Avaliações de usuários

A boy, an old lady, and a puppy on a bus. What could possibly be a sweeter film scene? Well, that is unless you're Alfred Hitchcock and the film is "Sabotage," in which case you get a trifecta of quite a different sort.

Playing with the rules was Hitchcock's forte, but never again until "Psycho" would he do so with the cold brilliance on display here. Unlike "Psycho," which hasn't dated a month since its 1960 release, "Sabotage" doesn't for a moment feel like it was made any later than 1936, in part because of its fuzzy sound quality (maybe just the versions I've seen) and in part because it's a very static film.

That's not to say "Sabotage" isn't good. In fact, it's brilliant. Adapted from the Joseph Conrad novel "The Secret Agent" but markedly better both in terms of its linear treatment of the thin central story and its sharper, more measured ending, "Sabotage" introduces us to Mr. Verloc (Oskar Homolka), the owner of a London cinema who sidelines as a secret agent for a mysterious foreign power, "the people you and I will never catch" as one policeman tells another. After causing a power outage that produces laughter rather than the desired fear, Verloc is assigned a more deadly job, to cause an explosion in Piccadilly Circus, "the center of the world," as Verloc's controller calls it.

It's impossible to watch the film now without thinking of 9/11 or the London subway bombings, a world of murderous, anarchic terrorism Conrad's novel and Hitchcock's film anticipated without quite comprehending. The film seems to stumble on offering a coherent "why," perhaps because there isn't one, then or now. But echoing a central point in Conrad's novel, "Sabotage" shows the terrorists' greatest fear is not retribution but indifference. "London must not laugh" is the order given to Verloc.

As played by Homolka with sleepy nuance, Verloc isn't quite a villain, just a weak, lazy man of no moral fiber who objects at the thought of murder but decides to go through with it in order to be paid. Sgt. Spencer of Scotland Yard is hot on Verloc's trail, but he's not exactly a hero, a bit of a bumbler rather who fancies Verloc's wife. Mrs. Verloc, played by screen vet Sylvia Sidney (she was the case worker helping the Maitlands in the afterlife in "Beetle Juice" 52 years later) is the closest we have to a rooting interest, though her concern seems less with the husband or the policeman who woos her than her little brother, Stevie (Desmond Tester).

Hitchcock's direction offers a little of the comic relief more prominent in his other films, and some arresting visuals for their time, especially that of a fish tank which morphs into a London street under attack. There's a very involving scene where a devastated Mrs. Verloc is reduced to tearful laughter by a Disney cartoon. (Verloc's owning a cinema may be a comment on the deceptively transformative power of cinema, or a wink in the direction of his sideline activity in the novel, selling Edwardian porn.) Mostly "Sabotage" is a film that grabs you by the throat and never lets go, making its 80-minute running time feel like forever going by in an instant.

It all comes down to the scene on the bus. Hitchcock apparently believed it was the biggest mistake in his career. It may have killed enthusiasm for "Sabotage," but it made clear to filmgoers that all bets were off as far as this young director was concerned. From then on, cliffhangers would be invested with a certain added dread that would make their resolutions seem less pat, and the movie thriller would be that much more thrilling. It took guts to make a film like that.

Most buffs and fans of Alfred Hitchcock point to 39 STEPS or LADY VANISHES as his best work before he hit Hollywood in 1940. SABOTAGE is really the first time we see a pure thriller, specifically a spy thriller, which became so commonplace throughout the master's career. The main character is an undercover agent, looking to break up a ring of saboteurs bent on destroying London. Hitch places the head villain within, what else, a cinema, something that adds to the already rich atmosphere. The film was also shot on location, an oddity for Hitch.

Check out the camera movements and use of shadows in regard to the villain (played by a creepy looking Oscar Homolka). They reveal a lot to us the viewer and lead us to hope for his wife to figure it all out. An ominous image of London falling is depicted from the point of view of Oscar. This is pretty basic stuff, but, considering how old the film is, it still packs a punch. The scene on the bus, where a young boy carries a film tin which may or may not carry a bomb is extremely suspenseful and well-done. We even see a British crowd in the movie theater watching a Disney flick (which is well noted in the opening credits).

1934's THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH was an effective early thriller, better than the 1956 remake, however, this is the film to start with if studying Hitchcock's career. You may find yourself preferring some of his British films, like MAN WHO KNEW, to his work in Hollywood. SABOTAGE provides the goods for the first time.

Sir Alfred Hitchcock adapted James Conrad's story, "The Secret Agent," into one of better known films. This film is short but not sweet. Sylvia Sidney is magnificent in the leading role as Mrs Verloc. Oscar Homolka plays her husband. They run the Bijou movie house in London, England before Word War II. Her husband is up to something but she doesn't know what. The red flag is raised when the theater loses power and patrons want refunds. Sidney was so young and her eyes could have earned an Academy Award nomination. Sidney supposedly had the saddest eyes in Hollywood but I disagree. Her eyes alone were worth watching. This film is a must for Hitchcock historians and fans alike.

"Sabotage" is one of Alfred Hitchcock's least known features, but it is part of a string of fine films he made during his last few years in England, and is well worth watching for any Hitchcock or thriller fan. The picture is based on a classic novel by the great Polish-English writer Joseph Conrad.

This is a tense, atmospheric thriller, without much humor. It is more like "Vertigo", "I Confess", or "The Birds" than "North By Northwest" or "The 39 Steps". Instead of humor, Hitchcock concentrates this time on carefully constructing the world of the Verlocs, the family at the center of the film. The setting, in a movie theater where the family works and lives, is an important part of the themes and questions explored in the film.

The characters are constantly walking in and out of the theater while movies are in progress, or discussing the movies being shown as they go about the main actions of the (actual) film. The obvious themes of appearance and reality parallel the lives of the Verloc family, and especially Mr. Verloc (Oskar Homolka) whom we know from the beginning to be a terrorist, albeit an amateurish one, and not the mild-mannered family man he appears to be. The settings of Verloc's meeting with his co-conspirators, an aquarium and a bird shop, are also carefully chosen to demonstrate the contrast between the everyday appearance of the terrorists and their actual agendas. Besides the obvious implication that such persons may be those we would not suspect, there is also the strong suggestion that these conspirators do not themselves realize the serious nature of the game they are playing. Certainly Verloc himself quickly realizes that he is in over his head, and he tries desperately to get out of the fearsome responsibilities he has accepted.

Hitchcock buffs will enjoy watching the film repeatedly to catch all of the carefully crafted detail, and to enjoy the trademark Hitchcock touches. There are two particularly riveting sequences. One occurs when Verloc sends his wife's young, unsuspecting brother on a dangerous errand, leading to a sequence of excruciating tension. Hitchcock later said he should have ended the sequence differently, and many viewers might agree, but what happens is in keeping with the themes and plot of the movie, and the suspense sequence is also masterfully done. Also well-known from "Sabotage" is the sequence when Mrs. Verloc (Sylvia Sidney) learns the truth about her husband's activities, and the awful consequences of his latest plot. There is first a touching sequence in the theater, when the Disney movie playing on the screen first provokes Mrs. Verloc to involuntary laughter, then to deepened sadness when it too closely parallels her own experience. Then there is a tense, famous scene at the dinner table, filmed as an absolutely masterful montage by Hitchcock.

These scenes, and the finely crafted atmosphere of "Sabotage", make it worthwhile despite a few small faults, and despite the possibility that many viewers will not be comfortable with some of the plot developments. Watch it at least once if you are a Hitchcock fan, or if you like spy stories or thrillers.

In the mid-to-late 1930s Alfred Hitchcock held a unique position for a director. Since the successes of The Man Who Knew Too Much and The 39 Steps, his destiny as a suspense filmmaker had been revealed not only to himself but also to his bosses at Gaumont. He was now only assigned material suitable to his area of expertise, and given a considerable amount of freedom to play around with the form. At the tail end of his British period, at a time when standard cinematic technique and narrative convention were well established, Hitchcock was effectively a researcher, of the kind that hadn't really been seen since the days of Griffith.

Sabotage is adapted from the Joseph Conrad novel Secret Agent, and it's worth taking a peek at a synopsis of the book to see the differences in the movie version, two of which are very significant. Firstly the novel is a kind of anti-heroic piece told largely from the point-of-view of the villainous Verloc. You couldn't have that in cinema in the 30s, so Verloc's opponents are beefed up into morally sound protagonists. However, it is still revealed from the outset that Verloc is the culprit, and we the audience are always kept aware of his doings even when the heroes are not. Dispensing with the Agatha Christie form of "whodunit" is essential to the Hitchcockian mode of suspense building. Revealing the identity and intentions of a killer keeps the audience constantly wondering when and how he will strike again.

The other important difference between the novel and film, is that Conrad states quite explicitly that Verloc and co. are anarchists, delving quite deeply into their ideology, as well as implying that they are Russians. Hitchcock's picture however makes no mention of the politics or nationality of the villains. They are simply generic foreign terrorists, existing to make the plot work. Imagine how much weaker this picture would be if we were asked to think about Verloc's motives. He has thick eyebrows, a sinister accent and he puts bombs on buses. What more do you need?

On a purely formalist level, Hitchcock's method is becoming increasingly streamlined. This is perhaps the earliest of his pictures which really feels like it was planned shot by shot before a single camera rolled. Of particular note is Hitch's staging of drama through reaction shots rather than expository dialogue. For example, Oskar Homolka's reaction to Stevie talking about gangsters, or pair of close-ups after John Loder is pulled through the air vent that tells us one of the gang members has recognised him. There are a few pointless technical touches, such as Homolka's vision of London in the fish tank glass, or Stevie's face popping up among the crowd of boys, but these are not as distracting as they could be in Hitch's earliest pictures.

Hitchcock rarely gave his actors any coaching, and relied upon a good professional cast to deliver the goods. In Sylvia Sydney and Oskar Homolka he has two of the best leads he had worked with so far, and their restrained naturalistic performances make their climactic scene together incredibly effective. The supporting cast are not bad either, although as usual with Hitchcock the comedy characters are the real standouts. Little-known stage veteran William Dewhurst, who plays the "professor", is a joy to watch, and it almost looks as if his scenes are about to turn into Monty Python sketches.

Much as I detest the phrase "experimental film", this was truly an experimental era for Hitchcock, or at least one in which his pictures were going through a process of natural selection. He realised afterwards he had made a huge mistake in one aspect of the main suspense sequence on the bus – I won't reveal it here as it's a major spoiler – and would ensure he never repeated the error. In spite of what was for him an embarrassing flaw, Sabotage is a very enjoyable and effective thriller, not among the greatest of his British period, but certainly worth watching.

The picture is an adaptation of the Joseph Conrad's novel about Verloc (Oscar Homolka) , an anarchist bomber and owns a theater who actually is an unknown secret agent for the foreign government in London pre-WWII . He is married to Sylvia (Sylvia Sidney )who works as a theater cashier and doesn't know her kindly husband is behind all it and has no idea his activities . An undercover police inspector (John Loder) surveys the marriage movements .

The film contains suspense , tense thriller , intrigue and usual Hitchcock touches . Hitch was a fervent anti-Nazi and similarly other films , he denounces the interior enemy , a spy-ring formed by English and German people . The movie has the expressionist German atmosphere , the suspense is continued and appears lurking and menacing in the theater , streets and during the bus scenes , when the boy carries the bomb . His habitual photographer Bernard Knowles makes an excellent camera-work with lights and shades . Enjoyable cartoon sequence belongs to ¨Who killed cock Robin ?¨ from Silly Symphony of Walt Disney . The movie has the Hitchcock's customary technicians , as Charles Friend (edition) , Louis Levy (musician), Bernard Knowles (cinematographer) , the screenwriter results to be Charles Bennett and being produced by Gaumont British with the great producer Michael Balcon . In spite of long time was released and a little bit dated , the film holds up pretty well . The motion picture was elaborately directed by the master of suspense . Rating : Above average . Essential and indispensable seeing for Hitch's moviegoers.

Sabotage clearly isn't Hitchcock's finest hour; but even though this is a 'lesser' Hitchcock film, the director still manages to inject the film with many of his trademarks that would go on to make classics out of films such as Psycho and North by Northwest. Hitchcock makes centrepieces out of several scenes; the best of which include a cross-fade with an aquarium and a London street, the striking opening sequence that sees London go dark; of course, the infamous scene on a bus - and my personal favourite and the crux of the film - the climatic scene that sees saboteur Karl Verloc (played to perfection by Oskar Homolka) try to pass the blame for his actions on to the Scotland Yard inspective who rumbled him. The plot sees cinema owner, the aforementioned Karl Verloc, get himself involved with terrorists. He manages the cinema along with his wife and her brother, and neither of them knows what's going on. The only third party who does know is Sgt. Ted Spencer; the Scotland Yard inspector employed to work a vegetable stall next door as a cover to investigate Mr Verloc.

This film is most famous for the sequence that sees young Desmond Tester carry a bomb onto a packed London bus. Audiences at the time were outraged by the climax to this scene; but I was impressed with it. By having the story run the way it should, Hitchcock showed early on the sort of flair that would ensure Psycho a place on 'best film' lists forty five years after its release. Hitchcock shows a willingness to take a risk, and while it may not have done him much good at the time - it's that sort of mentality that made him one of cinema's greats. As you'd expect, Hitchcock makes best use of the latest cinema techniques available at the time, but also harks back to the silent classics with several shots made to look like storyboards. It's obvious why Joseph Conrad's novel appealed to the great director, as the story itself is packed with suspense and Hitchcock always makes the best of it. The build up to the finale of the bus scene is beautifully serene, yet so daunting at the same time. On the whole; Sabotage represents a good example of early Hitchcock and comes highly recommended to his many fans.

Like most Hitchcock films, "Sabotage" is a great thriller directed with a fluid, self-assured style. But given its thriller genre what makes "Sabotage" unique is that moments into the movie we know the identity of the saboteur, we know who is the undercover detective, and we know that the police have all but solved the case. So Hitchcock's suspense must come from somewhere else and in the meantime he must entertain us with character development. And that task falls to his heroine. Hitchcock had an uncanny ability to cast actresses who were a perfect fit (at that exact point of their career) to play a particular heroine. Fortunately he again makes the right choice and we are treated to a fine performance from Sylvia Sidney (imagine an expressive Sasha Cohen without ice skates).

The film is essentially a Sylvia Sidney vehicle as she plays a woman who slowly realizes that her husband is a monster. She is a young American woman who married an older European (nationality unknown) man who apparently showed kindness to her and her young brother Stevie (played by Desmond Tester) when they were down on their luck. They moved to London to run the Bijou, a struggling movie house.

Among the notable scenes is the meeting between Sidney's husband (played by Oskar Homolka) and a spy contact at the London aquarium; to the backdrop of a huge turtle swimming in an illuminated tank. The tank cross-dissolves into Piccadilly Circus as it is demolished in his imagination.

Another is late in the film when Sidney sits in the theater in numb shock, watching a Disney cartoon ( ( "Who Killed Cock Robin ?" )). There is not a word of dialogue but her eyes and expressions subtly convey an emotional cavalcade of stunned realization, immense sadness, and barely suppressed hysteria that will stay in your memory forever. It is a rare example of the visual power of film and an illustration of what acting for the camera is all about.

And perhaps most amazing is the long and unbearably suspenseful journey of young brother Stevie across London, unaware that he's carrying a ticking time bomb.

What an opening. The power goes off all over London as the camera gives the viewer a sweeping panorama of the situation, light, shadow, blackness, panning throughout the city with emphasis on historical sites. Then one word utterances from several different persons in charge of keeping the power up and running. This beginning grabs the audience's attention better than any other film this side of "The Letter" and Hitchcock's own "Rebecca." But unlike "The Letter" where the opening is the high point of the entire film, "Sabotage" keeps getting better and better. The opening is truly just the beginning of a cinema masterpiece. Hitchcock uses old film techniques such as cross cutting in novel ways. One of the best scenes takes place in a zoo aquarium where water creatures are compared with the human creature. Listen to the dialog between the two saboteurs as the camera zooms in on the sea turtles. Later the bomber thinks of the fish swimming in the tank and then sees motor cars filled with passengers speeding along the streets. An explosion. Suddenly the fish in the tank again flash through the bomber's head. To savor this splendid moment of cinematic brilliance, the viewer may need to zip back and watch and listen as the scene is repeated.

What a wonderful acting job Sylvia Sidney does. Hitchcock used all his influence and bargaining power to have Sidney play the part. Unfortunately Hitchcock and Sidney did not jell. Their personalities clashed. So the gifted actress refused to have anything else to do with the masterful director. Such a great loss for each.

The way Hitchcock handles the delicate situation involving the cute boy, Mrs. Verloc's (Sylvia Sidney)little brother, riding the bus with a time bomb in a package under one arm while petting a fluffy puppy with his free hand is necessary for what happens at the end of the film. For once, however, Hitchcock misread his movie patrons who were outraged. Never again would he make a similar mistake.

An interesting feature of this Hitchcock outing is a cinema owned by the bomber (Oskar Homolka) and his wife (Sidney) where clandestine meetings among the saboteurs occur. Several features are shown in the background from time to time during the film but one stands out, "Who Killed Cock Robin," a Disney short from 1935 featuring a parody of Mae West among others. Hitchcock skillfully blends the clip from "Cock Robin" into his story of "Sabotage." Mrs. Verloc deeply depressed and confused following her brother's death hears the laughter coming from the audience. She sits down and joins in with the gaiety. When the arrow is loosed and strikes poor Cock Robin, the laughter on her face changes to an expression of agony and terror. Reality replaces fantasy and make believe. Now she fully realizes what a monster her husband truly is, not the noble sensitive caring man of her dreams. One is reminded how a later director/writer Preston Sturges would use a similar technique with a Mickey Mouse cartoon in his classic "Sullivan's Travels."

There is also a clear message by Hitchcock on sabotage, today terrorism; those so-called martyrs for a cause are in reality misguided devils who end up killing the innocent and helpless instead of the ones their feeble minds believe to be the deceivers and exploiters of the human race.

The infamous package scene alone makes Sabotage worth watching. This film is full of the suspenseful intrigue and surprising twists that have become synonymous with the name Alfred Hitchcock. This movie is not without its flaws, but it's a solid story and a thrilling ride.

Released in 1936 - This intriguing early film directed by Alfred Hitchcock contains a great opening scene where the electrical power goes off all over London, which is caused by a willful act of sabotage.

The camera then gives the viewer a sweeping panoramic view of the situation, scanning over the city that's now in shadows and blackness with an emphasis placed on selected historical sites.

This excellent beginning immediately grabs the viewer's attention as Sabotage's gripping, well-crafted story gets underway, moving the action along at a fine clip.

Adapted from Joseph Conrad's novel "Secret Agent", Sabotage tells the tale of a Scotland Yard undercover detective who is hot on the trail of a suspected saboteur who's part of a diabolical plot to set off a powerful bomb in broad daylight in downtown London.

When the detective's cover is blown, the plot begins to unravel and go haywire.

Even at this early phase of Hitchcock's career as a director, it's plainly obvious to see that he had something of a strong fascination with butcher's knives, already.

Featuring a really strong cast, this first-rate, b&w Suspense/Thriller has a running time of only 76 minutes.

"Sabotage" is a political-espionage thriller set at the very heart of everyday family life and the restless urban landscape.

The story takes us to London, where a sudden power outage disrupts the city. At a cinema owned by Karl Verloc, the audience demands their money back, while the proprietor slips through a side entrance and disappears into the shadows of his room. His wife arrives to inform him of the unrest, but Verloc pretends to be asleep. To her surprise, he suggests she refund the money. At that very moment, the lights flicker back on - and with them, a seed of suspicion begins to stir in Mrs. Verloc...

Director Alfred Hitchcock presents us with a tale of conspiracy and covert sabotage - one that quietly destroys both family and soul. The tension unfolds in tight, restrained sequences, where personal and political lines blur, and the villains remain hazy in motive. After one particularly disturbing climactic scene, I found myself asking: where does the real danger in this thriller actually lie?

The atmosphere is hushed, claustrophobic, and thick with unease. Hitchcock masterfully crafts suspense through the innocence of a character unknowingly carrying danger - a fact the audience is all too aware of. Shadows and enclosed spaces suggest paranoia and isolation, while places of joy, laughter, and leisure become stages for secrecy and fatal consequence.

In the final third of the film, sabotage becomes a deeply personal betrayal, raising the timeless question: how well do we really know those we live with? The political motive remains deliberately vague. Terrorist acts and collateral damage were not common themes in cinema of the 1930s. I asked myself - was this a bold creative risk by the director, or an intentional provocation to shock the audience? Likely both. Hitchcock shows little concern for political plausibility. What matters to him is not the probabilities of the plots - but audience reaction.

Oscar Homolka plays Karl Verloc with a cold stare, distinctive accent, clumsy detachment, and near-total absence of empathy. More a political instrument than a man, his eerie restraint becomes the defining note of his performance. Sylvia Sidney portrays Mrs. Verloc - the true heart and soul of this film. Quiet and reserved, she becomes the mirror of doubt and sorrow. Hitchcock lingers on her eyes - heavy with suspicion, dread, and eventually despair. Though her role flirts with the edges of melodrama, it ultimately detonates with emotional force inside the film's thriller framework.

Desmond Tester gives one of the decade's most touching child performances - as the hyperactive Stevie, a boy who cannot comprehend the cruel world of adults. Through his innocence, Hitchcock punishes the audience. His character symbolizes purity - and its shattering loss. John Loder plays Ted Spencer - an undercover detective in a rather peculiar espionage game. His performance, while charming and empathetic at times, doesn't fully convince. He observes more than he acts - and when he does move, it's not out of duty, but out of affection.

"Sabotage" is a dark film, containing uncompromising moments that neither offer relief to the viewer nor punishment to the villain. It isn't among my personal favorites or in my top ten Hitchcock films. Yet one part of it deeply shook me - and for that reason, I chose it as a meaningful stop along my cinematic journey through world cinema.

This early (1936) British Hitchcock film is, unlike many of his slightly earlier films, a completely matured talkie - with few silent film conventions and an economical, consistent pace. Based on a Joseph Conrad story - The Secret Agent - Sabotage presents us with an Eastern European terrorist living in London with his unsuspecting British wife and her young brother (Tester). Why Mr. Verloc (Homolka) commits increasingly violent acts of Sabotage is never explained, but he has drawn the attention of a neighbor (Loder) whose interest seems to be mainly in Verloc's young wife (Sydney).

Of the four principal cast members, Sylvia Sydney is the strongest and most memorable. Her character is the primary focus of the film and she is entirely believable and sympathetic. Her young brother, Stevie, is also fine. Personally, I found Loder a little annoying as the nosy neighbor.

Sabotage has its brutal moments, and gives us a nice sample of Hitchcock's trademark suspense and subtle but experimental camera flourishes. On a few occasions, we are privy to grief-driven hallucinations and hallucinatory fantasies experienced by the characters . And the climax - Stevie's delivery - is a work of brilliance. There are quite a few signature Hitchcock close-ups and a few nicely integrated experimental sequences involving cartoons and films within the film.

Great film for Hitchcock and Conrad fans. Recommended, though less vehemently, for the average connoisseur.

While Comparing Hitchcock's Early Period Films this one is Usually Relegated to the Second Tier and other more Popular, or well known, Movies are Elevated above this and it is Considered a "Minor" effort in the Director's Filmography.

But Objectively it Holds Up as well as any from the Era and in some respects, even More so. It is Pure Hitch and even though in Later Years He Commented on Regrets concerning a Major Plot Point, it is Exactly that Plot Point that Exclaims His Unorthodox Artistry and Experimental, but Polished, Flourishes that made Alfred Hitchcock a Film Artist of the First Order.

The Film's Ingredients: Actors Sylvia Sidney, Oskar Homolka, and Desmond Tester are Superb and Fleshed Out. In Melodramatic Cinematic Terms the Center by which Hitch Unleashes His, now Familiar Themes within a Movie Making Playground are Classic and Copied to this Day.

The Cityscape Terrorism Plot has become a Timeless Time-Bomb. The Suspense, Pre-War Paranoia, and Technical Montage Techniques are Crisp and Captivating, even Today. There are Plot Twists that the most Seasoned of Moviegoers won't See Coming.

Controversial since its Release Date, it is a 1930's Hitchcock Movie that is Underrated, Misunderstood, and Remains a Must See for Film Historians or Anyone who likes being Manipulated by a Movie from a Master Manipulator.

This is not in the top 20 of Hithchcock's best work but you see how the master is developing here in 1936. His use of the camera, his feel for suspense set him apart here. Some of the ways he develops some of the characters is simply brilliant you see the genius that would be fully mastered by the director later on in "Suspicion" and "North by Northwest."

The story and rhythm are not so smooth here as in his later pictures. It is more disjointed.

You have to pay close attention here because it's easy to get lost and confused.

While this is not a great picture, it is a must-see for Hitchcock fans.

One might not think a film made in 1936 could be so relevant today, but this one really is. It starts with the power supply for much of London being cut off by a terrorist bombing of the Chelsea Power Station. I need hardly remind anyone of the many contemporary media warnings of such threats, whether by bombs or by the new means of 'hacking'. The Great Blackout in New York City decades ago, and the huge power cut for much of Canada many years ago, may have been 'dry-runs'. Such threats are more relevant now than in 1936. But the eeriest thing in this film is to see a bus blown up by a bomb in a busy London street, killing its passengers. This really happened in 2005, 69 years after this film was released. Are the Islamic terrorists watching Hitchcock films? Or was Hitchcock just that far ahead of his time in seeing what was coming? This film is far more powerful than THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH (1934, see my review), and shows Hitchcock's suspense muscles tightening considerably. The unlikely star of the film is Oscar Homolka, who spent the rest of his career as a steady character actor. Here he is the lead, and he gives a spectacular performance. Hitchcock likes to close in on his face, especially when Homolka is silent, just as he had done two years earlier with the equally expressive face of Peter Lorre when he was also silent. What is it about these Central European actors of that generation who did not need to speak in order to act? Well, of course, they had grown up in the era of silent films, and they knew what a face could say without opening its mouth. As a stage actor in Vienna, which he fled because of the Nazis, Homolka had played Othello, and in this film we see the real stuff he was made of, which is that of a towering talent. This film is loosely based on a Joseph Conrad novel, THE SECRET AGENT (this novel would later be made into a feature film four more times, and in 2016 into a BBC TV series). The female lead in this film is Sylvia Sidney, who was famous for her sad eyes. She was very petite. She is perfect for the part of Homolka's wife, and she too says much without speaking. This is an extremely intense film, where the tension goes on increasing in the usual Hitchcock manner. Homolka lives in London but is in liaison with some terrorists, and considering that his boss has a German accent and this is 1936, we get the message. A character actor who plays one of the 'bad guys' is Peter Bull (uncredited), whom I used to know when he ran an astrology shop in Notting Hill Gate long ago. His heavy protruding lower lip resembled Hitchcock's. We see a great deal of London life in this film, whether on location or on a huge set makes little difference, as it is all thoroughly authentic. Hitchcock loved grocer's shops (his father had been a cabbage dealer) and street markets. The featured area in the film is S.W.5, which is the Earl's Court area, as it may have looked at that time. The editing of this film by Charles Frend is sensational, and greatly adds to the power of the movie. The scenes in the aquarium are suitably weird, and add to the furtive atmosphere of Homolka meeting and receiving instructions from his Nazi handler. This is truly vintage Hitchcock at its best.

This is probably one of Hitchcock's better-known movies from his early British period, but that's only because of the famous "bomb on the bus" scene. The film certainly doesn't compare to "The 39 Steps" and "The Lady Vanishes", not to mention his later Hollywood masterpieces.

"Sabotage" is an interesting piece of work, but unfortunately it leaves a lot be desired and seems rather dated when viewed nowadays. Hitchcock's trademark humour (of which "Frenzy" is the best example) shines by its absence and there's barely enough suspense to sustain the whole film--though its running time is quite scant.

The characters are regrettably underdeveloped, as they remain virtually strangers to the viewer. Furthermore, the story conclusion feels rather hurried and unconvincing. Luckily Oskar Homolka gives a subtle performance that may be the film's main asset.

Ah, yet another Hitchcock movie that is less than famous but then turns out to be one of the best films ever made. Every Hitchcock film that I see just makes me want to the rest of his films.

Sabotage has a lot going for it. It is based on a novella by Joseph Conrad, the master writer who wrote Heart of Darkness (truth be told, that's the only novel of his that I've read the whole of, but I've been told that he has plenty of great novels besides that; I guess after Sabotage, I'm now obliged to read up). The story is excellent. Mix that with great characters played by great actors, and you've got yourself yet another Alfred Hitchcock masterpiece.

Maybe this film is not popular because it is atypical for Hitchcock. It contains tons of suspense, maybe more than any of his films besides Rear Window, especially in a sequence where he demonstrates his famous theory that a bomb that does not go off creates the suspense. No, this film is atypical because it lacks Hitchcock's masterful humor. This is usually taken as one of his trademarks, but I've seen several of his films that lack humor (or at least reduce it), and I find them just as good (I Confess, Rope, and The Birds). Instead, Sabotage may be the most emotionally affecting Hitchcock film, competing with the likes of Vertigo and Rebecca. It gives you characters to care about, especially Mrs. Verloc, played masterfully by Sylvia Sydney as a happy wife who discovers the hard way that her husband is a terrorist (don't worry, no spoilers here; we find this out in the first scene). John Loder plays Ted, a detective who falls in love with Mrs. Verloc, although she is clearly not willing, while undercover at a grocer next door. The best performance is Oskar Homolka's, who plays Mr. Verloc. Only Norman Bates is a more sympathetic villain than Mr. Verloc. We never do see why exactly he wants to sabotage things (and in this way, this movie is quite xenophobic), but we see that he does not wish to harm anyone, and that when he does he only does it through compulsion. He also cares greatly for his wife and her brother. Even at the end of the film, we understand why Mrs. Verloc wants nothing to do with Ted's advances. The film ends with an easy escape, but guilt remains heavy. 10/10

This isn't one of Hitchcock's finest...it's an example of what happens when a filmmaker relies overmuch on a transcription from the written word, rather than conceiving things anew to make it all work as a film.

The acting is mechanical, the characters are all revealed to us up front to be exactly who they are with no discovery or irony, the outcome as plainly inevitable as clockwork.

But there are images of note...particularly Verloc imagining London blasted into ruin as a film frame jammed in front a projection lamp and then melting. It's an embryonic example of how Hitchcock would later toy with audience perception and perspective, culminating in the likes of 'Foreign Correspondant', 'Rear Window', and 'Psycho'.