78/52 (2017)

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Absolutely the worst movie.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

This documentary about the infamous shower scene in Psycho has a technical title. 78 camera setups and 52 cuts that took seven days to film.Contributors include Elijah Wood, Bret Easton Ellis, Peter Bogdanovich, David Thomson, Richard Stanley, Sam Raimi, Walter Murch, Eli Roth, Mick Garris, Guillermo del Toro and Jamie Curtis who talk about the shower scene and how it was put together. Bogdanovich also does his trademarked mimicry.There are important aspects discussed such as how to get round the censors. Shooting in black and white helped as you do not see any red blood. We even find out how influential the violence in Psycho was for other films. Italian filmmakers took it to a visceral horror art level. Martin Scorsese even mirrored it in Raging Bull.However at 90 minutes it does feel a bit overlong, there was a lot of waffle and Psycho has been examined to death already.

Considering that "Psycho" has long been a "top movie of all-time" in my book, I knew I would be watching this documentary when I first saw the trailer. Considering how many times I've seen the movie and how many stories I've already heard from it, perhaps the most impressive thing I gleaned from "78/52" was how it was able to approach the topic from such a new, fresh perspective.Basically, this documentary looks at "Psycho" from the perspective of its now-infamous "shower scene". While other topics are discussed and other stories are told, the narrative always shifts back to the construction of that sequence, which was truly momentous both in its time and even today. It completely changed the game of American cinema forever.I really liked how this documentary was basically just a whole bunch of film geeks and/or industry insiders sitting around watching/talking about certain scenes. I mean, that's what it's all about, right? As movie fans, a large part of the fun of the experience is to discuss it with others after the fact, and that is the tone that "78/52" hits on. I felt like I was sitting around discussing the shower scene and everything that springs forth from it with family or friends.So, I highly recommend "78/52" to any fans of "Psycho", obviously, but also for those who just love to discuss movies! It's technical enough to be enlightening, but not technical enough to keep it from being a great discussion/history of certain aspects of the scene, "Psycho" as a whole, & Hitchcock (and Co.) in general.

78/52 (2017) **** In depth and informative doc on the making of the infamous/notorious shower sequence of Alfred Hitchcock's classic horror film "Psycho" (the title refers to the 78 camera set ups and 52 edit/cuts for the scene) and its forever influence on filmmaking and pop culture. Talking heads include filmmakers Peter Bogdanovich, Guillermo del Toro, Mick Garris and actors Jamie Lee Curtis and Oz Perkins (her mom Janet Leigh and his dad Anthony were the stars of the film), Elijah Wood and composer Danny Elfman (who forever was in debt to the film's composer Bernard Herrmann's indelible and iconic shrieking score). For film hounds a valentine to an epic film and to the newbies and scholars quintessential viewing of how to create a true cinematic moment forever. (Dir: Alexandre O. Philippe)

A 91-minute analysis of the famous shower scene from Hitchcock's 'Psycho' and how it changed the course of cinema. The first of its kind, a feature length documentary on one scene. The film gets its name '78/52' from 52 shots in a 78 second sequence. It's very entertaining and incredibly rich with goodies you never considered went into the making of the famous scene. I loved the archival Hitchcock commentary they recovered. Though, as I personally feel the movie horror scene has drastically changed (you can decide for the better or for worse), to have young horror film makers (of some damn awful films) and irrelevant actors interviewed to share their thoughts in quite enthusiastic ways suggests that Hitchcock's achievement is less pioneering than the film makes it seem. That aside, I'm surprised they pulled it off, you can tell the director (who is obviously a massive Hitchcock nerd) adores the content and it really shows.