When I heard about Hitchcock it immediately went to the top of my “to watch” list. It was a film that I wanted to see in theatres but I don’t think it played anywhere short of a half hour drive away. I fear now that after seeing it myself, it would have been a repeat of the J. Edgar fiasco. I would have enjoyed it, as I did tonight, but I’m doubtful that any of my old movie going friends would have. I’ve learned not to make suggestions anymore.
Hitchcock tells the “behind the scenes” story of the famed director’s struggles to make Psycho. Touching on the problems with the studios, the censors, his cast (particularly his leading ladies) and of course his wife Alma Reville who assisted writing and editing some of “Hitch’s” most famed works. There were hints of infidelity on Alma’s part and also hints that she was more of a driving force to the great director. Their relationship was played out very nicely by Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren as the movie is more about Alfred and Alma than “Hitchcock” himself, or his films. Also starring Scarlett Johansson playing Janet Leigh, did an excellent job especially in the recreation of the famous “shower scene”. I was quite impressed by the acting overall but I always find it curious to watch actors that I know playing the parts of other actors, nested in their roles acting in another film. I often wonder when actors play “real” characters (not just playing other actors, but anyone of any public fame) if they are acting, interpreting or just imitating their subjects. A good part of Hopkin’s performance was the makeup, the voice, and the mannerisms, which I suppose is Hopkins doing a Hitchcock “impression”.
The film was enjoyable enough but I guess my complaint is that the film didn’t really do anything. Was it just a very trimmed down look at the making of another movie? Hitchcock really just seemed to scratch the surface of some truly interesting subject matters, by showing us how directors have to sometimes fight for their films to be made, but it also shied away from any kind of depth. I guess the “tell” in this one is that minutes after watching Hitchcock, I put in (and thoroughly enjoyed) Psycho.
Simply amazing, an example of true horror and suspense, with Hitch at his peak. Loosely based on Robert Bloch’s pulp novel, which was itself loosely based on killer Ed Gein, Psycho presents us with the tale of Marion Crane — who, in a moment of madness, steals forty-thousand dollars. Running scared, Marion checks into the out-of-the-way Bates Motel, and the rest is cinematic history. The suspense and horror are heightened by the excellent choice to use black and white cinematography and Bernard Herrmann’s often imitated but never duplicated score making Psycho about as close to perfect as a film can get. Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh, Martin Balsam and Vera Miles give great performances rounding out a night at the movies that will make you think twice before showering.
There we go, a 2 for 1 of movie reviews tonight, as I’ve been away from movie watching for a few weeks now. I’ve been hooked on TV lately; pushing my way through disc after disc of Castle (which I got hooked on when I stumbled upon the first episode on TV but quickly grew tired of commercials and waiting a whole day for the next syndicated episode); stressing out about the last few episodes of Walking Dead (Season 3); and anxiously awaiting the return of the Doctor.
Posted on 13-03-24, in 3 Star, Movie Reviews and tagged 3 star, Alfred Hitchcock, Anthony Hopkins, bio-flick, Helen Mirren, Hitchcock, movie, Psycho, review, Scarlett Johansson. Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.