I like this story.A man is supposed to be a murder and try to escape.He meet a young ,beautiful lady on the way and they fall in love.It's so romantic ,at the time thrilling especially last scene that a real murder scream for a help on the statue of liberty.However I don't like something in the film.I think it is too rapid that two of them confirm how they feel to each other.

Saboteur was made in 1942 and thus is a propaganda film by Alfred Hitchcock.The subject is Nazi sympathizers in America working to sabotage key targets such as factories and military installations.Robert Cummings plays Barry Kane an aircraft factory worker wrongfully accused of sabotage which killed his co-worker. He crossed the path of the real saboteur and now with few clues is on the hunt for him and clear his name.The film owes a lot to a previous Hitchcock effort that he made in Britain, The 39 Steps. Both films have similar plot devices as the hero is in a cross country pursuit chased by law enforcement authorities and fascist sympathizers. On the way he meets some people who assist him such as a truck driver, or a travelling circus and more importantly Kane meets up with beautiful model Patricia Martin (Priscilla Lane) who is wary of him and tries to turn him in at first.The film very much feels like a remake of The 39 Steps but Cummings lacks the dash of Robert Donat and just looks like too much a solid stock actor. There is some black humour and effective visual touches as Kane goes from California to the skyscrapers of New York.This is still a film that shows us a Hitchcock trying to feel is way round filming in America trying to find actors who will represent his vision. Here he is well served by the bad guys. The suave and wealthy Otto Kruger lusting after power in the new world order and Norman Lloyd the villain who gets his hands dirty.What is effective is the climax at the Statue of Liberty. Not for the first time where Hitchcock will got an American landmark and it is so effectively filmed.

This film seems to be considered one of Hitchcock's lesser efforts, although I'm not sure about that. It's actually quite an entertaining film, although it doesn't have the A list cast of many of Hitchcock's other films. But, perhaps that's even part of its charm. In reality, this film was made near the beginning of what I consider to be Hitchcock's finest period, beginning with "Rebecca" in 1940 through "North By Northwest" in 1959. And while this may not be at the top of that list, there are a number of Hitchcock films which are much less entertaining.And charm is something this film has that's sometimes lacking from Hitchcock films. There's really quite a charming segment where Rokbert Cumming's character is taken in by a blind man. And then Cummings and Priscilla Lane are taken in by the freak show characters in a small circus. Really, nice touches that are a bit unique to Hitchcock films.No, Robert Cummings wasn't an A list actor, but he was darned good and terribly underrated and mostly forgotten. Of course, he's somewhat forgotten because he strayed early on to television and a couple of popular -- though terribly light -- situation comedies. Cummings is great here, as he was in another film of the same era -- the comedy "The Devil And Miss Jones". He really was quite versatile. He's very good here because he seems innocent, and this is another of those Hitchcock "innocent man in the wrong situation" films.Priscilla Lane, who actually gets top billing but is only in the last half of the film, is also quite good, but it's Cummings that carries the film.There are fine supporting performances here, especially a fantastic performance by Otto Kruger, and an interesting performance by Vaughan Glaser, as well as others.The story was very timely for the war years -- a worker in an aircraft factory is falsely accused of sabotage and murder. He escapes in an effort to clear his innocence. And an odd journey it is, There's not much to complain about here. The one big flaw I saw was the segment where Cummings jumps off a bridge while handcuffed. Watch carefully...in one scene there is hardly any water in the stream at all, but in all the other scenes there's plenty of water...even enough to dive into and not be injured.So for my money, this is one of the most underrated of Hitchcock's films, and I give it very high marks! Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the film, highlighted in the segment at the charity ball, is the sense of chess players competing. Will the pawns win? Of course. But it's the twists and turns of the journey that make this film so great.

Hitchcock made this movie three times: the first was released in 1935 called "The 39 Steps", the second in 1942 called "Saboteur", and the third in 1959 named "North by Northwest".The basic ingredients are: (1) A lonely man wrongfully accused of something he didn't do. (2) His wanting to have himself in the clear. (3) His incapacity of turning his case over to justice. (4) His pursuit of the party who incriminated him. (5) His involvement in between with a blond girl that he can't trust. (6) His final encounter with his nemesis, preferably at a spectacular site."The 39 Steps" is truly a masterpiece, for it is still mesmerizes you in spite of being filmed 80 years ago! Which other movie that old does that? None whatsoever, I dare you. (The next likely candidate, "The Lady Vanishes" was only released three years later, and was directed by the Master of Suspense as well.)Now, "North by Northwest" would have been this masterpiece, had it not been preceded by "The 39 Steps". "Noth by Northwest" has some unforgettable moments as the pesticide aircraft chase, but the plot is anything but new."Saboteur" differs from the other two pictures in being excessively patriotic and antifascist, somewhat of war propaganda, shot during WWII as it was. It does have some exciting moments, but having seen the other two movies in the "trilogy", it just sticks out as the lesser attempt of them.