Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Murphy Howard I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Ginger Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

ElMaruecan82 Indeed, "Secret Agent" was a disappointment to me and for many reasons. Gielgud wasn't bad, but he wasn't Robert Donat and his flat performance might explain why he and Hitchcock never collaborated again. His companion played by an over-the-top Peter Lorre was too goofy even in his sinister moments to sustain the gravitas of the plot, when there was any. In fact, the thriller went in too many directions, indecisive about its status as straight thriller, character study or fun escapism.But "Sabotage" puts the cards in the table right away. The film, loosely adapted from a Joseph Conrad's novel, takes place in London at a time where America was stricken by the Great Depression and Europe witnessing the rise of fascism and totalitarian regimes, Britain was still a colonial empire and geopolitically, an oasis of relative stability and democracy so that the only potential threat in peacetime was espionage and sabotage. What's a sabotage?Well, the film's opening with the dictionary page inspired me three reactions. First, I was wondering whether that creative license didn't inspire Quentin Tarantino for "Pulp Fiction". Secondly, I thought it was a splendid idea to give a technical definition of what seemed an obvious term, like an iconoclastic 'tell-and-show' move from Hitchcock. And finally, I couldn't help but think how the definition matched today's terrorism. Indeed, one couldn't call the climactic sequence "sabotage".But one can certainly call it one of the most intense and suspenseful ten minutes from any film. My memory might fail me but I remember that scene from a documentary about Scorsese's main inspirations. Never mind where I got it, but I had that mysterious image of a boy carrying a parcel with a bomb for years and years. Speaking of Scorsese, he referred to the dream sequence of "Vertigo" as a mini-film within the film, one can say the same thing about the climax of "Sabotage".Hitchcock's quote about the difference between 'surprise' and 'suspense' is well known by movie lovers. Two men having a conversation and a bomb underneath the table explodes will provide fifteen seconds of surprise but if we know that the bomb will explode at 1 o'clock, their conversation becomes more fascinating and we're literally hung to what happens on the screen, we just want them to get out, then suspense provides fifteen minutes of suspense. Watching this scene created a feeling of uneasiness, for the set-up first. I couldn't believe the cruelty of the villain who risks the life of his wife's little brother (Desmond Tester) for a job he's been assigned to. Oscar Homolka, as the sinister cinema owner Verloc, doesn't look like the murderer type, he expresses at some point his reluctance to cause loss of life. He's basically a goon, a luggage-carrier, not muscle, only a man capable to put sand in London electricity grid to provoke a massive blackout, but when you think about it, such men are capable to be driven to extreme actions when they're trapped.It's generally a comedic device when an inoffensive person is used to for a dangerous delivery so he wouldn't raise any suspicion, but in "Sabotage" the idea comes when Verloc discovers that Scotland Yard has an eye on him and the Detective played by John Loder is having a "talk" with his wife. Verloc is like a cornered rat and can only fight back by resorting to the most desperate measure, asking a child to literally carry death to Piccadily Circus. Hitchcock is no sadistic but he knows our heart is hooked with little Stevie, so he punctuates his path with many events that delays his mission such as a procession or a street vendor using him for painful and humiliating demonstrations. Hitchcock enhances our empathy while providing lighthearted moments that might mislead us about Stevie's fate. Surely after all these annoyances, he'll manage to put the parcel under the cloak room and come back safely. But then the frenetic editing goes, he's still got the parcel and we're a few seconds from 1.45.Could Hitchcock use another victim than a child? No because empathy could only work if he knew one of the victims, much more an innocent one and on that level, I wonder if the bombing sequence in "Battle of Algiers" wasn't inspired by the film. Secondly, the main protagonist, played by Silvia Sidney, needed a motive to kill her husband. Indeed, for a movie that deals with British threats from within, Hitchcock takes one step forward and give it a domestic dimension.Realizing that her husband is responsible for the death of her brother, she stabs him with a knife. The trickiest part is that he's done such a great job maintaining a 'honest citizen' façade, that she's basically a murderer at that point. The film ends with a turn of events that get rid of the two villains and of any evidence incriminating her, two birds with the same stone, as foreshadowed by Verloc. However, right before the "cleansing" explosion, a distraught Mrs. Verloc said her husband was dead. But the explosion came so instantly that the detective wondered later whether it came before or after. A matter of half-a-second wrapped up the plot and provided some comedic relief to end a rather dark movie. I criticized the ending of "Secret Agent" but "Sabotage" ended with the note that proved that Hitchcock was back in shape with a first-rate thriller. The light-hearted "39 Steps" opened with 'Music Hall' letters lighting up, "Sabotage" with a big light-bulb and London's plunged into blackout, maybe announcing his darker masterpieces. My only complaint comes from the fan of Disney's "Who Killed Cock Robin?", where I wished the audience didn't overplay the laughs at the film's start, the funnier parts would come later, but at least when the arrow hits the bird, Sylvia Sydney had the right reaction, the cartoon could be dark indeed, like the film.But it had to be dark, leaving the kid alive would have been cinematic sabotage.

Rainey Dawn Oskar Homolka is fantastic in this one as Adolf Verloc. Mr. Verloc seems to be a loving husband but there is something hidden from his wife's view - something that is beyond belief: Sabotage! The police are hot on his trail but they don't have they proof they need to arrest him it's Mr. Verloc's strange activity has the police suspicions aroused and following him, watching him like a hawk. One of the best sequences in the film is when Mrs. Verloc's younger brother (played by Desmond Tester) is asked to deliver a package (unknowingly a bomb) for Adolf Verloc. Time is running out for "The bird sings at 1:45" while Mr. Verloc tries to smooth things over/plays innocent with the police superintendent. This is definitely one of Hitchcock's finest films. A great crime thriller! 9/10

dougdoepke It's Hitchcock at his grimmest. Just count the number of smiles. Also, the only happy person is unceremoniously killed half-way through! This is not a movie the director could have made in Hollywood—the Hayes office would never have allowed it. What with the killing of a central character, an innocent kid, plus an unpunished murder by another central character, there's no way the film could have originated stateside. Nonetheless, it's one of Hitch's most interesting since it raises a number of complex moral issues attaching to both guilt and innocence. Most saliently, should Mrs. Verloc (Sydney) be allowed to walk away from killing her husband unpunished, and if so, why?Also, there's the issue of terrorism, not dealt with by many films of the time, but which seems very topical in our own day. Apparently, the terrorist killing of the boy (Tester) has been a controversial part of the film over the years, since it's so wrenching and goes against unwritten movie-making norms. Nonetheless, I think it's an important part of the story since it calls attention to the death of innocents caused by terrorist acts, whether the bombs are planted or come from the sky. I'm glad Hitch had the gumption to include it.Anyway, it's not a movie to see if you're depressed. The lighting is dark, the mood somber, with a doleful Sydney, a sour-faced Homolka, and a conflicted Loder. Still, it's good to see so many Londoners going to the movies in those days, even if they do want their money back. In my view, it's one of Hitch's most daring movies, British or American.

Jackson Booth-Millard Master of Suspense director Sir Alfred Hitchcock started his successful career in his home country, and this was one of the last films he made before going to the United States (although he did return home for Frenzy), I was interested. Basically Karl Verloc (Oskar Homolka) is a cinema owner and a member of a gang planning to sabotage operations in London, and he lives with his wife Sylvia (Beetlejuice's Sylvia Sidney) and her teenage brother Stevie (Desmond Tester). His wife and her brother know nothing about Karl's big secret, even after a big incident where many lights in a part of London were turned off, but there are worse things to happen than that. Suspecting something is going on with Verloc, Scotland Yard assigns undercover Detective Sergeant Ted Spencer (John Loder) to keep an eye on him, working near the cinema and investigate. Sylvia didn't originally know anything, but her suspicion arises, and at a reasonably good time because the gang assign Karl to put a bomb in the metro, so he sends young Stevie with a bag for him to "deliver", but he does not make it all the way to the right location for the explosion. In the end the villain Karl gets what he deserves being stabbed by his own wife, and London seems to be safe from anymore sabotage incidents, and Sylvia walks away with Ted. Also starring Joyce Barbour as Renee, Matthew Boulton as Superintendent Talbot, S.J. Warmington as Hollingshead, William Dewhurst as Professor A.F. Chatman, and Hitchcock's cameo is as the man passing looking up when the lights go back on. The acting is reasonable, the best scene is certainly unknowingly carrying the bomb in the bag, and there are some good tense moments you would expect from the great director, a watchable mystery thriller. Very good!