The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

A masterpiece, brilliant screen writing and story. Engaging drama. Actors also acted good. At the end, all the evidences of murder are destroyed due to bomb explosion and the inspector tries to remember whether the lady told him that she murdered her husband before the explosion or after the explosion but he is not sure. That scene was a classic and can be called as trademark of Hitchcock film.

Except for his first Gaumont UK film, the musical Strauss bio, WALTZES FROM VIENNA, Hitchcock found his niche with the espionage thriller and films two through five are all on this general thematic narrative: THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, THE 39 STEPS, SECRET AGENT, SABOTEUR.The latter is an almost claustrophobic film, compared to the three that precede it, even though it is the one most filled with people. Crowds of people, on streets, in the cinema where it is centrally located, gathering in almost confrontational mobs.Sylvia Sidney's expressive face carries the film. It is her character that must undergo the realization of tragedy, of broken dreams and promises, of betrayal. She does an admirable job. Oskar Homolka as the terrorist husband is perfectly cast in a role originally intended for Peter Lorre. Desmond Tester as younger brother, Stevie, and John Loder as undercover detective, Ted, are merely serviceable.Notable moments include: Homolka visualization of a bomb's effect on a city block superimposed upon an aquarium fish tank; inner workings of a clock and a bomb superimposed upon each other; the incredible suspense of the boy on his way through town carrying the bomb, intercut with clocks he passes; the confrontation of Sidney and Homolka over the dinner table.Controversy met the film over the shock of the bomb's damage. In most suspenseful moments in Hitchcock films, that which we feared was going to happen, is averted at the last moment. Not so here.SABOTAGE echoes Hitch's first sound film, BLACKMAIL. In both a woman commits murder, albeit for good reasons. Her boyfriend is in one a policeman, in the other a detective, who chooses to shield her from being accused. In the one the only other witness to the murder is killed before speaking. In the other, a second bomb obliterates the murder scene. In both the murderess goes free. At least in SABOTAGE justice is done to one of the conspirators.The film moves very quickly and keeps our interest throughout. It is tightly directed by Hitchcock and is both entertaining and thought-provoking. Along with THE LODGER and MURDER!, this makes a half dozen great UK films thus far in his career. He was to make three more before coming to the USA.

A highly recommended film, better than many of Hitch's follow-ups. Plus it has a story I can believe in, which is not that typical for the lion's share of his filmography. And who would expect such a disturbing and utterly thrilling ending from an early Hitch film that starts with a quite funny episode of a crowd demanding their money back because of outage? I guess that the only drawback of the film is that Sidney and Homolka were miscast as a married couple, they look like a father and a daughter. Though, I cannot complain too much on their acting; furthermore, the supporting cast is quite solid.

I own Sabotage as part of a DVD with 15 lesser-known Hitchcock films. I did not expect a film of the caliber of his best work (Psycho, Vertigo, Rope) but I was still surprised at how good the film was.The film wasn't incredible, but it maintained a great deal of suspense in it's second half especially. I thought the film was filled with great performances, most notably Sylvia Sidney (who is very beautiful by the way!) and her husband Oskar Homolka. One complaint I have though, is the quality of which I saw the film in. The picture quality I could live with, but the audio is sometimes almost unheardable. I desperately wanted English subtitles, but there weren't any. I probably missed out on a lot of the dialogue, but still got a pretty good idea of the film's plot.