Watch: Torn Curtain 1966 123movies, Full Movie Online – Professor Michael Armstrong (Paul Newman) is heading to Copenhagen, Denmark to attend a physics conference accompanied by his assistant and fiancée Sarah Sherman (Dame Julie Andrews). Once arrived however, Michael informs her that he may be staying for awhile and she should return home. She follows him and realizes he’s actually heading to East Germany, behind the Iron Curtain. She follows him there and is shocked when he announces that he’s defecting to the East after the U.S. government cancelled his research project. In fact, Michael is there to obtain information from a renowned East German scientist. Once the information is obtained, he and Sarah now have to make their way back to the West..
Plot: During the Cold War, an American scientist appears to defect to East Germany as part of a cloak and dagger mission to find the formula for a resin solution, but the plan goes awry when his fiancee, unaware of his motivation, follows him across the border.
Smart Tags: #stasi #nobility #engaged_couple #asphyxiation #doctor #physicist #professor #norway #steamship #premarital_sex #telegram #american #copenhagen_denmark #hotel #shower #bookstore #book #restroom #airplane #tarmac #photographer
|6.6/10 Votes: 27,552
|65% | RottenTomatoes
|55/100 | MetaCritic
|N/A Votes: 463 Popularity: 11.042 | TMDB
Underrated and if no “gem” still fascinating for Newman alone…
Torn Curtain (1966)
Hitchcock was on an odd path in the 1960s toward more contained and artificial films, beginning in a way with North by Northwest (a masterpiece of control, for sure) but getting overtly stylized in Birds and Marnie. Here, in a bizarre casting choice, we replace the doubtfully capable Tippi Hedron with doubtfully appropriate Julie Andrews, fresh out of The Sound of Music. And of course, there is Paul Newman, who had recently filmed Harper and before that, Hud. A weird mix, and it has its moments. In fact, the chemistry between the two leads in the first scenes is surprising and you might expect or want more of that later on–and you won’t get it.
Add to these actors a tense milieu from the time, Cold War defections and the atom bomb, and you have an intriguing basis for making a movie. You can see why he gave it a go. The plot, for what it’s worth, is ultimately thin and not convincing (hints of Cloak and Dagger with Gary Cooper way back in 1946) but Newman, at least, pulls off his role as Dr. Armstrong, atomic scientist, with intense restraint. Andrews? She doesn’t sing, and there are no children to be seen (except briefly, on Hitchcock’s lap in his cameo!), and frankly, sadly, she comes off a little out of her element. But then, her character as Armstrong’s assistant is also meant to be a bit out to sea. We don’t see too much of her. We do see lots of various bit characters, little known and not very interesting men, mostly, with Swedish or German accents. (I say it that way because they are almost just cardboard props for types of people–you know, those cold hearted Stasi types or the cool and cunning Swedes you can’t quite figure out, neither of which is especially true or helpful for the plot.)
Of course, Hitchcock doesn’t intend to make this a Cold War commentary. (The Spy Who Came in from the Cold with Richard Burton the previous year is the film to see for that.) Hitchcock uses the East German scene as a backdrop for the suspense of deception, and of ordinary people trying not to get caught, a perennial theme he manages so well. Besides Newman, there is a fabulous small role by the great Soviet actress Lila Kedrova that brings the last half hour to life. In the middle of the movie there is one scene that’s totally brilliant and wordless, with Newman and Carolyn Conwell in a farmhouse, and it’s worth the ride alone. Don’t miss that for the world.
This can’t be Hitchcock’s or Newman’s or Andrews’s best movie for a lot of reasons. But it’s a very good movie, which is enough for most of us, and an essential for any Hitchcock fan, and a enlightening surprise for anyone who thinks they know Paul Newman and want to see yet more of his impressive range.
In many ways, Hitchcock often wore the same pants.
Hitchcock made a few clunkers in his day, but this isn’t one of them, despite its reputation. I don’t know if I could get away with saying it’s one of Hitchcock’s ten best features, but I found it to be easily one of his top ten most entertaining. I enjoyed watching Torn Curtain a lot more than some of his established classics, like Notorious and the Birds, even if it’s not quite as psychologically complex as those films.
The main thing about Torn Curtain is the photography. It’s full of pretty pictures–one of the most beautifully filmed of all Hitchcock’s films, with lots bold swaths of primary colors and attractive and constantly changing locations–some scenes look like they were shot on location, while others are wonderfully artificial studio creations, and they’re blended together perfectly. Another cool thing about Torn Curtain is that it’s constantly on the move. It never stagnates. The pacing is deliberate, but engaging. It’s well-plotted and suspenseful.
It’s full of fantastic little directorial touches, like the scene where Paul Newman ducks into a bathroom to read his secret spy message. Hitchcock never shows us the room. He keeps the camera tight on Paul Newman, so we can’t tell who or what might be in that room with us, just out of frame. It’s totally simple, but it creates a highly effective feeling of uneasiness and paranoia. This movie also features one of the strangest and best-filmed death scenes I’ve ever seen. Hitchcock was still on top of his game here.
Most of the bad reviews for Torn Curtain seem to focus on the acting. I don’t know why.
A lot of people bash Julie Andrews just for being Julie Andrews, and that hardly seems fair. Typecasting sucks. And while I wouldn’t say she turned in one of the most memorable and overpowering performances of all time, her role didn’t call for that. Torn Curtain wasn’t a complex character study, it was a plot-based thriller. And Julie Andrews was perfectly adequate for that, even pretty good when she was given a chance to be.
Paul Newman was perfect. He wasn’t his usual charming self here. He was grim and tight-lipped and stiff–as would be appropriate for a scientist feeling out of his league, playing a spy in a hostile country, having to pretend to be a traitor–a role which he found objectionable–all with his girlfriend annoyingly tagging along and complicating everything.
I understand that Paul Newman found working for Hitchcock objectionable. It makes me wonder if Hitch deliberately made life unpleasant for Paul just to get this kind of tooth-gritting performance from him. Whatever, Hitch and Paul were both great.
And so was this film.
Original Language en
Runtime 2 hr 8 min (128 min), 2 hr 6 min (126 min) (Germany), 2 hr 6 min (126 min) (France), 1 hr 58 min (118 min) (Netherlands)
Genre Drama, Romance, Thriller
Director Alfred Hitchcock
Writer Brian Moore, Willis Hall, Keith Waterhouse
Actors Paul Newman, Julie Andrews, Lila Kedrova
Country United States
Awards 3 nominations
Production Company N/A
Sound Mix Mono (Westrex Recording System)
Aspect Ratio 1.85 : 1
Laboratory Technicolor, Hollywood (CA), USA (color)
Film Length 3,482 m (Italy), 3,510 m (Sweden), 3,525 m (Finland)
Negative Format 35 mm (Eastman 50T 5251)
Cinematographic Process Spherical
Printed Film Format 35 mm