Not Hitchcock.
Alfred Hitchcock (Hopkins) is in a tough situation; he has bet everything on Psycho, Hollywood doesn't like the idea, and he's starting to loose his mind. Furthermore, tiring of her lack of credit, his wife and creative partner, Alma Reville (Mirren), is looking to go her own way.
From watching Hitchcock I was left unsure of what the film was actually about, the daring notion of killing off your heroine in the first thirty minutes was the brain-child of Alma, not Hitch. Very little credit was actually given to Hitchcock, with the spotlight falling on his wife who assisted in the editing room, the script and even directing (when Hitch is ill). All I can see from this picture is that Hitchcock's main aim was to give Alma the credit she deserves, that's if what is depicted in the film is accurate.
Hopkins' performance as Hitch is fun but not entirely convincing. The main issue surrounding the portrayal of the Hollywood director was Hopkins' speech, which was too fast and agitated for Hitch's dawdling delivery. The same could be said for the film as a whole, quick, pleasurable at times; watching the squabbles between studio and film-maker, the relationship between Hitch and Alma, Hitch and his blonde leading lady. This is all good but director Gervasi only manages to tap into the surface, not focusing on one issue in enough detail.
Ultimately Hitchcock is very disappointing, "A nice, clean, nasty piece of work," is how Hitch describes the film within a film. Gervasi's movie is just too nice and slight and that's not nearly worthy enough of the man whose name carries the film.
J.Henderson.
5/10.
Alfred Hitchcock (Hopkins) is in a tough situation; he has bet everything on Psycho, Hollywood doesn't like the idea, and he's starting to loose his mind. Furthermore, tiring of her lack of credit, his wife and creative partner, Alma Reville (Mirren), is looking to go her own way.
From watching Hitchcock I was left unsure of what the film was actually about, the daring notion of killing off your heroine in the first thirty minutes was the brain-child of Alma, not Hitch. Very little credit was actually given to Hitchcock, with the spotlight falling on his wife who assisted in the editing room, the script and even directing (when Hitch is ill). All I can see from this picture is that Hitchcock's main aim was to give Alma the credit she deserves, that's if what is depicted in the film is accurate.
Hopkins' performance as Hitch is fun but not entirely convincing. The main issue surrounding the portrayal of the Hollywood director was Hopkins' speech, which was too fast and agitated for Hitch's dawdling delivery. The same could be said for the film as a whole, quick, pleasurable at times; watching the squabbles between studio and film-maker, the relationship between Hitch and Alma, Hitch and his blonde leading lady. This is all good but director Gervasi only manages to tap into the surface, not focusing on one issue in enough detail.
Ultimately Hitchcock is very disappointing, "A nice, clean, nasty piece of work," is how Hitch describes the film within a film. Gervasi's movie is just too nice and slight and that's not nearly worthy enough of the man whose name carries the film.
J.Henderson.
5/10.
No comments:
Post a Comment