I like Julie Andrews. I don't like her character in this film. She is portrayed as the stereotypical female of the fifties and sixties who can't keep her nose out of things. She is asked to do some things on faith, and off she goes to defy a simple request. She is constantly in the way in tense situations. But the plot is pretty good and while not a work of art, there is good tension and suspense. Of course, the East Germans are about as helpless as they can be, missing opportunities to put an end to Newman's activities. It is hard to tell who the good guys are sometimes. I have to say that the scene at the farmhouse is classic and shows how hard it is to kill someone without the aid of a gun. It seems endless as Newman and the woman do everything they can and are barely able to escape. By the way, do we ever get to know what happens to her or where she went. I'm hoping this fictional character was able to take off after burying the evidence. The final scenes are somewhat stock (the theatre thing was done already). Anyway, it's a really fun romp with signature actors.

an exercise. about a delicate theme. not real convincing , not very inspired, but a Hitchcock. and not a bad one. its sin - the desire to use the Cold War for a thriller. the result - only decent , a status as result of the familiar ingredients of a Hitchcock drama and, more important, for happy idea of the presence in cast of Lila Kedrova. a film who gives a superficial portrait of the clash between East and West, too predictable, an experiment who seems far by classic recipes of director and , in many scenes, artificial. it is not an uninspired Hitchcock. and in the context of the "60's, for public , it could be more than exciting. but , for a viewer behind the Iron Courtain, as me, the pretext of Cold War for a thriller who remains, first, only a film with Paul Newman and Julie Andrews is , maybe as too subjective verdict, almost extravagant.

I respect the director Alfred Hitchcock and the two main stars Paul Newman and Julie Andrews. Who wouldn't? Between the three of them they have 18 Oscar nominations but only two wins. I was really looking forward to watching this thriller that takes us behind the Iron Curtain and which has Paul Newman playing an American scientist who appears to have defected but is actually a double agent and fully engaged in espionage.Early on in the film we observe that while American Professor Michael Armstrong (played by Paul Newman) is boringly involved in bedding down Sarah Sherman (played by Julie Andrews) Professor Armstrong is also engaged in an exchange of hidden notes and messages through telegrams that he opens and reads in different parts of the ship that he is travelling on. You would think that with the addition of a musical score that Hitchcock could build up the suspense but in actuality I was easily distracted and lost interest in the storyline as well as in the lack of chemistry between the two lead actors Newman and Christie.It just goes to show you that even with a great director, and two super star actors unless you can maintain a flow to the film and without a good musical score to match the storyline the audience just cannot buy in. I won't ask for my money back but I would say that Torn Curtain did allow me to organize my paperwork and make a few phone calls as it played in the background because I was not missing anything that was (not) playing on the screen.Sadly I have to rate Torn Curtain a low 4 out of 10.

Take two outstanding stars; add a handful of top notch character actors; a celebrated director, and you should have a first rate film. Instead, you have wooden performances by Newman and Andrews. Add to it backgrounds that are so unrealistic looking that they are obviously Hollywood stages with artificial lighting and uncreative photography.Worst of all is the plot. The so-called excitement or tension predominantly arises from an unbelievably stupid slip-up by Newman. He draws the mathematical symbol for Pi in the sand of a farmhouse to indicate to a non-English speaking German woman the purpose of his visit. She then introduces him to his contact, but he doesn't erase the symbol with his foot, which any idiot would do, no less a supposedly brilliant scientist.As a result, the East German surveillance bad guy sees the symbol, so he has to be bumped off, and all the subsequent chases derive from this single piece of Newman's stupidity. I would have thought that a film late in Hitchcock's career would have had more substance, and from all standpoints, been creatively better. I skimmed through parts of it, since the dialogue was pretty uninspired and there wasn't much to miss.