Hitchcock (2012)

As Good As It Gets

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Hollywood voyeurism. If this were about a nobody it would raise hardly any interest as a plot, unless it were told with more interest and intrigue. I'm glad it is limited to one part of Hitch's career but at the same time the movie doesn't take advantage of the collapsed time. Hopkins' makeup is unconvincing and distracting! Personally, I wished more had been revealed of composer Bernard Hermann's part in Hitchcock's success.

A compelling study of psycho-sexual lust and jealousy built around the making of Psycho. The acting is top notch though Hopkins, in depicting a person whose delivery and presence has been caricatured so often, sometimes seems to fall into caricature himself. That said his dance in the lobby as he waits for the shower scene to be projected is wonderful. Helen Mirren is too attractive for Alma but does capture her frustration, both physical and emotional, at being perceived as nothing more than Hitchcock's shadow when she was clearly so much more. And the shooting of shower scene though faithful in capturing Janet Leigh's reactions is way over the top in suggesting that Hitchcock's threatening behaviour was the catalyst. The darkest moments though are when Hitchcock interacts with the real life serial killer Ed Gein in his dreams and imagination - a disturbing look inside the reality of the killer that Hitchcock transformed into Norman Bates. The music is excellent using variations of the Hermann Psycho themes to move the story along as well as dipping into the score itself. Whether he was as much of a tyrant as is suggested here is best left for the biographies but one gets a real sense of his self-doubt, the sexual impotence he felt towards the unattainable actresses and the meticulous way in which he storyboarded, edited and crafted his unique films.

While I enjoy watching historical biopics, I don't like the ones that mess with the facts, especially when the subject matter is a favourite of mine. Hitchcock has long been a favourite director, so I awaited with interest this film which depicts him as he devises and shoots the legendary PSYCHO.Unfortunately, what Hollywood ultimately delivers is nothing more than an exercise in feminist revisionism, and that's all down to Helen Mirren who play Hitch's wife. Apparently, Mirren refused the role at first as it lacked 'meat' and 'importance'; thus, a number of spurious - and ludicrous - angles were added to the movie to better accommodate her. According to this film, Hitch's wife directed part of the movie, inspired her husband, and came up with the best ideas, all of which is complete nonsense of course and a bit of an insult to the great director himself.Aside from that, the film isn't bad, so it's a pity that the huge flaws stopped me from enjoying it (it's more fantasy than realist). Anthony Hopkins is a nice fit for Hitchcock, but I found his prosthetics to be too distracting and unrealistic (and, after all, there's only one Hitch). The supporting cast is better, with Scarlett Johansson (as Janet Leigh), Michael Wincott (as Ed Gein), Kurtwood Smith (as a censor) and Michael Stuhlbarg (as an executive) really standing out.

When you're a genuine fan of cinema, it's almost a matter-of-course that you're a Hitchcock admirer as well. In my case, it goes a little further… I've always been fascinated by Alfred Hitchcock's persona and, more particularly, by the variety of his repertoire. The main reason why I really wanted to check out this semi-truthful/semi-fictional Hitchcock biopic is because I honesty always wondered what drove an eminent and well-respected director to make "Psycho"; which is fundamentally a grim and nasty horror tale. In 1958 and 1959 Hitchcock was still making polished and sophisticated thriller classics like "Vertigo" and "North by Northwest"… How come not even one year later he delivered the groundbreaking horror movie that would alter the genre forever? The film "Hitchcock", by Sasha Gervasi and based on a book by expert Stephen Rebello, gives quite a lot of insights on the tiresome production of "Psycho" (like the troubles with the financing, disagreements with the production studios and heavy censorship issues) but sadly focuses even more on the – largely fictional – pressure that the film put on Alfred Hitchcock's marriage with Alma Reville. The script abundantly hints that Hitch is obsessed with all his blond leading ladies, like Janet Leigh in "Psycho", and that he could be quite tyrannical on set. Then the script also suggests that Mrs. Reville is extremely close with Whitfield Cook; a largely unsuccessful writer. Is "Hitchcock" a good film? Well, it somewhat balances between an interesting biopic and a farcical comedy. Whenever we're on the set of "Psycho", this is a vastly entertaining film and I definitely wanted to see a lot more background to the production difficulties as well as the battles with the censoring committee. The film also introduces a lot of fascinating characters – real people, in fact – but largely neglects them. For example, I would have loved to find out more about the casting of Anthony Perkins or the imaginative conversations between our director and deranged serial killer Ed Gein (who formed the inspiration for "Psycho" as well as several other horror movies), but apparently there wasn't any room left for that. Instead, there's a lot of focus on the alleged romance between Alma and Whitfield, but this isn't very interesting. Several people in the cast give a splendid performance, like Helen Mirren and a fantastic Scarlett Johansson, but I still haven't quite figured out what to think of Anthony Hopkins' performance… I assume that his depiction of the world's greatest director is simultaneously a parody and a homage.