Hitchcock (2012) User Reviews (257)

Call me Hitch, drop the ...

[ferguson-6 · 7/10 · 5 December 2012]

Greetings again from the darkness. Here goes: John J McLaughlin wrote this "Hitchcock" screenplay based on Stephen Rebello's book "Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho", which was based on the filming of the Psycho screenplay from Joseph Stefano, which was loosely based on Robert Bloch's book, which was based on the real life crimes of Ed Gein. Whew!

It's kind of interesting that Alfred Hitchcock is hot again. His Vertigo recently displaced Citizen Kane as the all-time greatest film. HBO is still running their recent production of "The Girl", which is based on Hitchcock's making of "The Birds" and his unhealthy connection to Tippi Hedren. And now, we get this Hollywood production, supposedly based on the master of suspense. I saw supposedly, because this film plays like it was written by the heirs of Alma Reville, Hitch's long time wife and collaborator. We all knew she worked on his films and contributed ideas, but the film wants you to believe she was the real genius behind the public genius.

The movie is entitled "Hitchcock" and is based on the making of "Psycho", but in fact, it's more the story of Alma and her husband. While there is nothing wrong with that story ... in fact, it is quite interesting and entertaining ... it's just kind of false advertising.

Helen Mirren portrays Alma, and instead of the mousy woman who usually faded into the background, we see a fairly strong and talented woman who goes toe-to-toe with Hitch in her best scene. Sir Anthony Hopkins dons some facial appliances and a fat suit and does a solid job of capturing the odd, creepy, leering, disturbed, insecure genius we recognize as Alfred Hitchcock. He comes across as louder and more in-motion than what we have previously seen. And while director Sacha Gervasi makes it clear that Hitch is not a "normal" guy, he doesn't dwell too much on the blond fixations.

The emphasis on the skills and importance of Alma would be fine were it not so exaggerated. Surely every great director and writer and artist has a muse and/or support system; and, there is no question Alma was a very talented lady, but her strength here bordered on distracting to the overall picture. Especially needless was the storyline of Alma being attracted to screenwriter Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston), who wrote "Strangers on a Train" for Hitchcock.

The Hitchcock humor is allowed to shine through and his battles with Paramount Studio head Barney Balaban (Richard Portnow) and the censorship board (Kurtwood Smith) are excellent. Hopkins finds the humanity under the fat suit and is especially good in his work with Scarlett Johansson (as Janet Leigh) and Jessica Biel (as Vera Miles). I also got a kick out of James D'Arcy as the affected Anthony Perkins and all his quirky mannerisms.

Though this barely qualifies as a story on the making of Psycho, it was chilling to watch the addition of Bernard Herrmann's iconic score added to the shower scene. In fact, Danny Elfman does a nice job of subtly adding a Herrmann-type score to this film. I'm not sure if the film will play well with real Hitchcock aficionados, but if you can forgive the Alma slant, it's actually quite interesting and entertaining and kind of a sweet film at its core.

Best When It Focuses on Psycho Rather than Hitchcock's Marital Relations

[gregsrants · 7/10 · 5 November 2012]

In 1960, famed director Alfred Hitchcock released Psycho, the film to which his name would be more associated than any other film in his heralded career. In the new bio-film Hitchcock, Psycho is the backdrop for the story between the proclaimed 'Master of Suspense' and his wife and muse Alma Reville.

Directed by Sasha Gervasi (Anvil: The Story of Anvil), the film stars Sir Anthony Hopkins as the odd-shaped director and Dame Helen Mirren as his wife Alma. We pick things up in 1959 and Hitch's ("Just call me 'Hitch'. You can hold the 'cock'") introduction to the story of serial killer Ed Gein. Hitch had just released North by Northwest starring Cary Grant and he was fascinated in the story of Gein that was the inspiration for Robert Bloch's novel, Psycho.

Hitch aggressively pursued the optioning of the story and began to adapt it as a theatrical release. But Paramount Studios, to which Hitchcock was employed, was not eager to bring the gruesome tale about a transvestite and his murderous relationship with his dead mother to the big screen. Even with Hitchcock's clout (he had already released over 40 theatrical films by 1959) was not enough to sway studio bosses, and Hitchcock eventually had to finance the film himself and mortgage his home in an effort to get the film into production (this risky move proved lucrative as Hitchcock earned an estimated $15 million by fronting his own money for 60% of the gross profits).

The film takes us through all aspects of the production of the film from financing through casting; from fights with the ratings board through the limited release of the film in only 2 theatres nationally.

But at the heart of the film is the relationship between Hitch and his wife, Alma. Hitch is hardly represented as a caring and understanding sort. Hopkins plays him as an arrogant, demanding sod who wanted to control over his leading ladies as her secretly admired his blonde actress hires unprofessionally in his private office. He was a heavy eating, heavy drinking auteur that never won an Academy Award despite such revered films as Rebecca, The Birds and Vertigo having been crafted by his immense talent.

Alma, on the other hand, is portrayed as the 'wizard behind the curtain'. She helps guide Hitchcock through his film journey's doing re-writes on scripts and providing directorial and production support. All the while, Alma is always pushed out of Hitchcock's limelight. And with Hitch's increasing jealousy over Alma's time spent with writer Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston) coupled with the financial burden of financing the film, the relationship between the two hits troubled water.

Director Sasha Gervasi works off a screenplay by John J, McLaugnlin based on the book "Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho" by Stephen Rebello and a good portion of the film is fascinating stuff. It's like watching a live-action movie about a making-of feature you would watch on a Blu-ray disc. From the casting interviews with Anthony Perkins (played dead on by James D'Arcy) and Janet Leigh (Scarlett Johansson) to how Hitchcock didn't want to use music during the infamous shower scene but was convinced by his wife and the editors or how upon first cut of the film or how the test audience (which consisted of suits, agents and censors) loathed the film and its violent content; the peak behind the closed set doors was captivating viewing.

Unfortunately, when the film sways away from the production, it is less involving. Hitch and Alma had a collaborative and sometimes combative relationship, but their affection for each other was the least interesting part of the film yet the most consuming.

There is a great supporting cast that includes Jessica Biel as actress Vera Miles, Ralph Macchio and Toni Collette and the look and feel of the era seems captured earnestly. But the movie is squarely on Hopkins' shoulders who, at times, looked odd though the make-up effects. There are times that he loses himself in the role (we loved Hitch acting like a Maestro outside the theatre as he listened to the audience's screams). But there were a few times that we could have imagined Hannibal Lecter uttering the scripted lines.

Our overall response to the film is warm and it deserves a recommendation. Back in 1959, there were no documentarians or a team of staff videotaping behind-the-scenes action for a potential Blu-ray special feature. So it was nice to travel back in history and have documented some of the events that lead to one of the most popular horror films ever made. And for that, we are grateful.

www.killerreviews.com

A pretty good movie about the making of a classic movie with an amazing performance by Hopkins. I enjoyed this. I say B+

[cosmo_tiger · 7/10 · 6 February 2013]

"What if someone really good made a horror picture." After the success of North By Northwest Alfred Hitchcock (Hopkins) was looking for his next film to direct. After reading a book he finds what he is looking for. The studio is against it but Hitchcock decided to finance the movie himself, breaking all the rules as he goes. The story is real, the horror is real, this is the story of the making of Psycho. I'm not sure why but I am a big fan of movies about movies. I was very interested in seeing this not only for that but also because I am a big Anthony Hopkins fan and thought he would be a good choice for this role. The movie itself is really good with some pretty creepy aspects to it but the job that Hopkins does is pretty amazing and sometimes you actually see Hitchcock himself. I'm not sure how accurate this is but Hopkins played a man on the edge of sanity and knowing what I know about Hitchcock it seems to fit. If you are looking for a complete bio-pic of Hitchcock this is not it, but if you are a fan of his then this is a movie not to be missed. I recommend this. Overall, the movie is good but Hopkins is great. I give it a B+.

Underrated

[Red_Identity · 5 January 2013]

I didn't really expect much from Hitchcock, but I found it incredibly enjoyable. Perhaps the problem is that a biographical film like this of one of the most famous films ever made could have been more dramatic. As it is, it's definitely rather light-weight and doesn't have all that much meat to it, but what is there is enjoyable in all the right ways. The cast is solid, but the two leads are really great. Hopkins disappears into the role, and Mirren does wonders with her part in such a charming, charismatic way. As a huge Psycho fan, a film like this is just really enjoyable and entertaining, and in that way it didn't disappoint. I definitely recommend this.

It keeps your interest, but not great cinema...

[bmennen · 6/10 · 5 December 2012]

The REAL Hitchcock buffs will be disappointed, in that this movie does not delve deeply into the mind of this brilliant, creative filmmaker. It deals with the superficialities of his existence, and not the big issues of, for example, what propelled his interest in the Wisconsin serial murderer Ed Gein? Was this interest tied to his pursuit of his 'blonde girls?' The dark side of his personality was shown through his hallucinatory 'relationship' to Mr. Gein--who pops up occasionally--and could be considered a clever device; I thought it a cop-out.

As another reviewer on this board wrote, the most enjoyable parts of the movie revolved around the casting, writing, filming and editing of "Psycho." Jessica Biel and Scarlet Johanssen were adequate, if not inspired; Helen Mirren was the movie's anchor, while Anthony Hopkins seemed to be trying too hard, and I was always conscious of him 'acting.'

BUT, as noted earlier, it moves along and is enjoyable. Just don't expect too much.

A superficial and feel good biopic of the master of suspense

[estebangonzalez10 · 7/10 · 15 February 2013]

¨That, my dear, is why they call me the Master of Suspense¨

Biographical films can be tricky because you can enjoy the movie based solely on your love or passion for the person which the film is based on. I knew it was going to be hard for me not to like Hitchcock because I am a huge fan of his work and love to hear every small detail about his life. Hitchcock was one of the most influential filmmakers in the history of cinema, and Psycho is considered to be one of the best horror films of all time so I was excited about this project. I really enjoyed this movie, but I can't say if someone who isn't a fan of Hitchcock's work might enjoy this film or not. Hitchcock was directed by Sacha Gervasi, who also happened to direct one of my favorite documentaries: Anvil: The Story of Anvil; and the screenplay was adapted from Stephen Rebello's book ¨Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho.¨ You can't possibly go wrong with a movie dealing with such an influential director on the making of one of his masterpieces. It is part of the Hollywood history, and everyone who enjoys films will probably appreciate this work for at least trying to give us a glimpse of Hitchcock's mind. The film might not be as deep as other recent biographical films, but it is a pleasant experience. The major complain most people had is that it didn't spend as much time on the set of Psycho as it did dealing with his relationship with his wife, Alma. We would have all enjoyed this film a little more if more emphasis was placed on the making of Psycho rather on his disputes with his wife. What I did love about this film is how they focused on the huge risk that Hitchcock was taking by making this movie on his own despite being a well known figure. He decided to step out of his comfort zone and try something new. You are never too old to take risks and follow your heart and that is exactly what Hitchcock did when he decided to make Psycho.

If you can learn one thing from Hitchcock's life is that the phrase ¨behind every great man there is a great woman¨ is completely true for Alfred and Alma. The story centers on the period of Hitchcock's (Anthony Hopkins) life when he was coming up with the idea of filming Psycho. It was 1959 and he had recently had success with North by Northwest, but some questions about whether or not he was ready to retire began to creep in his mind. It was time to try something different and when he got his hands around a novel titled Psycho, he knew it would be his following picture. This horror novel seemed impossible to adapt at the time considering all the tight regulations being placed, but Hitchcock took this as his next challenge. Paramount isn't happy about this risky move so Alfred decides to finance the film on his own with the support of his wife Alma (Helen Mirren). Alma on the other hand begins to collaborate with a friend named Whitfield (Danny Huston) on a screenplay that Alfred has decided to overlook at the moment. Alfred was known for his controlling habits over his lead lady's and productions, and this being a film financed by him made the tension even worse. He decides to hire Janet Leigh (Scarlett Johansson) for the leading role after Alma's recommendation and Anthony Perkins (James D'Arcy) to play the psychotic Norman Bates. His former lead lady, Vera Miles (Jessica Biel), was set to play the secondary role. Thus the challenge began for Alfred as he had to manage his personal life with his professional one.

I found it funny how in a couple scenes they brought up the failure of Vertigo, which is now considered to be Hitchcock's masterpiece. Criticism for that movie wasn't well received, which shows us how ahead of his time Hitchcock really was. He could have continued to listen to the big production companies and made the same films over and over again, but he decided to face and challenge them bringing something unique and new to the table. This serves as a modern criticism towards Hollywood which continues to make the same films over again without wanting to take any risks. If it weren't for people like Hitchcock who stood up to these corporate giants we wouldn't have had films like Psycho. There are some directors today who have been influenced by Alfred and continue to take risks, but for the most part most continue to bend over to the big Hollywood producers. Hitchcock, the movie, doesn't seem to take any big risks and plays it safe with this biography, but it works thanks to some strong performances from Hopkins and Mirren. Scarlett Johansson, James D'Arcy, and Jessica Biel all share unique resemblance to the original actors. Credit has to be given to the makeup and hairstyling artists who rightfully earned the only Oscar nomination this film received. This was a pleasant experience although the superficial biopic wasn't groundbreaking; the story was still worth it.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

The only things worse than a visit to the dentist is a visit to the censors.

[mark.waltz · 7/10 · 8 December 2021]

"She won't be nude. She'll be wearing a shower cap." Alfred Hitchcock really tests the production code with his new film "Psycho", with not only a scene in a shower with a naked woman but with its theme as well. This is an unsanitized account of the making of probably Hitchcock's most notorious film, and Anthony Hopkins is truly amazing as the legendary director, perhaps a bit thinner than the master of suspense but unforgettable none the less. His devoted wife who helps him with the project is played by fellow British legend Helen Mirren, and she is also very good.

Certainly you could make a film about Hitchcock behind the scenes on any of his films, but choosing "Psycho" as a subject creates an instant interest. The issue is that there really isn't much story because pretty much every major film goes through challenges, and it takes a lot to keep the audience interested. It's just a matter of seeing these iconic scenes recreated and Hitchcock at work that creates an instant interest. Scarlet Johanson doesn't fully resemble Janet Leigh and certainly doesn't sound like her, but it's an acceptable casting choice because the story truly just focuses on Hitchcock and his wife.

Since the roles of the other actors in the film is really all that exciting as far as a casting is concerned although there are a few interesting elements regarding Vera Miles), the camera's eye on Hopkins and Mirren does provide a unique behind-the-scenes aspect to both this film and its subject. Every little aspect of Hitchcock is fascinating to watch through the performance of Hopkins who is as fascinating an actor as Hitchcock was as a celebrated director who had his own celebrity following. The fact that Mirren got award accolades and not Hopkins is bizarre although both are deserving. So while this is not an excellent film, it is a fun blast to the past and a valentine to a legendary director whose artistic flair has created many classics.

Keep the Hitch, drop the Cock.

[ChooseyAMovie · 7/10 · 8 February 2013]

Hitchcock follows Alfred Hitchcock's strenuous quest to complete a picture to which everyone deemed awful. Also incorporated into the storyline is the love story of Alfred and his wife. And the strain the picture was putting on it.

I had high hopes for Hitchcock. Alfred Hitchcock may not be my favorite director but he was most defiantly light years ahead of his time and undeniably a genius. On top of that Psycho is one of my favorite films ever made. So far this film was shaping up to be fantastic, it appealed to me in all the right ways, trailer was good, Anthony Hopkins as Hitchcock and it was about the making of Psycho. To which, aspiring filmmakers as well as the average movie goer can really appreciate. So why only a 7/10?

Well, the film delved too deeply into the love story, I personally think. The film is very enjoyable and to that aspect of the film, I don't mind as much as you may perceive but withholding that aspect and indulging on the actual making of Psycho could have really benefited this film. It's not the film Hitchcock or Psycho fans will love, it will be a film where you walk out and remark, "that was good," but not a very solid good. And normally I would be inclined to agree with you, but for some reason I still did like this film.

It contains fantastic acting including Hopkins, albeit certain scenes he may have overacted a tad bit, it's interesting and is enjoyable. In addition it also contains great references albeit not very subtle, the complete opposite of subtle to Psycho and a few other Hitchcock films which work to its advantage in my opinion. I also rather liked the inclusion of Ed Gein and the conversations that took place between him and Hitchcock.

Basically this film will appeal to everyone. But, unfortunately it isn't the film it could have been or should have been, but ultimately it is enjoyable, funny and above all entertaining. If you're a fan of Hitchcock and Psycho though, don't get your hopes up too high.

Hitchcock's biopic particularly developing his relationship to Alma Reville and the shooting of Psycho

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 8 July 2014]

A love story between influential filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) and wife Alma Reville (Alma Reville) during the filming of Psycho (1960) in 1959 . As Alfred decides his next film will adapt the lurid horror novel, Psycho by Robert Bloch , but the novel's inspiration haunts his dreams , including the series killer Ed Gein (Michael Wincott) , then Alma finally loses patience .

The film mainly deals with filming ¨Psycho¨ , Hithcock masterpiece and his most accomplished and perfect movie . Psycho was not only Hitchcock's biggest successful movie,but was a phenomenon in its own right , the picture is a magnum opus of the terror genre and its immediate impact and its future influence was enormous and cannot be over emphasised . It also concerns on the relationship between Hitch and his wife Alma Reville , perfectly played by Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren respectively . Helen Mirren had met the real Alfred Hitchcock when he approached her for a part as a murder victim in his penultimate film, Frenzi (1972) ; Mirren turned down the role, a decision she later regretted. Although many reviewers criticized the film for inventing an intimate relationship between Alma Reville and Whitfield Cook, the facts are documented by more than one Hitchcock scholar, as exemplified by Patrick McGilligan in his biography of Alfred Hitchcock. There are developed various scenes about ¨Psycho ¨shooting as when Marion (Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh) leaves her fiancée and heads with her car toward California , when is caught in a storm she leaves the highway and enter to Bates hotel . The hotel with twelve rooms (and 12 showers) is managed by a strange young named Norman (James D'Arcy as Anthony Perkins) who seems to be submitted by his overbearing mother . The shower images are well recreated , these scenes are one of the most studied ,copied and analysed sequences in cinema history and has obtained a notoriety what exceeds of the movie itself. The character of Ed Gein was included in the original screenplay. In subsequent drafts, the role of Gein was either eliminated completely or reduced in importance. Terrific acting by Anthony Hopkins as Hitch and sensitive performance by Mirren as Alma , in fact , this movie is a perceptive homage to a great screenwriter , and Hitch's supporter , Alma Reville . The movie has a fine support cast playing notorious characters who had an important role on Hitch films such as Jessica Biel as Vera Miles , Toni Collette as Peggy Robertson , Michael Stuhlbarg as Lew Wasserman , Ralph Macchio as screen writer Joseph Stefano , Wallace Langham as Saul Bass , Paul Schackman as Bernard Herrmann and Spencer Garrett as George Tomasini . Nice production design , as scenes set in Alfred Hitchcock's Paramount suite of offices were filmed in Hitchcock's actual office on that studio's lot.

Colorful as well as evocative cinematography by Jeff Cronenweth . Lively and atmospheric musical score by Danny Elffmann . The picture was well directed by Sacha Gervasi ; it was shot in 36 days with exquisite taste and intelligence by the master Hitchcock who makes an impeccable control of every scene and maneuvers your emotions, infusing with a deliciously wit and ironic

Startling Surprise

[seanod-vpdevelopment · 8/10 · 4 December 2012]

The odds were against it, let's face it. Then after that TV film about the obsession of Hitch for Tippi Hedren, what was it called? something like "The Girl" Brrrr. I thought, what a pity. But then, I went to see it and I was not merely thoroughly entertained but delighted. Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren make a formidable pair. Mirren, in spite of her glamour, I've never seen Alma Reville, as glamorous, Mirren truly captures the essence of the woman and makes that marriage not just feasible but ideal in so many ways. The script, smart and witty and gives a glimpse into what might have really happened. Janet Leigh (a terrific Scarlett Johansson)thanking Hitch and kissing him on the cheek. Look at Hitch/Hopkins's face when that happens. A child. I believed it. So, considering the odds against it, a triumph.

Finding the intersection between romance, comedy and horror in a Hitchcock biopic

[napierslogs · 7/10 · 9 February 2013]

"Hitchcock" is a mix between a Hitchcockian thriller, a comedy, a biopic, and a romantic drama. And I'm pretty sure that explains the negative reactions to the film. I agree that it's a strange mix but it works with what they are going for. Wanting to focus on the marriage between Alma Reville and Alfred Hitchcock, a romantic biopic can be dry, so staying true to the spirit of the legendary director, the film throws in some wry humour and frames it all with the tone of a thriller.

It's 1950 and Alfred Hitchcock wants to make "Pyscho". Studios are wary, his wife is losing patience, and the battle to get it made could be worse than the subject matter. His long-time actress, Vera Miles (Jessica Biel), is being relegated to supporting status and isn't happy about the lack of respect from Hitchcock. Meanwhile, Hitchcock is ready to cast his new film and is going to turn Janet Leigh (Scarlett Johnasson) into a star. One would assume his wife would feel maligned from that, but she's off trying to forge her own career with screenwriter Whitfield Cook who Hitchcock thinks is a hack.

The film's main purpose appears to just be entertaining. Which is all good, but the rather poor reception is because it could have used some depth into the interesting inner-workings of Hitchcock. At times it comes off as a superficial caricature but the man was a legend because there was so much more to him. Anthony Hopkins appeared to be exactly like Hitchcock both physically and linguistically. He got his sly and comedic mannerisms and phrasing perfect. Which fits the entertaining and humorous frame for the picture.

Personally, I think director Sacha Gervasi used the right cues to make it feel like a Hitchcockian thriller. Throwing in references of his desire for the gruesome, throwing in references to "The Birds", and making us think there might be a wicked twist coming. The twist is just that "Hitchock" could be just a comedy — the material is ripe for that.

The goodest of evenings

[StevePulaski · 8/10 · 9 December 2012]

Going into Sacha Gervasi's Hitchcock, I was contemplating the recent wave of interest in the man Alfred Hitchcock and his work. But that's just it; is the interest in Hitchcock recent or has it always been present? With the new HBO biopic, the fact that Vertigo is now considered what one could call the "official" best movie ever made, and the wealth of buzz Gervasi's film has received within the last few months, can we assume that the interest of Hitchcock is a simple trend or did he bring something to the table that has been and will continue to be eternal? All I can say is the film had me at "good evening" and held me to the final "good evening." This is a luscious, engaging, and darkly satisfying portrayal of the master of suspense as he fights the uphill battle of filming, producing, and releasing Psycho, the iconic sixties horror film that revolutionized the genre with its cutting edge suspense and, at the time, gruesome and famous shower sequence.

Anthony Hopkins does not play, but embodies the title character, showing beneath the invaluable publicity, media attention, and film reviews, that he is a sensitive, self-doubting, and struggling auteur who is subject to the idea that since he has made so many films, when will his downfall begin? Right after the premiere of North by Northwest in 1959, people questioned if the man had the energy and the power to continue making films at the unheard of speed he was previously doing. He could've easily just quit while he was ahead.

But he didn't; he managed just a year later to make and produce one of the finest examples of subversive horror that the film industry ever knew. This was a price he vigorously paid for, having to mortgage his own home and almost lose his marriage in the process. He begins reading Robert Bloch's Psycho, and gets the idea to adapt it into a feature film, despite knowing the battle it would be to get it financed, distributed, and entirely released to the public. He takes the risk and shoots the film into production.

Meanwhile, Alma Reville, Hitchcock's wife, portrayed whimsically and poetically by Helen Mirren, begins a stable friendship with writer Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston), who gives her pleasure, reassurance, and attention. While their get-togethers remain genial and sexless, Hitchcock himself doesn't know that, and because of it, assumes that his wife is having an affair, but hardly has time to think what with perfecting sequences involving actress Janet Leigh (Scarlett Johansson) and dealing with the heavy-handed MPAA representative (Kurtwood Smith).

Hopkins is worthy of an Oscar nomination, along with Mirren, delivering a splendidly macabre, witty, and brash performance of the man so many admire. Rarely this year have we been blessed to see an actor get so into character, with a realistic performance of an iconic figure (with one of the notable exceptions being Daniel Day-Lewis in Lincoln) and have so much fun doing it. Mirren, on the other hand, has a more serious role, giving us a warmly and delightfully devoted woman who tries to feel every emotion her husband does. She finds this incredibly difficult, especially when Hitchcock begins having conversations and interactions with serial killer Ed Gein in his dreams.

In some cases, Hitchcock feels a bit too broad in some cases, not perfectly emphasizing parts in the man's life, such as previously marriage difficulties, if any, and sometimes, almost teeters back and forth between goofy satire and cheeky homage. Yet it's the performances, the smooth (and sometimes beautifully red-velvet) cinematography, the old-Hollywood vibe, and the depiction of how confined and strict the censorship regulations were that make this film truly a fun, worthwhile endeavor.

Starring: Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson, Jessica Biel, Michael Stuhlbarg, Toni Collette, Ralph Macchio, Kurtwood Smith, and James D'Arcy. Directed by: Sacha Gervasi.

"My murders are always models of taste and discretion."

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 4 February 2021]

I seemed to recall when this film was being made that Anthony Hopkins was cast to portray the movie world's 'Master of Suspense', but when the picture started and the character of Alfred Hitchcock came on screen, I had no idea who was playing him. It was only when I checked the credits afterward that I realized that yes indeed, that was Hopkins in the title role, fitted out with padding and latex appliances as part of his transformation. And yet he didn't really look like the legendary director I remembered from my youth, which was somewhat distracting as I watched the movie. Nevertheless, Hopkins did a fine job in the role as he always does.

Now the actor who portrayed Anthony Perkins, wow!, James D'Arcy really did look like Perkins to me. He had those quirky mannerisms that were perfect for rendering an unbalanced character like Norman Bates. The rest of the cast appeared generally fine, though aspects of the story didn't ring true, as in the relationship between Hitch and his wife Alma (Helen Mirren). I know the director did fantasize about his leading ladies, especially blondes, but he was always faithful to his wife as a collaborator and inspiration. The suggested love triangle with Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston) didn't seem all that necessary as part of the story line, and in fact, tended to remove one from an appreciation of what the film was intended for, i.e., the making of the movie "Psycho".

Aside from that, I did enjoy the way the movie began and ended, hearkeing back to the way Hitchcock opened and closed his eponymous television program. I thought that was a neat touch. And I might be mistaken on this minor bit, but knowing that Hitch always found a way to insert a cameo of himself in his films, I thought it was a neat touch when a silhouette of the director appeared in the window of Janet Leigh's (Scarlett Johansson) dressing room. To me, that appeared to be a nod to Hitchcock's creative appearances that didn't always depend on a physical presence.

Overall, an entertaining picture for the casual fan, perhaps not so much for the serious Hitchcock cinephile. But then again, after seeing so many botched biographical interpretations by Hollywood, one becomes immune enough to the fact to just sit back and enjoy.

Misleading title

[mikeolliffe · 4/10 · 29 December 2012]

If you are interested in Alfred Hitchcock DO NOT go see the film 'Hitchcock'. Read any of the many books written about him instead. The inaccuracies are many, the tone is off, the premise is askew...with all of the scandal vultures out there, there is not the slightest evidence that he drilled a hole in a dressing room wall in order to spy on Vera Miles.

The plot of this Fox Searchlight film places great emphasis on the fact that Hitchcock couldn't find the usual financing to make Psycho - but totally ignores the fact that one of the ways he kept it low-budget was to use the crew from his television series.

Given the subject matter, this movie is very dull and lacking in inventiveness. (Although it does try, with a Marley visiting Scrooge approach - Gein's spirit haunting Hitch, and Hitch's direct-to-camera speeches.) On positive side: sharp, well-lit photography and settings.

"Drama is life with the dull parts left out."

[amesmonde · 3 February 2013]

A snapshot of Hitchcock's life and the lead up, shooting and release of Psycho.

A perfect blend of entertainment, surprisingly emotional and a delight to watch. No doubt artistic licence is used but John J. McLaughlin's script based on Stephen Rebello's book manages to mix and balance the story elements perfectly without becoming the 'making of Psycho' which remains as a backdrop. It ultimately focuses on Hitchcock's intriguing relationships with his wife, cast and crew. There's some genuine laugh-out moments and heartfelt scenes. The surreal moments including Ed Gein subtly played by Michael Wincott injects an edginess to the proceedings and gives an insight into his psyche.

Any reservations of Anthony Hopkins' casting are dispelled within a few minutes, he is absolutely superb with the make up equally as effective. Helen Mirren as Alma is on fine form giving both a powerful and touching performance. Without nitpicking on Scarlett Johansson's facial indifference to Leigh and James D'Arcy's to Anthony Perkins they capture the persona wonderfully as too does Jessica Biel as Vera Miles respectively. Notable is Toni Collette as Peggy Robertson and from Danny Huston as Whitfield Cook to Kurtwood Smith Geoffrey Shurlock there is a fine supporting cast.

Fittingly book-ended with Hopkins as Hitch breaking the fourth wall in 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' style you can't help but smile. As satisfying as Hitchcock is it still leaves you wanting more.

Not particularly a solid tribute but sure brings some interesting moments

[eshwarmail · 6/10 · 17 January 2013]

Having never actually seen the great man from behind the camera, I will just have to go with some guess work. Anthony Hopkins was strictly average and at times the make up didn't quite please me. Having never been an ardent fan of the renowned masterpiece 'Psycho', making of it felt a bit engaging initially. Even more so, I quite enjoyed the shower scene here more than the original itself with Scarlett Johansson making a strong appeal for a scream movie (not that she wants to). The babbles between Mr. & Mrs. Hitchcock was tiresome after a point.

Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) has just filmed and released 'North by North West' thus re-establishing him as the master of the genre. When the whole world is watching what Hitchcock would do next, he announces a horror movie about a perversive murderous psychopath and when a young woman crosses his path. Against everybody's vociferous repulsion including his wife Alma (Helen Mirren) initially and no studio backing, the stubborn director makes a movie that the world reels in terror becoming one of his biggest accomplishments.

Hopkins gets it right to an extent as the repulsive, authoritative and tyrannic man. However as the moments pass with obvious emotional sequences go untapped, it more becomes a '60s tabloid feature. Helen Mirren gets a lot of unnecessary screen time and ends up deviating from any other interesting elements that the writers could have bundled. The sound mixing was good in parts and some supporting performances especially Johansson's was particularly good. It feels disappointingly long even with its short runtime and a little undercooked at times. Having never been a fan of Hitchcock's renowned handling of climax, this one came as a surprise to be so flat and to be honest disrespectful of the man.

Not particularly a solid tribute but sure brings some interesting moments

Psycho's Behind the Scenes

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 15 June 2013]

In 1959, Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) is not successful with "North by Northwest", having bad reviews. He reads Robert Bloch's novel "Psycho" and decides to make a movie; however the Paramount studios refuse the project.

Hitchcock discusses his idea with his agent Lew Wasserman (Michael Stuhlbarg) and decides to finance the production with his savings against all odds and is supported by his wife Alma Reville (Helen Mirren). Hitchcock casts the cast with Alma and his assistant Peggy Robertson (Toni Collette) and Paramount is responsible for the distribution. Meanwhile Hitchcock is under additional tension since he believes that Alma is having a love affair with Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston).

"Hitchcock" focuses in a period of the life of the Master of Suspense Alfred Hitchcock during the production and release of "Psycho". This behind the scenes shows a disturbed man under tension and quite arrogant genius. It is amazing to see the failure with "North by Northwest" and how this master has not wined an Oscar when we see the kind of movies and directors are nominated to (and wins) the Oscar in the last years showing how decadent Hollywood is. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Hitchcock"

Lightweight

[PipAndSqueak · 6/10 · 9 February 2013]

For an afternoon's mild entertainment this is a pretty good bet. Nothing especially testing happens. There's some mild humour. Some fine acting by the very well know actors. Costume and settings are nicely done. All in all, pretty inoffensive. Unlike, I suspect, was the real Hitch and the vile movie business at the time. You get a slight insight into what might have been a nasty episode amongst many such at the movie studios so this 'entertainment' is very much a pastiche. Never mind it's nice enough to watch. Good lines - so Mr screenwriter you did good. Pity it's not a bit more gritty, come on folks we all know about Hitch and his obsessions....these are not - or hardly there in this pic. The obsessions made the mogul.

Adequate but inferior to BBC's The Girl, in which Toby Jones trounces Hopkins.

[TheSquiss · 6/10 · 9 February 2013]

It was a brave move to award directorial duties of Hitchcock to Sacha Gervasi, whose only previous stint behind the lens was Anvil: The Story of Anvil. A fine film, certainly, but a documentary! Perhaps writing duties on Spielberg's The Terminal swayed it for him. He does a reasonable job here with telling a pleasant story, but fails to get under the skin of the man or deliver the punch to his audience in the way Hitchcock did with his.

Hitchcock leads us though a short segment of the great director's life as he discovers, shoots and unleashes his most famous success, Psycho, upon the world. It's a pleasant window through which to look but nothing sparkles, no performances stand out and it quickly fades from memory.

In 2006, Phillip Seymour Hoffman won an Oscar for playing the eponymous Capote but was inferior to Toby Jones in the superb but virtually unseen Truman Capote biopic Infamous. It is a similar tragedy this year for Toby Jones after the excellent TV movie The Girl, in which he stuns and shines in equal measure. In The Girl, we understand what drives Hitchcock; we experience his relationship with his wife of over fifty years, Alma Reville; we understand his cruelty and extreme methods; ultimately we leave the cinema respecting him but thinking 'What a genius, what an unpleasant man.' Hitchcock is a nice film that paints a picture. The Girl ripped the skin off the man to see what was tumbling in the maelstrom underneath.

Jones is one of those rare actors with a chameleon-like ability to be absorbed into the character (like Daniel Day-Lewis, Christian Bale and, at times, Ben Kingsley) but it is Hopkins with the knighthood. Yes, he gives a reasonable representation of Hitchcock but is never truly convincing. His accent slips too often, he stumbles out of character and one never forgets that it is Hopkins we are watching and not Hitch.

The same is true of Helen Mirren. In this, she is fully shaded by Imelda Staunton's portrayal of Alma. She entertains but fails to find the soul that inhabits Alma and cannot shake off her own persona completely.

As for Scarlett Johansson, though she tries hard to give a reasonable approximation of Janet Leigh, she appears to struggle to find a character to cling to and seems lost in Hitchcock, uncertain how to play the part. Only when she completes the infamous shower scene, after Hitch has cleaved the emotion from her, do we feel we have witnessed her act.

Of the peripheral characters, it is a shame to see Danny Huston slipping back into an almost inconsequential supporting role, as Whitfield Cook, after his excellent turn in the limelight in Boxing Day. And too little is made of Anthony Perkins (played by James D'Arcy, who bears an uncanny resemblance to him in this), despite his importance to Psycho.

With Anvil, Gervasi seemed assured of his characters and the story he needed to tell. With Hitchcock he appears to have trusted in the star power of his actors too much and answered every query with yet another profile shot of the man as if, because the audience expects it, it must be repeated as often as possible. But at least the music is as involving in his feature debut, this time courtesy not of a failed rock band but of the rather more successful Danny Elfman.

Hitchcock is a pleasant film to watch that demands nothing from its audience. If you want a Hitchcock biopic that demands emotional involvement, stay at home and download The Girl.

For more reviews from The Squiss, subscribe to my blog and like the Facebook page.

Very Interesting For Hitchcock/Movie Buffs (Not So Much For Anyone Else)

[zkonedog · 7/10 · 6 March 2017]

While some movies are made to attract the widest audience possible, others instead try to find a niche. "Hitchcock" is most definitely a "niche film" primarily appealing to those interested in the Master himself, "Psycho" buffs, or just fans of the movie-making process in general.

For a basic plot summary, "Hitchcock" falls into third main plot lines: First and foremost is Hitchcock's (Anthony Hopkins) tumultuous relationship with wife Alma Reville (Helen Mirren). Second, is his fascination with serial killer Ed Gein (Michael Wincott) that leads him to stand firm behind "Psycho" even when the major film studios want nothing to do with it. Third, are the interactions between him and the cast of Psycho, primarily Janet Leigh (Scarlett Johansson), Vera Miles (Jessica Biel), and Anthony Perkins (James D'arcy).

For fans of Hitchcock the director, this film sheds some potential light on what must have been churning through his mind while making the motion picture he ultimately became best known for. His obsession with murder and his total devotion to his work are adeptly portrayed in the movie by director Sacha Gervasi, leading of course to a roiling home life that inevitably creeps into his movie-making ways. Even just seeing the larger-than-life Hitch (played marvelously by Hopkins) come to life on the big screen is a treat for fans of his work.

Another interesting avenue this film explores in-depth is the process by which a movie gets made in Hollywood. Hitchcock is constantly in need of money, battling the censors, and struggling to meet deadlines. On a more micro level, his interactions with the main players of "Psycho" lend greater understanding into why the film ultimately became such a huge success.

Overall, then, being a big Hitchcock fan for many years, I thoroughly enjoyed seeing this movie. If this kind of stuff doesn't seem like it would interest you, then more than likely it probably will not.

Great Film

[will_engell · 10/10 · 25 March 2013]

When I first saw the preview for Hitchcock, I knew it would be right up my alley. I mean its about Alfred Hitchcock and what he went through to produce easily one of the greatest horror films of all time. And to top it all off Anthony Hopkins Plays Hitch himself, and when it comes to Hopkins, he brings his A-game to every single role. This movie blew me away, the acting is spot on, the cinematography is excellent, almost shot like an early horror movie in my opinion, lighting is precise and the music fits the mood and the story perfectly. I don't remember the last time I had so much fun watching a movie. Watch this one, its a gem!

Good film (even if we do know the ending)

[bowmanblue · 7/10 · 6 August 2014]

I don't think I'd be spoiling this film for many people if I let it slip that Alfred Hitchcock's horror film 'Psycho' WAS a success. However, that is basically the premise of this telling of the seminal director's life story, surrounding the making of Psycho, i.e. will it, or won't it be a hit? But, don't let your own knowledge of cinema history stand in the way of what is an excellent piece of (borderline romantic?) drama. But then what did you expect from two of today's heavyweight actors: Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren. The film details their - slightly - complicated relationship and the relationship between Alfred 'Hitch' Hitchcock and his various leading ladies.

Like I say, don't dwell too much on what you know is going to happen - just enjoy some excellent performances. The two leads are just the icing on the cake, as the film is pretty 'star-studded' from start to finish.

http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/

Hitchcock: The story of a man ahead of his time

[damian_hockey · 8/10 · 7 June 2013]

Since the days of early cinema hitchcock has been the name that has been reviewed as the director and innovator of modern cinema, A man of the screen for the screen and for the audience. So it makes sense that a man of great power should have a film of equal amount of stance.

This film is a film of great measure, Hitchcock, shows the man behind the silver screen and a man who certainly caused a stir, with the film voted as the scariest film of all time. The film follows the mind of Hitchcock as he struggles with the censorship of the studio, the spiritless of the actors and trying to get them to show emotion within their roles and a possible affair his wife may be having with another man. The film starts with brutality humor and a down and out director who although once a great director seems to be having doubts on his ability for creating movies that the audience wont scrutinize.

The humor within this film is very witty and will appeal to people whose humor would follow of a blunt but to the point humor

The brutality of this film is shown in a few scenes of violence which is in perfect style and very little which is needed not to overpower the overall point of the film, The characters within the film are very believable on the grounds that the actors and actresses that have been cast for these roles are very well chosen and take on the roles of the characters given, Anthony hopkins was the perfect choice for alfred hitchcock and shows the exact amount of buoyancy and darkness to the man himself, with some amazing emotional parts which shows the real acting talent of anthony hopkins

with a real star studied cast this film could not beg for more with the likes of Helen Mirren , Scarlett Johansson , Jessica Biel and many many more big named cast member this film will have to star gazing in no time, The cinematography which is used within the film also represents a great focus on alfred hitchcocks style of cinematography dark daring and brooding

This film is a emotional ride through and though and i would highly recommend people sit through the 98 minutes of this film and 98 minutes is the perfect amount of time for this film because no more and no less needs to be said within those 98 minutes

I highly Recommend this film

A journey in time, behind the scenes and a bit inside the mind of a cinema master.

[cinematic_aficionado · 7/10 · 5 February 2013]

We travel back in time and in Hollywood some 53 years ago where the renowned Alfred Hitchcock has just released "North by NorthWest" and is on the lookout for his next project although being 60 is, to many back in the day, retirement age.

Anthony Hopkins is, simply put, outstanding in this role. The creativity, the frustration, the utter madness is all there on the viewer's plate. The references to Hitchcock's misogyny and masochism are subtly but nonetheless present. His uber-weird/creative relationship with his wife which was pivotal in his career is also well portrayed.

Had it not been for one of the greatest films ever, Psycho, there would have been a temptation to just treat this as simply another behind the scenes documentary of the pain and trials of filmmaking. What gives "Hitchcock" an edge is the fact that an established filmmaker had to go to extra lengths to get his project done which turned out to be pivotal in the history of cinema. That gave me plenty to think about in terms of viewpoints, expectations, creativity versus the shrewd business world etc.

One thing that deprives this movie of extra points, is the title as it is not solely about Hitchcock not quite about the making of Psycho, although I can see the studios feeling gratified in the pursuit of a catchy title.

In any case, this film is to be cherished so sit back and enjoy the journey in time, behind the scenes and a bit inside the mind of a cinema master.

Wish I Was Watching an Actual Hitchcock Movie

[rberka · 3/10 · 19 June 2013]

As a lifelong Alfred Hitchcock fan, I was thoroughly disappointed with the film. It is a deceitful docudrama in the Oliver Stone vein.

Alfred Hitchcock obviously had an amazing life. Why go to the trouble of fabricating whole facets of his life? I was dying to know facts about his childhood that influenced him. This movie gives you nothing, not even flashbacks. There are no reports of marital strife between him and his wife in real life; they never mortgaged their home to make a movie. Half the movie is a soap opera of supposed marital tensions between he and his wife that never existed.

I heard a story his father conspired with the local police chief to leave a young Hitchcock in prison overnight to teach him a lesson. Where's that story? How did he get into films? From Berlin to Hollywood? Wouldn't those make for a good movie?

I wouldn't care so much except they went to the trouble of getting a complete A-list cast of actors as if they were making some kind of definitive Hitchcock movie.

Are movie executives so immature, so cowardly they don't think anyone can make an interesting broader perspective biography that audiences can handle? It strikes me that this movie just plain fell into the wrong hands. The DVD menu comes up like you're watching Spiderman or something.

I was so hungry to watch a great Hitchcock movie and to get this tripe just plain made me mad. Time to hit the library and read some good non-fiction on Hitchcock if Hollywood is going to be so inept.