The Worst Film Ever

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

I like this story.A man is supposed to be a murder and try to escape.He meet a young ,beautiful lady on the way and they fall in love.It's so romantic ,at the time thrilling especially last scene that a real murder scream for a help on the statue of liberty.However I don't like something in the film.I think it is too rapid that two of them confirm how they feel to each other.

Producer: Frank Lloyd. A Frank Lloyd Production. (Available on an excellent Universal DVD).Copyright 29 April 1942 by Universal Pictures Co., Inc. Presented by Frank Lloyd Productions. New York opening at the Radio City Music Hall: 7 May 1942. U.S. release: 23 April 1942. Australian release: 10 December 1942. 11 reels. 9,876 feet. 110 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Innocent of sabotage, an accused man hunts from west to east to pin down the real Nazi agents. In short, this movie is a variant on "The 39 Steps".COMMENT: Hard to believe that Norman Lloyd wasn't even nominated for a prestigious Hollywood acting award. Who remembers winner Van Heflin in Johnny Eager? Yet Lloyd's is one of the strongest and most unforgettable support performances of the war years."Saboteur" is a thrill-a-minute thriller with a great cast, terrific production values and an absolutely stand-out climax atop the Statue of Liberty. Hitchcock at his best! Cummings is very effective as the fall guy, Priscilla Lane makes an attractive heroine, whilst Otto Kruger is suavely deadly as the chief heavy. This great movie features crackling dialogue, and is delivered at an express-train pace. with top of the range credits and production values.In short, a typically brilliant Hitchcock chase thriller, with many of the director's favorite cliff-hanging ingredients masterfully infused into the plot. All these echoes in story and characterization add rather than detract from the over-all suspense. Hitchcock makes the familiar seem fresh and even more terrifyingly real.

Hitchcock is one of those directors that every film buff is aware of, but few will admit to having seen none of his films. Prior to this, I'd only seen THE BIRDS and PSYCHO (in that order), but that was a long time ago so I consider this to be my (re)introduction to him. Other than a lot of suspense, I wasn't really sure what to expect from SABOTEUR. It turned out to be quite good for an early Hitchcock film, although it betrays the time in which it was made a little too much. The story is about Barry Kane (Robert Cummings), who works at an airplane factory. One day a catastrophic fire kills one of his friends and he's pinned as the one responsible. This sets him on a journey to prove his innocence and find out just what is going on. Generally speaking, there wasn't a dull moment in this, although I do think it began to lose some narrative steam in the final half-hour as they struggle to find a way to keep the action going after the villain's endgame is (sort of) revealed. I do think it was well-acted and had interesting characters, although nearly everyone upstages Barry's "Average Joe." My two favorite characters are Philip Martin, the blind man he meets, and Tobin, someone who turns out to be very important. These two characters also happen to have a couple scenes which very eruditely give the thematic concerns we're supposed to take away from the film. Given that this produced during American involvement in WWII, anybody who didn't support the war effort would naturally have been looked on with suspicion. This is why the villains are saboteurs who aim to damage the US war effort. However, the blind man (in what might have been a compromise with the studio?) is made to say that even in times of war, our democratic principles still hold and a person is innocent until proved guilty. Without that counterpoint, I feel that the film would have verged on being jingoistic and meaninglessly patriotic. While I'm not too much enamored of the way the film reduces wartime politics to an "us vs them" binary, Hitchcock did make a solidly thrilling picture that is still quite relevant today.

Hitchcock made this movie three times: the first was released in 1935 called "The 39 Steps", the second in 1942 called "Saboteur", and the third in 1959 named "North by Northwest".The basic ingredients are: (1) A lonely man wrongfully accused of something he didn't do. (2) His wanting to have himself in the clear. (3) His incapacity of turning his case over to justice. (4) His pursuit of the party who incriminated him. (5) His involvement in between with a blond girl that he can't trust. (6) His final encounter with his nemesis, preferably at a spectacular site."The 39 Steps" is truly a masterpiece, for it is still mesmerizes you in spite of being filmed 80 years ago! Which other movie that old does that? None whatsoever, I dare you. (The next likely candidate, "The Lady Vanishes" was only released three years later, and was directed by the Master of Suspense as well.)Now, "North by Northwest" would have been this masterpiece, had it not been preceded by "The 39 Steps". "Noth by Northwest" has some unforgettable moments as the pesticide aircraft chase, but the plot is anything but new."Saboteur" differs from the other two pictures in being excessively patriotic and antifascist, somewhat of war propaganda, shot during WWII as it was. It does have some exciting moments, but having seen the other two movies in the "trilogy", it just sticks out as the lesser attempt of them.