Review of Saboteur (1942) by Raffaele A — 13 Jul 2018

Saboteur is not Hitchcock's finest film.

Released in 1942 during the height of World War II, Alfred Hitchcock's Saboteur serves more as propaganda rather than entertainment. Saboteur is written so melodramatically with on the nose dialogue about patriotic duty and loyalty to your country that you are taken straight out of the movie.

Absolutely atrocious writing that makes every single character a cliche stereotype of an American persona. I cannot believe that Hitchcock was fine with releasing a movie as contrived and overblown as Saboteur. It is not a classic by any means.

Unfortunately, the acting in Saboteur is atrociously overacted. Every actor in Saboteur is trying too hard. The sole exception of the delightfully villainous Otto Kruger, who eats up the scenery with a zealous greed. They do not feel realistic in the slightest. Robert Cummings is so bland as a lead that I could not believe that Norman Lloyd was not the protagonist in the beginning. Cummings is like a farce of a hero. He is the embodiment of the good American boy so much so that he comes across as generic and forgettable.

Similarly, Priscilla Lane is so ridiculous as the all American good girl trying to be a patriot that she feels fake. Lane could have been outdone by nearly any other actress. At least Lloyd tries his best to be a compelling spy with the little screen time he gets in Saboteur. Overall, the cast is terrible aside from Otto Kruger and Norman Lloyd.

In short, Saboteur is well shot and directed, but the heavy handed themes and dialogue make the film feel exclusively like a piece of American propaganda instead of a fleshed out movie. It is an easy watch, but a hard pass among Hitchcock's otherwise intriguing career.