Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

dougdoepke Clearly, this was a TCF prestige production. Impresario Sol Siegel produced, auteur William Wellman directed, popular leads Andrews and Crain starred, while Canadian locations were as accurate as possible. Based on a true story of Soviet espionage, the framing lends genuine authenticity. Not too much exciting happens until the last 20-minutes, when defector Gouzenko tries to get skeptical Canadian authorities to believe his story. That must have been hair-raising, his life on the line.But make no mistake, the narrative is turned into propaganda, sometimes crude, sometimes slick. It's not a question of basic facts. Those I take to be true. Instead, it's a question of stagecraft, namely, how the facts are presented. In short, it's not the 'what' but the 'how'. Note how Soviet officials are presented by the movie makers. How they apparently hate full light— seemingly only to exist in noirish shadow; how they never smile, apparently having no inner feelings; how they only speak in a mechanical manner, apparently having no thoughts of their own; and how they apparently don't love their wives, Gouzenko's fidelity marking him as a potential defector. Indeed, this is Hollywood's attempt to turn on a dime, yesterday's ally becoming today's enemy. In short, TCF had to take up the Cold War too, of which this film was a key entry. Speaking of spying on allies, we might ask Germany's current chancellor Angela Merkel how she likes having her phones bugged by our own NSA. Understandably, it created quite a diplomatic stir (Google 'merkel and spying'). My point is not to defend the Soviets specifically. Rather, it is to point out an important part of cinematic propaganda. Namely, that it's not sufficient to present the basic facts, as some folks believe; it's also how those facts are presented, and here the manner is clearly propagandistic. Soviet stereotypes are created that would endure. My larger point is to beware of any effort to de-humanize an enemy no matter how detestable they may seem. For such an effort can also be turned around on us.

rsternesq One has to wonder whether anyone cares what words mean. Hey folks, this is a true story told in a deliberately understated way to avoid sensationalizing the subject, which was plenty exciting enough. Anyone who thinks it is propaganda either doesn't know what the word means or doesn't realize what is really going on and has been going on for some several hundred years now. Simply stated, there are a very few places in this world where people have achieved a measure of freedom and relative comfort. That is the exception. The rest of the world is a place with far less comfort and freedom. In 1945 and in 2010 there are plenty of bad guys who would like to do harm and once in a while someone upsets their plan. That is a good thing and telling us about it is a good thing. It isn't propaganda. It is our history.

ackstasis Who doesn't love a good piece of anti-Communist propaganda? Admittedly, 'The Iron Curtain (1948)' is a rather average example of the art-form {with Sam Fuller's 'Pickup on South Street (1953)' being the best} but at least Wellman's film is given a boost by the winning combination of Dana Andrews and Gene Tierney… the latter of whom being the main reason that I watched this film. Another reason to watch 'The Iron Curtain' is its magnificent soundtrack, plundered from the repertoires of Russian composers Dmitri Shostakovich, Sergei Prokofiev, Aram Khachaturyan and Dominik Miskovský (each of whom ran into political turmoil back home for their perceived collaboration on a Hollywood picture). The music is unique to 1940s cinema, suggesting a grandeur that, back then, could only be found in the cinematic scores of Hungarian-born Miklós Rózsa. This sense of grandness is crippled somewhat by the film's documentary-like approach.'The Iron Curtain' was based on the true story of Igor Gouzenko, a Russian cipher clerk living in Canada with his wife and child. When Gouzenko defected in 1945, he exposed Stalin's efforts to steal the Allies' nuclear secrets, even while WWII was still raging. Like most Cold War films, this one starts off a little slow, utilising plenty of furtive glances and lengthy silences, but the suspense really kicks in when Gouzenko steals classified Soviet documents and tries to find somebody who'll take them. Dana Andrews, one of the most underrated leading man of the 1940s, brings a tired determination to the film's final gripping moments, as he pleads with a Canadian Mountie to protect him. Gene Tierney, looking as lovely as ever, is still denied the emotional depth of her role in 'Laura (1944)' {in which she and Andrews had previously starred}, but otherwise performs well.

edwagreen Excellent film dealing with Soviet spies operating in Canada during World War 11 and afterward.The spying was done out of the Soviet embassy in Canada. There were plenty of non-Canadians involved in the spy ring as well.This film was a true story. Dana Andrews gives a subdued performance as a Soviet decoder who comes to appreciate democracy. He is soon joined in Canada by his wife who is played by Gene Tierney. She brings a simplicity to the role as the Soviet wife who also comes to respect a democratic way of life.There is an excellent performance by Eduard Franz, who plays an disenchanted alcoholic Soviet official, whose disdain for Soviet life will lead him back to the Soviet Union.The film is exciting since it shows how no one wanted to listen to Andrews unraveling of the spy ring.