Hitchcock

Una pequeña película con un buen elenco que sería genial como parte de una miniserie de televisión que seguiría a Hitch en cada trabajo de una de sus grandes películas. Esta se basa en la tensa vida del director, cuando (después del fracaso comercial de Vértigo (De entre los muertos)) se arriesgó y financió la película de su propio bolsillo. Una línea importante de la historia es el apoyo de su esposa, con quien actualmente vive vicisitudes celosas. Al igual que detrás de escena del rodaje de Psicosis, especialmente la idea original y los preparativos, la película mira hacia su sala de estar. Una buena película para sentirse bien, pero es cuestionable si al mítico director y su película más icónica no le vendría mejor un concepto más ostentoso por ejemplo, de parte de Scorsese. (07.02.2013)

A drama with a tabloid touch that tries to say so much at once that it ultimately not only doesn’t say anything, but it’s also aimless and in no way surprising. The director of some of the most refined cinematic gems of all time has been transformed into a callous font of bon mots who is a borderline psychopath. Under Gervasi’s stewardship, the production of Psycho has been reduced to a few worn-out stories from the shooting and the relationship between Hitchcock and Alma undergoes only one developmental shift (or rather cyclical return) in the whole film. The drawing of parallels between Hitchcock’s work and his personality is strained and has little to do with the actual making of Psycho (except for one badly made montage scene). Like most of the other motifs employed in the film, the psychoanalysis sessions with Ed Gein are there just to fill up space. The exploration of the dark corners inside the mind of Alfred Hitchcock, who managed to channel his thoughts of murder, if he actually had any, into creative work, is only hinted at but not carried out. The film often presents dubious facts, but it misses the context. On top of that, it lacks suspense, there are no jokes whose punchline you wouldn’t guess half a minute in advance, and the acting is unconvincing, as Mirren only plays the umpteenth variation of an overly indulgent wife and Hopkins strives mainly to look like Hitch, but he doesn’t manage to rise above the level of a good caricature (for which mainly the screenplay is to blame). However, he still got more opportunities to given an impression of psychological credibility than Anthony Perkins (the queer guy) or Vera Miles (the bitter bitch). There are a few moments that elicit a faint smile, one or two allusions for the initiated and a bad feeling that someone wanted to profit off of a famous name without putting too much thought into it. Hitchcock is not a catastrophic failure. Perhaps even worse than that, it’s just average in every way. 55% (06.02.2013)

The master of suspense Alfred Hitchcock didn’t deserve such an average film. What to say about a film that is technically good, well acted, pleasantly relaxing and brisk, when it fizzles out from your memory only a couple of days after watching it? A work lacking any ambition and ideas. I don’t need every film to be “important”, but in this particular case, it’s a pity that it isn’t. One foot inside, the other outside. (10.01.2013)

Debut or not, I liked this movie. I liked that the director took a different approach than they usually do with biopics. Because we’re not talking about Hitchcock himself, but rather about the most famous moment of his life. The overall general expectation is then taken down by the fact that the director himself decided to describe it. It doesn’t really matter what kind of a life Hitchcock had, it’s important how he led it, how he behaved and the way he acted towards the people around him. And this movie shows all of that. Hitchcock himself, who is ingeniously portrayed by Anthony Hopkins, is a completely unique character who starts the entire movie as well as finishes it. In my opinion, the ending was even one of the most intense biopic endings ever. And that’s something considering it isn’t about emotions; the fact that the scene is fun to watch is simply enough. Of course, I mustn’t forget Helen Mirren and Scarlett Johansson with Jessica Biel. All three of those girls played their roles perfectly and I was able to learn something new once again. For example, the fact that Hitchcock was such aperfectionist in a way that many of the directors lack nowadays and they try to make up for it by their movie budgets. (06.06.2013)

I didn’t like this much. Unlike Hitchcock movies, this semi-biography has no soul. Some of the gags work, the actors seem to be enjoying themselves and the directing is high class. The period design is delightful. But we don’t get anything more than that. There isn’t one single thing that remains in one’s memory. Too bad. (02.02.2013)

"...when you see the final version with Mr. Herrmann's beautiful, lyrical music..." Anthony Hopkins didn't lose himself under the layer of latex and behind the stuffed belly, and he doesn't just imitate Hitchcock, he simply is Hitchcock, and that's the way it should be. Although the film doesn't offer anything outright unfamiliar (all those stories about the making of Psycho appeared quite a few years ago), it nevertheless entertains and doesn't bore. Helen Mirren is perfect as always, Scarlett Johansson divinely beautiful... And James D'Arcy is so dangerously similar to Anthony Perkins that it's impossible. An excellent film with lots of funny and serious moments, which could have been much longer. Too bad we won't see another episode about The Birds. (04.03.2013)