Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½
Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½
Year: 2012
Cast: Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson
Genre: Biography/Drama
MPAA Rating: PG-13
“The great and glorious, genius Alfred Hitchcock” has struck again, only this time, it’s Anthony Hopkins; you can’t really tell the difference though due to his flawless acting. Hitchcock is a great movie that told the story of Alfred Hitchcock in the time of Psycho. Fortunately, when I saw this film I had already seen Psycho, which was a major advantage for me, the way I saw it. While you don’t necessarily have to have already seen it, it definitely will make the film more enjoyable. Hitchcock delves into the pre-production of the film and how it affected Hitchcock and his wife’s relationship, and his haggle with the MPAA, but not too much more, which was the film’s biggest flaw. After viewing it, while it is a great movie, I realized that it was forgettable because the film was too short and the emotional content as far as his pressure was fairly shallow.
While I don’t consider the film firsthand as a biography, it did tell the life story of Hitchcock; so technically speaking, it is one. This means that it should’ve been longer than the 98 minutes that it ran for. Films such as The Kings Speech and Goodfellas are biographies that could not have been done in a shorter time; for good reason too, as they both spent much time developing their foundation. In my opinion, there are very little biographical films that can accomplish the label “good” when they are short. Don’t get me wrong, this movie earns that label, but because of its briefness, the movie does lack that emotional tug that makes us as viewers remember the film among many other biographies.
Aside from the described flaws, the film is immaculate. Entertainment factor, while it is a problem for some biographies, is not for Hitchcock. It focuses on so many different aspects of his career in Psycho’s time, and it’s all piled up into one little hour-and-a-half; how could it not be entertaining? Many intense scenes came out of Hitchcock’s assumptions of his wife’s relationship with another man, that were critical to the outcome of the film. Scarlett Johansson played the role of Janet Leigh (go figure, an actress playing an actress), and stole Hitchcock’s attention off and on the set, which was another thing that fueled his wife’s anger, and raised his suspicion. With many more intriguing factors to the film, I found myself stammering, “It-it-it can’t be over!”, but it was, to my misfortune.
Let’s face it; Hitchcock is irreplaceable. He changed the art of mystery forever, and his mark will forever remain on cinema. But how accurate, I wonder, were his dreams and nightmares of the characters in the movie? The answer to that is: it doesn’t matter. If those dreams occurred, great. If not, fine. But I’ll tell you this, it certainly made the movie better, and maddening, as we see what Hitchcock envisioned, and how he tried to produce something of that caliber; it resonates.
To those who have seen some of Hitchcock’s works such as Rear Window, Vertigo, The Birds, and many more, this film did a necessary task for Hollywood; it celebrated Hitchcock even more. And to those that haven’t, it opened many eyes. Hitchcock left me yearning for more, unfortunately, but also very pleased with what I got. If it were dessert, I would’ve ordered seconds.
-Written by Cole Pollyea
“The great and glorious, genius Alfred Hitchcock” has struck again, only this time, it’s Anthony Hopkins; you can’t really tell the difference though due to his flawless acting. Hitchcock is a great movie that told the story of Alfred Hitchcock in the time of Psycho. Fortunately, when I saw this film I had already seen Psycho, which was a major advantage for me, the way I saw it. While you don’t necessarily have to have already seen it, it definitely will make the film more enjoyable. Hitchcock delves into the pre-production of the film and how it affected Hitchcock and his wife’s relationship, and his haggle with the MPAA, but not too much more, which was the film’s biggest flaw. After viewing it, while it is a great movie, I realized that it was forgettable because the film was too short and the emotional content as far as his pressure was fairly shallow.While I don’t consider the film firsthand as a biography, it did tell the life story of Hitchcock; so technically speaking, it is one. This means that it should’ve been longer than the 98 minutes that it ran for. Films such as The Kings Speech and Goodfellas are biographies that could not have been done in a shorter time; for good reason too, as they both spent much time developing their foundation. In my opinion, there are very little biographical films that can accomplish the label “good” when they are short. Don’t get me wrong, this movie earns that label, but because of its briefness, the movie does lack that emotional tug that makes us as viewers remember the film among many other biographies.
Aside from the described flaws, the film is immaculate. Entertainment factor, while it is a problem for some biographies, is not for Hitchcock. It focuses on so many different aspects of his career in Psycho’s time, and it’s all piled up into one little hour-and-a-half; how could it not be entertaining? Many intense scenes came out of Hitchcock’s assumptions of his wife’s relationship with another man, that were critical to the outcome of the film. Scarlett Johansson played the role of Janet Leigh (go figure, an actress playing an actress), and stole Hitchcock’s attention off and on the set, which was another thing that fueled his wife’s anger, and raised his suspicion. With many more intriguing factors to the film, I found myself stammering, “It-it-it can’t be over!”, but it was, to my misfortune.
Let’s face it; Hitchcock is irreplaceable. He changed the art of mystery forever, and his mark will forever remain on cinema. But how accurate, I wonder, were his dreams and nightmares of the characters in the movie? The answer to that is: it doesn’t matter. If those dreams occurred, great. If not, fine. But I’ll tell you this, it certainly made the movie better, and maddening, as we see what Hitchcock envisioned, and how he tried to produce something of that caliber; it resonates.
To those who have seen some of Hitchcock’s works such as Rear Window, Vertigo, The Birds, and many more, this film did a necessary task for Hollywood; it celebrated Hitchcock even more. And to those that haven’t, it opened many eyes. Hitchcock left me yearning for more, unfortunately, but also very pleased with what I got. If it were dessert, I would’ve ordered seconds.
-Written by Cole Pollyea
No comments:
Post a Comment