Hitchcock Reviews

'Hitchcock' had real potential to be great, being a biopic on one of the greatest and most influential directors ever and with such a great cast. It could have been much better and is an uneven film, but is a better Hitchcock biopic than 'The Girl' from the same period.

It looks great for starters. The cinematography is sumptuous and colourful, and the costume, set and production design and scenery are both eye-catching and evocative. Danny Elfman's score has a lot of atmosphere but also a liveliness and whimsy, even including a chilling and very well used nod to the iconic score from 'Psycho'.

A very heavily up Anthony Hopkins makes a valiant effort as Hitch, and it is a spirited, gleefully relished and well-studied characterisation that is much more subtly written than how Hitch was written in 'The Girl' (though in that Toby Jones did do very well indeed with what he was given). Helen Mirren cuts an enigmatic and firm yet sympathetic presence as wife Alma. In support, coming off particularly well are Scarlett Johanssen's spot-on Janet Leigh and Toni Collette who is always good even in material beneath her. While under-used, the Anthony Perkins of James D'Arcy is also ideal casting.

Coming off less well are Danny Huston's pretty irritating Whitfield Cook, Ralph Macchio's too old and jarringly too modern-looking Joseph Stefano (kept seeing the Karate Kid rather than Stefano, which really took me out of the film) and Jessica Biel who also feels miscast as Vera Miles, a case of recognisable name and star quality over whether they fit the character or period or both (neither of which Biel does).

'Hitchcock's' storytelling is also uneven and unfocused, likewise with the direction which badly struggles with the balancing of plot strand and tone shifts. 'Hitchcock' fares well in the making of 'Pyscho' and Hitch's belligerent reaction to 'North By Northwest's' success, which is fascinating and there should have been much more of it, and in the strong and quite touching chemistry between Hopkins and Mirren.

It however underwhelms badly in the very unconvincingly written and unlikely love triangle, which sees Alma falling for Whitfield Cook, a big problem when that has more screen time than the story elements 'Hitchcock' does well in. And also in the tonally odd, padded out (they were clearly there for padding too) and out of place scenes with Ed Gein which was an attempt to bring a fantasy element to the film, and a ghoulish one, but it was woefully misjudged (a shame because Michael Wincott is eerily good as Gein, so much so that if a film is made about Gein in the future Wincott should be up for serious consideration to play him).

Some of the dialogue is clunky and not just underuses characters that would have made the film even more interesting (Perkins definitely should have been in the film longer) but the way Alma is written can be considered a character assassination, practically hero-worshipping her and while not vilifying Hitch necessarily there is the very strong and blatant implication that he was lazy, not as clever as he clearly was to make so many great films and that he would not have had the success he had without Alma. The way the characters are written are sketchy and one-dimensional, and despite so much promise one does question the film's point.

All in all, intriguing enough but very uneven. 5/10 Bethany Cox

To be honest, I wasn't really sure what to expect from this movie. Indeed, the whole idea of making a movie about the making off of another movie has always seemed to me to be a rather tedious concept, especially after watching the seriously overrated 'My Week with Marilyn'. However, the big difference, this time, is that it was dealing with one of the best directors making one of the greatest masterpieces. As a result, it was actually pretty neat. On top that, Anthony Hopkins gave another strong performance and completely disappeared behind this character. Unfortunately, even though the process of making this movie and to see this great master at work was really nice, pretty much everything else was rather underwhelming though. Indeed, even though it was interesting to see the impact that Alma Hitchcock had on her husband's work, I didn't care much about the trouble in their marriage, which was in fact apparently vastly exaggerated for this movie. Furthermore, the whole thing about Hitchcock having some visions of Ed Gein was rather ridiculous. Apparently, they did take quite some liberties with what really happened but it was fairly easy to spot and it didn't add much value to this story. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, it was still a decent watch and I think it is worth a look, especially if you're interested in Alfred Hitchcock's work.

Yes like they say it was biography but not from beginning to the end of Alfred Hitchcock life. It tells only certain part that involves him. To make it clear it was a behind story of making of a epic movie 'Psycho'. Mainly it concentrated how much he struggled during that time which include relationship trouble he had in his marriage as well threats to make the movie.

Anthony Hopkins was brilliant, I don't know how Alfred Hitchcock really look like except the black & white pictures in net but he did a awesome job. A fine support from Helen Mirren and others including beautiful Scarlett Johansson in a cute hairstyle. To compare todays thriller-horror with those days movies, really they struggled a lot to put their product into the market especially fetching a approval certificate from the censor board.

Like I said you will be disappointed if you expecting to see Alfred Hitchcock's whole life journey. The story revolves only around the making of the masterpiece 'Psycho'. Worth a watch to know a bit of 'master of suspense'.

For decades, Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho has been a vital film of study as well as being arguably the original source of modern horror. It was also the first of a 30-year long but remotely pointless franchise and has been remade. However, the story behind the making of how it all began has yet to be made as a cinematic adaptation. Adapted from the non-fiction book by Stephen Rebello, Hitchcock’s memorable work on Psycho finally comes to the screen for the first time. In the film, we have been expecting to see all the facts based upon the making of Psycho and to understand the cast and crew as ordinary people. Therefore, it was bound to excite avid film fanatics and as a result of this, Hitchcock had overwhelmingly high expectations. However, considering that it was fascinating regarding the facts but as a film, it was a disappointment.


As everybody knows, Alfred Hitchcock was one of the greatest directors in the history of cinema but to make a film about him is challenging and perhaps requires an equally sophisticated director to take charge of behind the scenes. The privilege eventually went to Sacha Gervasi, whose only previous experience as director was for documentary Anvil: The Story Of Anvil. Therefore, he is making Hitchcock his directorial debut. A heavy weight would be on the shoulders of whoever was chosen to direct Hitchcock, but Gervasi's lack of experience really got the better of him here. Of course, he tried and his visual interpretations of some facts during that time were convincing but still, the project was too big for newbies in the film industry.


However, the film does not suffer entirely because of direction. The structure of the film is poor. It is a mixture of two central stories – the making of Psycho and Hitchcock’s own marital problems with his wife. Therefore, it becomes a bio-pic and a romantic-drama that sends the audience in unknown directions and becomes a shamble. Furthermore, why does Hitchcock see and talk to Ed Gein? Psycho itself is based on a book from a few crimes that Gein committed and many moviegoers should know this by now, but screenwriter John J. McLaughlin adding that sub-plot into the script was pointless and served no meaning. The film clocks in at approximately 90 minutes and because it has mixed stories, it could have lasted for 2 ½ hours in order for it to work. In that sense, it was flat and very rushed.


On the somewhat brighter side of Hitchcock were the performances. The great Sir Anthony Hopkins puts on a body suit and undergoes complicating make-up procedures to consequently become an almost exact replica of the Master of Suspense. Just like a strong director would be needed to make Hitchcock, an extremely talented actor is essential when playing Hitchcock himself. In the role, Hopkins expresses the features of Hitchcock through the same facial and figural expressions but in terms of on-screen chemistry between characters, he lacked the bitterness as well as the talent and commitment that Hitchcock put into Psycho. However, although the film has poor structure, it helped us see Hitchcock as a person, not only as a great filmmaker, through the marital storyline. Still, Hopkins was probably the best choice to play the Master of Suspense and he overall delivers in the role, but he was still a tad shoddy at times. Meanwhile, Dame Helen Mirren delivers a great performance as Hitchcock’s wife Alma. Compared to Hopkins and the majority of supporting actors, Mirren’s portrayal of Alma is perhaps the only one that is considered ‘normal’ and is almost like everybody else who does not have a popular celebrity status among Hollywood. Still, Mirren’s performance is impressive despite portraying an highly repetitive character type.


Furthermore, the casting of Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh was an unusual but at the same time, curious decision. Of course, Johansson was a beautiful choice when portraying the beauty of Leigh, but in terms of performance, it was literally like she was playing herself and expressing her sex symbol reputation, not performing as a talented actress going into arguably the greatest thriller of all time. Therefore, she did not entirely fit into Janet Leigh’s character. However, James D’Arcy is without a doubt the most accurate performer of the entire film as he was absolutely marvelous as Anthony Perkins. Although, he does not get much screen time, D’Arcy almost brings Perkins back to life with his timid and shy mannerisms. He even performs as Norman Bates on occasions through these sensitive ways that Perkins possessed. Jessica Biel makes a decent supporting appearance too as Vera Miles.


As previously established, Hitchcock is a large project that has many trails behind it and has so much going for it. It may have been challenging to pull off but it still had the potential to be a truly great film. Unfortunately it became rather dull that progressively reached a flat end. Admittedly, audiences can become over-psyched with this and expect it to be as superb as how Alfred Hitchcock himself would film it, but for that reason, the film should have been placed in the hands of a more experienced director and screenwriter. Nevertheless, despite that Hitchcock provided enough facts to keep the audience interested and most of the acting was a hit, it was still a let-down and, thus, did not become the great film that it could and should have been.

"I will never find a Hitchcock blonde as beautiful as you."

Any cinema lover worth their salt has watched Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho more than once, but it's doubtful that many are actually aware of the story behind its creation. Based on Stephen Rebello's non-fiction book Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho, director Sacha Gervasi's Hitchcock is an engrossing biopic which delves into the professional and personal life of the Master of Suspense with colourful zest. Although it contains a few re-enactments of on-set activities, Gervasi's flick is predominantly focused on Hitchcock's relationships with the people around him. It's not quite the masterpiece it had the potential to be, but Hitchcock is an acutely enjoyable film and a treat for anyone who loves movies.

Riding high on the smashing success of 1959's North by Northwest, Hitchcock (Hopkins) is at a loss about what project to pursue next. While the studios are clambering for more of the same, Hitch is disillusioned by the critics who believe that he's on the decline creatively and is too old to be at the top of his game. Seeking to make a picture that breaks modern convention, Hitch picks up a copy of Robert Bloch's novel Psycho, which is based on the murders committed by madman Ed Gein (Wincott). Paramount executives, however, refuse to fund the picture due to its disturbing content, hence Hitchcock makes the bold decision to mortgage his house and finance the movie himself. Working with a talented team including writer Joseph Stefano (Macchio) as well as stars Janet Leigh (Johansson), Anthony Perkins (D'Arcy) and Vera Miles (Biel), Hitch faces immense pressures as he struggles to shoot the audacious film. Complicating the situation is his wife and collaborative partner Alma Reville (Mirren), who begins showing interest in collaborating with writer Whitfield Cook (Huston).

While Hitchcock deals with all production stages throughout the making of Psycho, it's more focused on the relationship between Alfred and Alma. Screenwriter John J. McLaughlin took tremendous creative license in his depiction of the pair, introducing an infidelity subplot that heightens the dramatics of the picture and reinforces the importance of Alfred's primary creative consultant who was instrumental in his success. It's a trite subplot, but it makes the triumph of Psycho feel more earned. Likewise, McLaughlin uses dream sequences and fantasies in which Hitch converses with Ed Gein that don't entirely work, but are nevertheless an interesting touch. However, those hoping to see more action on the set of Psycho will likely be disappointed, as Hitchcock focuses more on the man's life rather than his picture. This idea is not inherently bad, but more production detail would have improved the overall experience since a lot of filming is just skimmed over (the shooting of the shower scene is especially underdone, and we never see shooting take place on the exterior Bates Motel/House set).

Despite its script issues, Hitchcock is a quality motion picture from top to bottom. Gorgeously shot by Jeff Cronenweth (The Social Network) and perfectly scored by Danny Elfman (Men in Black 3), Gervasi and his crew clearly used every dollar sparingly. It's draped in period detail, as well, with lovely costumes, spot-on make-up (which earned an Oscar nomination), and gorgeous production design. Most people would expect a film like Hitchcock to be self-serious Oscar bait, but it's more in the vein of Tim Burton's Ed Wood; fun and accessible. It's purely joyous to watch Mr. Hitchcock waiting outside a screen showing Psycho, his anxiousness about audience reaction turning to giddy elation when the shower scene elicits endless screams that carry into the lobby. The film is bursting with fun historical anecdotes, as well; Hitch indeed purchased every copy of Psycho nationwide to prevent the movie-going public from finding out the ending, and the filmmaker initially refused music for the infamous shower scene. Plus, it's supremely enjoyable to watch Alfred meet with the censorship board, trying to convince them to approve the shower scene.

Anthony Hopkins is an expectedly delightful Alfred Hitchcock. Under the extensive make-up and fat suit, Hopkins embodies the filmmaker and adopts his mannerisms to fantastic effect, delivering a rich performance that amounts to more than mere imitation. Hopkins makes Hitch a real person with lovable characteristics and a palpable vulnerable side, and it's a huge shame that he failed to earn an Oscar nomination. Alongside him, Helen Mirren is every bit as brilliant as we have come to expect. She walks away with the movie, portraying Alma as a commanding, sassy and vivacious woman. She also imbues the role with humanity, making her wholly credible. It's a unique treat to watch acting heavyweights Hopkins and Mirren as a screen couple - they're dynamite. Admittedly, the actors do not look much like their real-life counterparts, but their performances are so well-rounded, consistent and focused that it's easy to buy them as Alfred and Alma. Luckily, the two were backed by an enormously talented supporting cast. Scarlett Johansson and Jessica Biel shine as starlets Janet Leigh and Vera Miles, and look fantastic in vintage clothes. Meanwhile, James D'Arcy perfectly embodies Anthony Perkins' twitchy discomfort; he was an ideal choice to play the actor. Likewise, the reliably charismatic Michael Stuhlbarg makes a huge impression as Hitch's agent, while Michael Wincott is a suitably sinister Ed Gein and Kurtwood Smith has a few amusing moments as the head of the censorship board.

Hitchcock is a delightful exploration of the titular man, his creative wife, and their risky gamble to scare the movie-going public with Psycho. Things particularly take off once the film's release comes into view, and we smile in giddy delight alongside Hitchcock when Psycho develops into a smashing success. It's not as remarkable as Hitch's best achievements, but Gervasi's biopic is wholly fascinating. Plus, the film's serious moments are tempered with instances of well-judged comic relief, and it's book-ended with Hitchcock speaking to the camera in the vein of TV's Alfred Hitchcock Presents. It's this buoyant, mischievous tone mixed with the strong storytelling, lush period recreations and magnificent performances which makes Hitchcock such a delight from start to finish.

8.2/10