This film should have been titled Torpor. Hitchcock, who in his best films was interested in plot merely as a means to guide the audience from sequence to sequence, here presented a film that is entirely plot — there isn't any memorable sequence and little in the way of engaging performances. The two films that Hitchcock directed prior to this — Marnie and Torn Curtain — at least had striking sequences that generated suspense and excitement. In the former, the riding sequence ending in the injury and killing of the horse and the sequence of Marnie stealing money from the Rutland firm; in the latter, the murder of the agent in the farmhouse and the panic in the theater, to name a few examples.The relatively weak box office performances of those films put Hitchcock in the position of needing a hit. Hitchcock thought that a story about recent international spycraft would do the trick, even though Torn Curtain, which had a similar basis, had been tepid at the box office. Adapting the Leon Uris novel for the screen proved problematic, even though Uris was a veteran screenwriter. Hitchcock usually had a film all planned out before any production was done; filming was simply the work to put the director's vision on film. Topaz went into production without a finished script. The result is a film that moves from routine dialogue scene to routine dialogue scene without any distinctive touch. Even the death of the Karin Dor character is oddly flat in its impact. Only the supporting players, and Karin Dor, gave some hint of character. John Forsythe and Frederick Stafford seem to be caught in an ad for men's suits (Botany 500 probably). John Vernon works on the sort of accent used in the Mission Impossible series: "Jyoo weeel tell ahss the theengs jyoo haff dohn." Hitchcock seems to have been adrift here. Two of his key collaborators on the great films of the Fifties — Robert Burks on camera and George Tomasini in the editing room — were no longer available (Marnie was the last film they would work on); he couldn't get a satisfactory script. The result was a film made to fulfill a contract. Any director could have done this film. Even Don Siegel would have made it better-paced.

I am fond of "old", Cold War spy movies and I try to watch/re-watch them bit by bit. True, they have multiple similar type of characters and solutions, particularly with the entrance of James Bond movies, but in the event of smooth plot and pleasant performances, you will not have blah feelings. I can't remember I have seen Topaz before, but, on the alike many other viewers here, I was not "put off" by the name of Alfred Hitchcock; as I knew the plot briefly, I did not expect any thrilling suspension in the style of Psycho.Nevertheless, I liked the movie in general, particularly direction and cinematography; as for the cast, there were no excelling performances, Frederick Stafford as André Devereaux was not very charismatic, and the French actors made conversations in English even if talking to themselves (a feature seldom visible in recent movies where dubbing or subtitles are used in scenes concerned). The plot was okay as well, especially the places I have visited, but decades later, and if we consider that the Cuban-Western crisis is not totally over until now... The events were nicely round-up, twists were explained at some point, and general logic was maintained throughout the movie. And last but not least: Topaz is a color movie, enabling to enjoy beautiful landscapes and city space.

I don't care who made it, TOPAZ is a dreadful film. The acting is terrible - John Forsythe and Frederick Stafford make Greg Morris and Peter Lupus in MISSION IMPOSSIBLE look like Olivier and Gielgud. John Vernon looks exactly like one of those stock Latin American revolutionaries that the IMF force overthrew every week. As a thriller, it simply does not thrill. The dialogue is execrable - the dubbing worse. The only interesting bits are when - mercifully - hardly anybody speaks. The blurb on the 2005 DVD describes TOPAZ as a 'riveting' and 'spellbinding espionage thriller.' By the end, 'the danger and the suspense builds to a heart-pounding conclusion in this lavish, globe-trotting thriller.' Ask for your money back - but you won't get it. I think Hitchcock is greatly over-rated: he made some great films, yes, but some terrible turkeys as well. If you want a great espionage film, try THE IPCRESS FILE, THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD, THE GOOD SHEPHERD, or the TV series of TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY and SMILEY'S PEOPLE...

Russian KGB official Boris Kusenov defects with his family to the States. He is arrogant and gives some partial info to the CIA about Cuba. CIA agent Mike Nordstrom gets his French intelligence agent friend André Devereaux to investigate the Russians' involvement in Cuba. Meanwhile the defector discloses a French spy ring codename Topaz.The defection works great. It is an exciting start to the movie. But I feel that there are a lot of static stationary scenes. It doesn't have enough movement to denote the needed action. On the plus side, there are other things here like the jealous wife of the French agent, and the spy craft minutia. But mostly it's a little bit slow.The fact that the main protagonist agent is French may be a hindrance to this movie. This is not a Bond movie. But it's also not morally ambiguous. Director Alfred Hitchcock has made something in between. It's a French Bond without much of the action. And the ending just fizzles out. It is a fairly average spy movie with some interest Hitchcock-style scenes.