY NORTHWEST, NOTORIOUS or STRANGERS ON A TRAIN. It will seem a much better film... Not a trainwreck...but an overall disappointment...
Rating: 
Summary: One of Hitchcock's Greatest Villains-- GROMEK
Review: I absolutely loved Gromek, the German agent in this film. One of the most likable villains Hitchcock ever put to film, he throws about 'Americanisms' in wonderfully broken English while smacking on a piece of gum. Very sinister and funny at the same time, and the scene of his death definitely belongs in the Hitchcock highlight reel. Unfortunately, as in "Psycho," this most interesting character is killed within the first half of the movie, and the rest lags afterwards. Really, really a shame...he's far more interesting than Paul Newman's character. If I were to rank this among Hitch's other later films, I'd say it's better than "Topaz" or "Marnie," but not as good as "Frenzy." 5 Stars, however, because nobody can touch Hitchcock. HERE'S AN IDEA FOR A DVD RE-RELEASE...WHY NOT PUT OUT A VERSION OF THIS FILM WITH THE OPTION OF LISTENING TO BERNARD HERRMANN'S ORIGINAL SCORE?!?!? IF YOU LIKE THIS IDEA, SEND A MESSAGE BY VOTING THIS REVIEW 'HELPFUL.'
Rating:
Summary: Totally underrated nailbiter
Review: I am mystfied how all these film "experts" can say that this film is disappointing? Having seen countless Hitchcock films, I have to say that "Torn Curtain" is perhaps the most suspenseful film if his I've ever seen (save maybe "Rear Window"). The last 45 minutes of this film had me in and out of my chair, talking to the screen and totally engrossed. There is an almost inhumane amount of suspense then relief, then more suspense then more relief. It was eerie, in fact, how much of a puppet I became in watching this film some 35 years after it was made; Hitchcock is sitting above somewhere, probably very pleased. All in all, this is an engaging film that will take you on a rollercoaster ride as it did me.
Rating:
Summary: Julie and Paul to the rescue!
Review: I can see why they call this one of Hitchcock's lesser flicks (or whatever...) but it's still good because Julie Andrews and Paul Newman are electric onscreen. It is a tribute to their excellent portrayals here that this film has won my approval. My favorite quote-- I love the way Ms. Andrews delivers that line-- "a marriage should always come before a honeymoon cruise". The best part of watching is to see the effortlessness in which Julie Andrews transmits her emotions without moving, just by the expressions on her face. It's very compelling. The other actors do not add to the value of the film, sorry to say, for myriad reasons, some were over-acting and others distracted with their ominous deliveries of what should be ordinary lines, applying too much emphasis or saying with a look what should have been left unsaid. The inescapable fact that Paul Newman and Julie Andrews are great actors cannot be masked by the failings of the supporting characters, plot line or the direction of this movie so it still gets a good grade.
Rating:
Summary: Paul Newman and Julie Andrews in an interesting combination
Review: I really dont understand why this great little film which contains a superbly tense story and edge of the seat suspense is always dismissed as a disappointment. On the contrary it has always been a favourite Hitchcock film of mine, certainly not up to the standards of the classic "Rebecca" or even "North by Northwest', but still a tense piece of film making. It was Hichcock's 50th film and certainly was one of the last truly good films he directed in his illustrious career. His superb knack for creating suspence and tension is evident from the first frame and makes for a terrific piece of film making. Once the story gets going the pace and suspence never lets up as the main characters move from Norway to Copenhagen to East Berlin behind the Iron Curtain, hence the title. I feel Paul Newman and Julie Andrews...at first thought not an expected combination, work extremely well together and come across as a believable combination. Julie Andrews certainly doesn't have as flashy a role in "Torn Curtain" as she does in "The Sound of Music" "Thoroughly Modern Millie" or "Star" but she nevertheless handles her role of Sarah Sherman, personal secretary to the brilliant rocket scientist Professor Michael Armstrong (Newman),in a most interesting manner. Julie is always such an attractive performer and in "Torn Curtain" she gives her all in what is essentially a difficult role and one fraught with lots of unpredictable situations. The story line of Paul Newman's character pretending to defect to East Germany to obtain valuable information on a new secret formula from a scientist in Leipzeig might appear dated now but it makes for a very clever and fast moving story. Newman's character pretends to go over to the Eastern Bloc only to discover that Andrews has followed him out of not only love but to see what he is actually up to. Their time in East Berlin is action packed and colorful to say the least as they encounter "personal guides" such as the infamous Gromek, the sweaty, gum chewing villian of the piece who ends up being murdered in one of the most memorable and painstaking murder sequences of Alfred Hitchcock's career aside from the shower sequence in "Psycho". It is a totally awe inspiring moment and while I dont like violence for violence sake this sequence is magnificently done, with no dialogue, and is easily, along with the nail biting bus chase, the most memorable part of the film and indeed in Hitchcock's career. Hitchcock not only keeps the action moving at a break neck pace but he also populates his story with many interesting characters along the way as Newman and Andrews plan their escape from East Germany when they are exposed. One memorable character is the Polish Countess Kuchinska played by actress Lila Kedrova, who only wants a sponsor to be able to get to the United States. Her's is a tragic and thought provoking interlude in the main characters race to beat the German authorities over the border. Equally memorable is Check ballet dancer Tamara Toumanova who reappears a few times in the story and is almost responsible for intercepting the main characters escape. She is excellent in what is essentially a small but stand out part. The overraul look of the film benefits from the many beautiful European locations utilised during filming and although East Berlin was impossible to film in circa 1966, an excellent use of similiar locations has been incorporated to give the effect of the dull and uninteresting Eastern Bloc existence. As a piece of entertainment dealing with the Cold War "Torn Curtain" is first rate and never fails to be a great piece of viewing entertainment with two terrific performers in Paul Newman and Julie Andrews in the leads.
Rating:
Summary: Not Hitch at his best but not bad
Review: I really liked this movie even if doesn't rank as one of the Master's better films; his magical touch seemed to wane towards the end of his film making career. I throughly enjoyed Paul Newman's performance and found Julie Andrews' acting a nice departure as this film was released somewhat close the the Sound of Music. The scene in the farmhouse was a bit violent but no worse the some of the scenes from The Birds. It also gives us the perceived starkness of what the other side of "the wall" was like during the tense times of the Cold War. All in all a good suspense flick.
Rating:
Summary: Suspensefull
Review: I thought this was a great movie.I enjoyed the chemistry between Paul Newman and Julie Andrews.I think it added to the frustration that she felt,not knowing what her Fiance'was up to.I felt the murder scene of Gromeck was very shocking or at the very least grisly and graphic.I enjoyed the bus scene and the scenes where the older woman was trying to help the two lovers escape from their captors .
This is one of my favorite Hitchcock films.
Rating: 
Summary: What a draggy movie.
Review: I wanted to give this movie a chance because I'm very into Hitchcock and his films. I read that this film wasn't very good, but a friend of mine said it was wonderful, so I decided to see for myself. It was better than Topaz (which I think is Hitchcock's worst), but only just barely better enough because I managed to sit through it until the end. I don't like Paul Newman - and I've given him chance after chance. He's like a block of wood. Julie Andrews seemed to be putting forth no effort here either, and I know she can act (see The Sound of Music and Mary Poppins for proof). I did think it a bit strange that she never burst into song either. The pattern of the travels of Michael Armstrong and Co. was a bit hazy and unrealistic. I mean, in East Germany, you are not going to have all those narrow escapes. The woman in the strange hat and rainbow scarf was a mystery to me as well - what she really had to do with anything I don't know. The story was weak and pointless, really, and Paul and Julie extremely unconvincing as a couple madly in love. And contrary to my description of my location above, wire-taps did not play into this tale at all. The scene when Gromek is following Michael through the museum is probably the only artistic moment in the whole movie. The climax was not at all thrilling, just laughable. Fire, yells Paul Newman, but he had better look out that his wooden acting doesn't catch fire cause it's all he's got! But on the other hand, that might not be a bad thing, if it DID catch... I do not recommend this movie unless you're a Hitchcock enthusiast. That's why I watched it and I will not watch it again... It's a good one-time experience, that's all, that is if you can stay awake.
Rating: 
Summary: For completists only... (and spoilers, spoilers, spoilers)
Review: I've read a lot of reviews trying to rehabilitate this mid-60's Hitchcock film from the dustbin into which history has thrown it. The film has all the elements that go into a Hitchcock classic: that high-toned gloss that he perfected in such 50s films as "Vertigo" and "Rear Window"; a servicable plot that allows for potential suspense set pieces; and the sure use of location which made "Psycho", "North by Northwest" and "Vertigo" so intriguing. But the film is like soda pop left open too long: all the ingredients, no fizz. Hitch's staging is way off here - the film is slow at the start and it never shakes this lethargy. Paul Newman plays an American scientist defecting, supposedly, to East Berlin and Julie Andrews, his financee, follows him there. There's no banter or rapport between these two, unlike say Robert Donat and Madeline Carroll in "The 39 Steps" or Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint in "North by Northwest." Newman looks miserable here; he's drawn-in and remote; naturally, his character has to remain guarded but Newman closes the audience off too. It was rumored that he and Hitchcock frequently fought on the set and Newman, who can be sly and witty, is defensive throughout. He seemed a lot happier working on a prison farm in his subsequent film, "Cool Hand Luke." As for Julie Andrews, she has nothing to do. Hitch sets us up to believe that her pursuing Newman into East Germany will trigger the action but its really an event totally unrelated to her - the murder of Gromek - that sets the story off. While Janet Leigh was cleverly set up as a MacGuffin in "Psycho"; here this strange enervation of Julie Andrews' role seems like poor plotting (and the interview scene at Leipzig Univ. a paltry attempt to correct this). Hitchcock piles up the bad calls throughout. In his best films, you may have seen how Hitchcock was manipulating the story (and your emotions) but his style made it a perverse pleasure - witness Grace Kelly's breaking into Raymond Burr's apartment in "Rear Window." Here the wit and style are missing so the suspense mechanisms are laid bare. When Newman is racing against the clock to obtain a secret formula from an East German scientist, you know your heart should be pounding. But all I was thinking was... you mean that's it? Two actors writing mathematical formulas on a blackboard? And in the big escape from Leipzig, Hitchcock shows that it would take another 28 years, with "Speed", for a bus to be used as a dramatic intensifer. Despite what its defenders claim, "Torn Curtain" is a failure; only the incomprehensible "Topaz" is worse. Its not just that this Cold War story seems especially moldly today; but what really kills it is the lack of any apparent conviction by anyone involved. A couple mildly suspensful scenes - and I'm sorry, the murder of Gromek is *not* the masterly set-piece that its often claimed to be - do not compensate for this thin gruel. Buy it if you're a Hitchcock completist but you're money would be better spent buying a second copy of "North by Northwest" (or "The Rules of the Game.")
| 
