Review: Hitchcock (2012)

2

hitch1


Cast: Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson
Director: Sacha Gervasi
Country: USA
Genre: Biography | Drama
Official Trailer: Here


For alternate takes on Hitchcock, see Jason McKiernan or Mel Valentin’s reviews

There are few filmmakers in the history of cinema more revered than Alfred Hitchcock. One of the great cases of a director being able to marry art and commerce, his film shocked, thrilled, entertained, and inspired countless viewers for decades. He also was known as increasingly troubled. His behavior towards his famous “Hitchcock blondes” often either bordered on or crossed the line into unprofessional. His treatment of Tippi Hedren on the set of The Birds is well documented, bordering on abusive. Such a complex artist surely would make a fascinating subject for a cinematic study of the man. I believe one day such a film might exist. Hitchcock is not that film, not by a long shot.

Anthony Hopkins does a fine Hitchcock impression, though the increasingly bad makeup makes it harder and harder to buy into it as anything particularly serious.

hitch3The film takes place right after the premiere of North by Northwest. Having recovered from the critical and commercial flop that was Vertigo, he’s king of the world again with a smash hit. But he finds himself bored with his current creative course. He needs something completely different. Enter Psycho, a book based on a series of grisly murders that Hitchcock finds utterly compelling. He wants to option the book as his next film, but the studios won’t touch the film with a ten-foot pole so he decides to finance it himself, with distribution from Paramount upon the film’s completion.

Much of the film details the collaborative creative process between Hitchcock and his wife, Alma Reville. Increasingly troubled by her husband’s own obsessions and quirks, she reconnects with an old flame of sorts who is hoping to woo her away from her neglectful husband, all while Hitch struggles to get Psycho made. Anthony Hopkins does a fine Hitchcock impression, though the increasingly bad makeup makes it harder and harder to buy into it as anything particularly serious. Helen Mirren carries the film squarely on her brilliant shoulders. It’s as if she’s the only one who thinks she’s actually in a film though, not playing dress-up.

At best, it’s a fleetingly fun comedy with some movie trivia thrown in for film buffs. At worst, it’s an elongated and horribly flat Saturday Night Live skit with absolutely nothing to say about its subject, either through satire or attempts at drama.

hitch4And really, there’s the rub. The whole enterprise feels false and put-on. At best, it’s a fleetingly fun comedy with some movie trivia thrown in for film buffs. At worst, it’s an elongated and horribly flat Saturday Night Live skit with absolutely nothing to say about its subject, either through satire or attempts at drama. The script reeks of a first draft, thrown together at the last minute, just giddy with the opportunity to make a film about such a legendary figure, but without any care whatsoever to tone, subtext, or structural consistency. Every line that attempts insight into the mind of one of cinema’s great artists is nothing but hollow dramatic platitude, pandering to the lowest common denominator with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. “You will always be the most beautiful Hitchcock blonde.” “I’ve been waiting forty years to hear you say that.” I don’t think I’ve ever simultaneously groaned, rolled my eyes, and cringed at the final line of a film before, but I certainly did here.

Hitchcock is a fumbling attempt at a snapshot character study that amounts to absolutely nothing beyond a few mildly amusing jokes. I admit to snorting at one or two of Hitch’s own juvenile puns, but the film rarely ever aims higher than that, and when it does, it crashes under the weight of its own self-importance. An absolute disaster on all fronts, even a pair of legendary actors can’t save it from being, in Hitch’s own words “stillborn”.

[notification type=”star”]25/100 ~ PAINFUL. Hitchcock is a fumbling attempt at a snapshot character study that amounts to absolutely nothing beyond a few mildly amusing jokes.[/notification]

Share.

About Author

Austin Film Critic. I am a blogger, critic, and writer living in Austin, TX. I first became serious about film after seeing The Lord of the Rings trilogy in its original theatrical run between 2001 and 2003. Since then, film has become my life and there's no better job than writing about what I love.

  • This films premise was so promising … it’s a shame it does not live up to a Hitchcockian memorry

  • Sharon Ballon

    I enjoyed the story, they had great actors, the movie as a whole…. well wait til it comes to DVD.