Review: 'Hitchcock' fails on almost every level as drama and biography

Only someone who hates the filmmaker would endorse this mess

HitFix
D
Readers
C+
<p>Anthony Hopkins and Scarlett Johansson co-star in the disastrous 'Hitchcock,' set during the making of 'Psycho'</p>

Anthony Hopkins and Scarlett Johansson co-star in the disastrous 'Hitchcock,' set during the making of 'Psycho'

Credit: Fox Searchlight

Are you a fan of Motion Captured?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

Just as Fox made it easy for people to mainline James Bond movies in the lead-up to the release of "Skyfall" by putting out that beautiful Bond 50 box set, Universal has made it easy for people to take a crash course in Alfred Hitchcock by releasing their retrospective box of his films on Blu-ray.  Unfortunately, the Bond 50 box set put "Skyfall" in a perfect context to be enjoyed, but comparing even the least of Hitchcock's films to Sacha Gervasi's "Hitchcock" isn't going to do this new film any favors.

If you'd asked me for my reaction to "Hitchcock" as I walked out of the theater, it would have been mildly negative, but the more I've thought about it, the less I like it.  Gervasi was the director of the wonderful documentary "Anvil: The Story Of Anvil," and as a screenwriter, he's responsible for Spielberg's "The Terminal" and a small indie called "Henry's Crime," which I didn't see.  I liked "Anvil" so much that I've been curious to see what he could do as a director with a great script.  And now, the wait continues.

I've read Stephen Rebello's book, Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of 'Psycho,' and it's a well-written, well-researched look at the director and the production of one of his most famous films, but Rebello's book doesn't really feel like a story that demands to be told as a film.  It wasn't the most demanding process in Hitchcock's career, nor is it a film that reveals Hitchcock's own inner life to the degree that, say, "Vertigo" does.  So why tell this story as a film?  And if you are going to tell it, why lie about so much of what actually occurred if you can't even come up with a compelling drama with your falsehoods?

It's the question I had walking in, and the film does nothing to answer it.  John J. McLaughlin's script focuses primarily on the tension between Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) and his wife Alma (Helen Mirren), who was a key creative collaborator with her husband.  What's strange is that for a film that is ostensibly about the making of "Psycho," there's a distinct lack of "Psycho" in the film.  There's talk about it, sure, and we see a few cursory sequences like a startlingly on-the-nose job interview with screenwriter Joseph Stefano (Ralph Macchio) and another wildly unsubtle moment with Anthony Perkins (James D'Arcy), and there are a few on-set moments, including a recreation of the shooting of the shower scene that seems completely at odds with actual accounts of how that was accomplished.  Overall, though, "Psycho" seems to exist only at the edge of things, which couldn't have made it easy for Gervasi as a filmmaker.

Unfortunately, the ways he and McLaughlin have filled in the gaps strike me as profoundly phony.  There's a running thread in the film where Hitchcock speaks to Ed Gein (Michael Wincott), who basically appears as Hitchcock's spirit animal, that seem profoundly wrong-headed.  It's like the filmmakers are trying to make the case that Hitchcock began to identify with the real-life murderer as well as the fictionalized version, Norman, and it's such a cheap, specious connection that it's insulting to both Hitchcock and the viewer in equal measure.  The majority of the film is given over to moments where characters speak in theme, over-articulating the ideas that Gervasi is trying to push in the film.  Hitchcock whines about never winning an Oscar while he and Alma fight about how crucial she is to his process, and in all of it, I never believed one second of what they said.

Part of the problem is that the make-up worn by Hopkins basically drowns any good work he might be doing as Hitchcock.  He might be dazzling in the role, but with his features immobilized by the prosthetic work, there's no way to tell.  The one good thing I can say about his work is that he gets the physicality of a fat man right, particularly one who is self-conscious about his weight.  But the voice and the actually mannerisms all feel like impression, not an actor actually inhabiting the role.  Hitchcock is one of the most photographed filmmakers of all time.  We all know what he looked like and sounded like, and Hopkins is never able to push past that surface to reveal anything else about the man.  Helen Mirren is fine as Alma, but again… she's saddled by a script that couldn't be more obvious.  Her temptation takes the form of Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston), another screenwriter who wants to collaborate with her, knowing full well what it means to Hitchcock.  The way the film connects underlying psychology to surface behavior is laughable.  In the single sequence where Stefano appears, he talks to Hitchcock about how he'd love to write the film, then starts immediately talking about his own mommy issues.  When Perkins meets with Hitchcock about playing Norman, he's so over-the-top campy closeted gay that of course he gets the job playing a person hiding secrets about themselves.  It's insulting, and its not the way anyone actually behaves.  Jessica Biel plays Vera Miles, and she lays out her own relationship with Hitchcock is very stark terms when talking to Janet Leigh (Scarlett Johansson), saying she refused the lead in "Vertigo" and that led to Hitch ruining her career.  It's so preposterously direct, and I don't buy that the people in the film had this sort of perspective on themselves or on Hitchcock.  Johansson is stranded as Leigh, and I felt bad for her while watching.  There's nothing for her to play, no insight in the writing, and she comes off stilted and ridiculous as a result.

This is one of those films where every single thing about it rubbed me the wrong way, and by the end, I was just eager for it to be finished.  Empty of authenticity, antiseptic, and false from beginning to end, this isn't even as good as a "Saturday Night Live" sketch, as someone called it tonight on Twitter.  This is biography by way of bullshit, and a major waste of all the undeniable talent involved.

"Hitchcock" is open now in limited release.

Drew-mcweeny-sm
Drew McWeeny
Film Editor
A respected critic and commentator for fifteen years, Drew McWeeny helped create the online film community as "Moriarty" at Ain't It Cool News, and now proudly leads two budding Film Nerds in their ongoing movie education.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    ungruntled

    Based on the writeup, the "D" grade seems like a stroke of generosity.

    November 24, 2012 at 4:59AM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew It's in focus.

      November 24, 2012 at 5:11AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Not PRetentious

    what a bad pretentious review

    November 24, 2012 at 5:59AM EST Reply to Comment
    • 500full_talkback_profile

      velocityknown Have you seen the movie?

      November 24, 2012 at 1:25PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      American Jedi In what way was this pretentious? I think it was a very frank and unadorned statement about why he didn't like the movie. There was nothing pretentious or phony about it (unlike, say, Guy Lodge's absurdly overwrought review of Skyfall). You can agree or disagree with Drew's assessment, but to call this one pretentious is simply false. I mean, it just isn't. Pretentious is a real word with an actual meaning and this isn't it.

      November 26, 2012 at 1:52AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Not PRetentious

    what a bad pretentious review. so apparently one sentence is not enough to post a comment

    November 24, 2012 at 6:00AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Bill

    And yet, you curse in your review, rendering it useless.

    November 24, 2012 at 6:57AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Guypic_talkback_profile

      Guy Lodge What a delicate soul you are.

      All language is useful.

      November 24, 2012 at 7:43AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Crow3711 go f**k yourself bill

      November 24, 2012 at 9:39AM EST
    • If you're so offended by the in-context and deserved use of the word "bullshit" in an extremely well-written review, and you qualify that particular word as a "curse," it's time to get off the internet NOW before it completely destroys you.

      November 24, 2012 at 10:55AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Post a comment...

      November 28, 2012 at 11:00AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    John Healy

    Interesting review. I think you may be too kind on this movie about the great Alfred Hitchcock. First I will not see the movie because Anthony Hopkins looks so not like Alfred Hitchcock. People not familiar with Hitchcock,the young, will not mind . I am old enough to have seen most Hitchcock great movies and his tv programs. The Hitchcock profile and his delightful droll comments during his tv dramas are priceless.

    November 24, 2012 at 7:04AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Eyes

    What they need to do is remake Psycho with hip actors, like Anne Heche.

    November 24, 2012 at 8:43AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Guest guestly Lolz

      November 24, 2012 at 9:11AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    sophie marino

    I love this film .And Hopkins and Mirren. Rememenber: critics panned "Psyco"!

    November 24, 2012 at 10:34AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Guest Also rememenber, critics panned 'Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever'

      November 24, 2012 at 2:17PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Jason Regan

    But is it as good as 'Liz & Dick'?

    November 24, 2012 at 12:21PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      guest I love dick!

      November 24, 2012 at 2:34PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Joshua

    It seems there's a growing campaign against Hitchcock; HBO just recently debuted a film called THE GIRL, which also went out of its way to paint Hitchcock a sadist and Alma a saint.

    Is anyone else a little concerned with this growing tread of automatically giving women who are in relationships with male artists or figures (whether its as spouse, girlfriend, mother, friend or just colleague) equal credit for his accomplishments and talent? I understand that collaboration is vital and real, but I can't imagine I'll ever see a film depicting a man being just as responsible for a female artist's or figure's work as herself.

    Hitchcock seems like the most obvious and easiest bullseye for this sentiment.

    November 24, 2012 at 2:56PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Alex Poor men. Hollywood is just so anti-man. I really want to see a movie where the women are where they should be-In the house raising children. Are we really suppose to buy that women can every be as smart as men? That crazy and insulting.

      November 25, 2012 at 2:31PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      American Jedi That's not what he said, Alex. I don't think I agree with his assertion, that there's a trend of diverting credit to the spouses of "great men" depicted in films, but raising the idea is not at all like saying that women are less intelligent than men or that women should be housewives. What an hysterical, infantile interpretation of the post.

      November 26, 2012 at 1:59AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Greg

    Is it worse than The Iron Lady? Cause that movie was pure garbage too.

    November 24, 2012 at 3:51PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Ryan

    For somebody who has talked in the past about everybody having their own opinion about movies, and about those opinions being equally valid, it's an awfully strong statement to say "Only someone who hates the filmmaker would endorse this mess." That effectively discounts the opinion of anybody who enjoyed the movie. Pretty narrow-minded coming from somebody I had grown to like as a film critic.

    November 24, 2012 at 4:03PM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Sorry the sub-headline got up your snoot.

      November 24, 2012 at 9:44PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Lisa people who like this film are stupid poopoo heads.

      November 25, 2012 at 2:32PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Ryan I'm sorry, but it just seemed rude to me. I certainly wouldn't get on your case for putting "A Serbian Film" on your year-end top 10 list, even if I think a movie like that is pretty despicable. But as is typical of an online writer, your first reaction was to mock the person who critiques you instead of realizing that what you said probably could have been said better.

      November 25, 2012 at 6:02PM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew I think people like to be offended. I think people take every opportunity they can to be outraged about the innocuous. If that sub-headline is really that big a deal to you, I'm not going to mock you, but I am going to suggest you examine your priorities. I think the movie's contempt for Hitchcock is matched only by it's near-total lack of understanding of his work, and I stand by the statement I made. I think it is an insulting picture, and I think you'd need to have either a near-total lack of knowledge of his work or an open dislike of him as a person to think this is great.

      There was no mistake in what I said, and I think if you want to be offended about it, you'll be offended about it, and there's nothing I'm going to say that's going to change that.

      I believe Berkley Breathed once coined the phrase "hyperoffensensitivity," and that was before the Internet. If only he knew how it would progress.

      For the record, it was the suggestion that one sub-headline would suddenly burn down every bit of goodwill I might have earned with my sixteen years of work as a film critic that I found particularly condescending. I cannot possibly begin to tiptoe around every single potentially upsetting phrase, Ryan, nor should I. As a critic, I'm aware that people will always find reasons to disagree with things I write.

      And I never said all opinions are equally valid. I see uninformed and ignorant opinions all the time, and I do not think they all carry equal weight, nor that they are all equally important to consider.

      November 25, 2012 at 6:14PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Ryan Well first off, I should have said "have" and not "had" in the last line of my first post. It just seems odd to me, after recently rereading your end of decade list for movie suggestions, where you talk about lists and opinions being subjective, that you would automatically classify anybody who enjoys the movie as wrong.
      I have not seen the movie and I don't plan on it. I'm not defending it. I actually mostly thought your line was interesting because one of your own colleagues on this website gave the movie a good review I believe, and my first thought when reading your headline was a sarcastic "I guess his opinion no longer counts then."

      Regardless of how poorly this movie depicts Alfred Hitchcock, I find it hard to believe that anybody who enjoys this movie is wrong.

      November 25, 2012 at 7:08PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Ryan But it's nice to know that you've nit-picked my one use of the past tense on mistake into me being condescending, while you have an entire sub-headline that's actually condescending towards the opinion of others.

      November 25, 2012 at 7:10PM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Are you going to keep beating this drum?

      The sub-headline, which you have given WAY MORE ATTENTION THAN ANY SUB-HEADLINE EVER, is not condescending. I think you're using that word wrong. It is, however, opinionated. I will repeat again... I think the film is insulting and demonstrates a near-total lack of understanding of Hitchcock as a person and an artist. Therefore, it goes to follow that if you think this is a great film about Hitchcock, then MY OPINION WHICH IS ENTIRELY MY OPINION AND NOT A HARD AND FAST RULE BY WHICH I BELIEVE EVERY OTHER PERSON ON THE PLANET MUST LIVE is that you probably don't care for Hitchcock much, and that the more you enjoy it, the less you like the real Hitchcock. That remains my opinion. It will remain my opinion no matter how many ways I rephrase it.

      This is what I mean about people being offended about ridiculous things. If you haven't even seen the film, why are you so upset? And if you end up liking the film, then what does it matter? You disagree with a point it made. I'm sure it will happen again in the future. Possibly even many times. I was not attacking you or anyone else on a personal level, and it feels like you just decided that this is a line in the sand for no compelling reason.

      I hate the culture of "Don't say anything that might upset anyone!" Put some pads on, grow a slightly thicker skin, and realize that critics are, by the very definition of their job, going to choose sides on things and often in a way that doesn't have any interest in the "everyone is right and all opinions are equal and there is no such thing as bad" position.

      November 25, 2012 at 7:25PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Ryan Ok, now I don't respect you as a critic anymore. Or as a person. You're blatantly lying about what it says. And the big issue for me is not the sub-headline, it's your continued lies and defense of it. An opinion that says the opinions of others is invalid is just wrong. You're rude and obnoxious and you're just a miserable person, which is why you hid behind a fake name for a decade and why many people in Hollywood hate you now. Have a great life continuing to be miserable.

      November 25, 2012 at 7:38PM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Somehow, Ryan, I will try to soldier on without your respect.

      November 25, 2012 at 8:03PM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew I will point out that it is hilarious when you say "an opinion that another opinion is wrong is wrong, and that is my opinion." You decided to be offended at the start of this thread, and you continue to play the part well.

      One day, when you're an adult, you will understand that not all opinions are equal or valid, and not everything that someone says deserves to be treated as correct simply because they said it. Until then, good luck making your way through the world with all the potential offenses there are out there. I fear for your delicate sensibilities, and wish you nothing but well.

      November 25, 2012 at 8:06PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Ryan You've never once been honest here. My exact quote is, as written above, "An opinion that says the opinions of others is invalid is wrong." You can have an opinion that somebody else is wrong, but believe that another person's opinion does not count is narrow-minded. Do you not see the difference between my exact quote and the pathetic lie that you wrote? "an opinion that another opinion is wrong is wrong, and that is my opinion." I mean, come on.

      I'm not the one who needs to be growing up either. I'm only 22, and still have time to mature, but I'm an intelligent law student who has not made any incorrect statements here, while you've constantly lied about what you have said and what I am saying to you. You're what, 40? And continuously lying in a debate with somebody over the Internet? It's actually sad.

      November 26, 2012 at 12:27AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Ryan And I didn't say an opinion automatically makes you correct. Stop making stupid assumptions and listen.

      November 26, 2012 at 12:30AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      DW I always enjoy it when people bring up the fact that they are a "law student" and "intelligent" as if both are one and the same (the same way "intelligent" and "film critic" are never used in the same sentence). I also like that people who accuse other people of being "narrow minded" are just as narrow minded themselves. Perhaps we should stick with what we know and leave it at that.

      November 26, 2012 at 1:04PM EST
    • Freakazoid_talkback_profile

      mmcb105 "An opinion that says the opinions of others is invalid is wrong."

      You do realize that even in its original state this is a paradox, right?

      November 26, 2012 at 1:38PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Ryan Well DW, you're right that they're not one and the same, but I didn't assert that, I said that I am both. You have to be to go to a top law school. It's just a fact. And MMCB, I don't think you know the meaning of the word "invalid"...... it means "not valid," "null," or void," it does not mean "wrong". All informed opinions are valid, even if they are not correct. But thank you for interjecting........

      November 26, 2012 at 3:51PM EST
    • Freakazoid_talkback_profile

      mmcb105 Weird, and here stupid old me thought that "wrong" and "invalid" could be synonyms. Oh wait...

      http://thesaurus.com/browse/invalid?s=t

      Also, at the risk of putting words into DW's mouth, saying that you are intelligent and actually being intelligent are two entirely different things.

      November 26, 2012 at 4:21PM EST
    • Freakazoid_talkback_profile

      mmcb105 Oh, and your welcome.

      November 26, 2012 at 4:46PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      DW I also like it when people add that they go to a "top" law school. I grovel at your superior feet.

      November 26, 2012 at 4:47PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Bonzai This movie was fucking terrible. When the facts are not accurate, it is quite the insult to the viewer in my opinion. And I'm a huge Hitchcock fan.

      Ryan, grow the hell up you little weasel neck-beard. Criticism is always about an opinion. If you don't like it, you move on. You don't come out saying "wtf I had respect for you. YOU CHANGED MAN." That's just childish. Course you probably came from AICN's where the majority of maturity there is about as low as a second-rate Internet Troll.

      Drew, never change.

      November 28, 2012 at 5:04AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    nick_r

    I concur. This movie just barely clears the bar for "watchable," which is a pretty hideous crime considering how amazing the cast is. I don't know a lot about Hitchcock, but I know a fair amount, and there's very little about the movie or the character that I believe. Certainly there's no way he ever made that final heartfelt speech to Alma, and if he did it was horribly cynical considering what he went on to do to Tippi Hedren just a short time later. I have to assume that the actual truth of their marriage was that it was a very strategic creative and business partnership, with both of them knowing exactly what they were getting out of it but having no illusions about it being any kind of great love. Alma was too smart for that, and Hitchcock himself had very little interest in correcting anything about his various flaws.

    The biggest problem is that the movie wants to mostly lionize Hitchcock, but it also wants to get some sensationalism out of his bad behavior and fetishes. You can't have it both ways. There could possibly have been a pretty decent movie made that was pure hagiography, ignoring everything remotely unsettling about the man and focusing entirely on his genius. And there could have been a much better film made by wallowing in every inch of Hitchcock's various psychoses and positing (correctly, in my view) that the only good thing that came out of his life was his body of work. By purposely striving to be neither of these movies, HITCHCOCK adds nothing to the conversation.

    November 24, 2012 at 8:07PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Scottmendelson12.08_112c_talkback_profile

      ScottMendelson "Certainly there's no way he ever made that final heartfelt speech to Alma, and if he did it was horribly cynical considering what he went on to do to Tippi Hedren just a short time later."

      Indeed, which is what makes the final scene (which I won't reveal here) such a thoughtless cheap shot. It's basically the equivalent of a Batman Begins that basically proclaimed that Batman was the greatest thing ever with no negative consequences to come and then tease that Joker card without any intended irony...

      November 25, 2012 at 9:38PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    MondoVampire

    "There's a running thread in the film where Hitchcock speaks to Ed Gein..."

    Does this movie acknowledge Robert Bloch in any way?

    November 24, 2012 at 11:36PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      nick_r They show the novel with his name on it.

      November 25, 2012 at 12:12AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Chuck

    So not as good as the "Story of Us" or "Love Guru" then?

    All kidding aside, I have seen the movie and enjoyed it for what it was--a mere speculative fiction trifle. Those looking for a deep examination of Hitchcock should look elsewhere. But it was funny and engaging and not bad at all. I see where you are coming from in your critique but you are being far too harsh. It's a well done droll comedy about Hitchcock. Do I wish it was more? Sure. But you must judge a movie off what it is, not what you want it to be.

    November 25, 2012 at 12:13AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      nick_r I understand what you're saying, and if big-budget Hitchcock biopics with incredible casts were coming out once a year, I wouldn't care. But this was probably our one chance (at least for a very long time) to see this movie done well, and it was not done well at all.

      November 25, 2012 at 2:23AM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew But it's not about Hitchcock. That's the thing. The person in the film is named Alfred Hitchcock, and there are details that are similar, but so much of what happens in the film is simply fiction, total falsehood, and far less interesting than any of what actually occurred.

      What a dud.

      November 25, 2012 at 4:39AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Chuck All films are fiction, Drew. So did you hate it outright or hate it because it was a misrepresentation of Hitchcock? There's a difference. I'm not saying you are wrong for your feelings but they must be parsed out. If you remove this film from the (literal) shadow of Hitchcock, it's not bad. I agree it fails as biography, maybe drama too... But it's a decent comedy. Weird that people with opportunity to examine Hitchcock would take that route but... There we are.

      November 25, 2012 at 11:06AM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew What? All films are fiction? Oh noes!

      I hate it for both reasons, Chuck, as I said in the review above. It does a terrible job of telling even the most basic details about Hitchcock correctly, and the changes it makes are dramatically inert, making them even stranger. I think it is a visually unappealing film, I think the "comedy" is witless, and I hate movies where characters sit around mouthing the themes of the film. I think it fails completely. Is that clear?

      November 25, 2012 at 5:01PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Chuck Drew, there is no reason to get upset. I am not trying to call you out, just have a friendly discussion about the film. Okay? Let's stay cool. I would not disagree with any of your points, as I said they are valid... I am just saying I found more droll comedy to enjoy than you did. Okay? Friends again?

      November 25, 2012 at 7:16PM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew I'm not upset. I'm clarifying since you asked me a question about my reaction to the movie.

      I would have to feel like the film had a valid or interesting POV about the characters for me to find any of the "comedy" interesting. And listening to Gervasi talk, I'm not sure I agree with you that it was intended as comedy. I think the film is a mess in terms of tone.

      And the "all films are fiction" thing is a pure straw man argument. I am well aware this is not an actual document of Hitchcock's real life. But if none of the details of his life or the making of "Psycho" are important, why tell the story at all?

      November 25, 2012 at 7:32PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Chuck Andrew, I love you but you see your argument evaporating in front of you.... Good movie, not great, move on....

      November 25, 2012 at 8:42PM EST
    • Freakazoid_talkback_profile

      mmcb105 "Andrew," Chuck? Condescending much?

      November 26, 2012 at 1:22PM EST
  • Gamera1_talkback_profile

    KlarkKent

    Sounds like it's basically the season of crappy Oscar-bait films between this and Pi. I could see myself going to this since I have some friends that are really wanting to see it, but I am not interested at all in Life of Pi.

    November 25, 2012 at 12:30AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Chuck I've seen hitchcock. You can hate it for you want but it definitely was never trying to be "Oscar bait". It's far too irreverent and cheerful for that.

      November 25, 2012 at 1:33AM EST
    • Freakazoid_talkback_profile

      mmcb105 Biopics are always trying to be "Oscar bait."

      November 26, 2012 at 1:28PM EST
    • Gamera1_talkback_profile

      KlarkKent A biopic which is a film about the film industry and features an Oscar winning actor under a ton of make-up playing a real person. Gee, why would I think it could be curried up as Oscar bait?

      November 26, 2012 at 4:46PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Ugh

    This movie is a disaster. Almost nothing about it works.

    November 25, 2012 at 7:09PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Shawn

    Well this is really disappointing to hear! It is definitely too bad that Hopkins performance is more impersonation than acting. Really sad all around. Was ScarJo good at all, Drew?

    November 25, 2012 at 7:52PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    josephdickerson

    Drew, great review. As someone who has been a student of Hitch and his films for 20+ years I'm absolutely stunned at the liberties taken to make a "dramatic" film. I've read the book the movie is based on (as well as three other Hitchcock studies/bios) and, like you, I can't see a movie there. A film about Hitch's LIFE, from his early days making cheap "penny dreadfuls" in England all the way to Frenzy, now THAT could be a great movie.

    I have a female friend, a struggling actress in Hollywood who LOVED this movie. I had previously respected her taste in films as well as her intellect. I may have to reconsider both opinions.

    November 26, 2012 at 9:20PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Yodachilliresize_bigger_talkback_profile

    BigAl6ft6

    Can I get a brief synopsis of the amount or lack thereof of the ScarJo nudity sit-rep? Thanks!

    November 26, 2012 at 11:23PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    CinemaPsycho

    Henry's Crime was directed by Malcolm Venville. Not to be a dick about it... Hitchcock is Gervasi's first non-documentary film.

    November 27, 2012 at 3:16AM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Around the Web