I haven’t actually seen any of his movies, but on the day that I wrote the post, “Movies, why do I like them?” I watched the movie, Hitchcock.


Let’s get the basics down first. The acting of Sir Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren are impeccable. I expected that going into it. Personally, the last thirty minutes of the movie showcased some damn fine acting on their parts.

Second of all. This is a bit of a dramedy. I read this review by Roger Ebert, actually, and he considered the subplot concerning the marriage of Hitchcock and his wife, Alma, to be a distraction.

But that subplot, in essence, was actually the plot of the entire movie. The movie is about their relationship during the filming of Psycho. I could see how it would be a problem if the summary and trailer told you: “This is only about the filming of Psycho. Nothing else.”

Yet, the problems with their marriage, in a way, is an attempt to humanize the character of Hitchcock. Let’s face it. You can’t really sympathize with a man such as Alfred Hitchcock from the get-go. Because we don’t know how hard it is to make movies, and if it only showed that part of him, we’d all go: “Well, he just jeopardized his house for a movie? Ridiculous!”

And we wouldn’t be able to sympathize with him as much. Whereas, the combination of his marital problems (something most regular folk and strange folk alike experience at one point in their lives) helps to make it an overall more… human experience.

This is also the type of movie where you would have to listen to fully appreciate it. It’s pretty funny at times, and rather deep at others. For me, it just has the right amount of seriousness and comedy that I can watch it whenever I want. I have trouble watching comedies like Grown Ups – no matter what mood I have – and I have trouble watching movies like the Godfather or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind if I’m feeling… well, light hearted?

But I enjoy it when I see a movie that uses just the right amount of both that makes me want to watch it whenever – despite my mood.

I have trouble, however, giving it a 10 star review or something like that, though. Just as I have trouble saying, “The Avengers is one of the greatest movies!”

(I can’t even say it’s an especially great movie. Don’t know why, but it’s missing something. )

This movie, same as above, is missing something. It lacks the uniqueness and originality of new characters altogether, although it compensates by having us go, “OHH. Janet Leigh thinks Hitchcock is less controlling than Orson Welles?”

It would have benefitted if it utilized some name dropping. Of course, name dropping makes it less accessible to the younger generation ( I being one of them), but would the younger generation really watch a movie about a British fellow in his mid-sixties directing a really, really old movie that doesn’t even have any explosions?* But, it could emphasize the fact that some of these actors have worked with actors that some of the viewers idolized as children. Or their parents’ idolized when they were kids, as well. Maybe some more emphasis on the fact that Hitchcock directed a lot of movies that cemented Cary Grant as a really great actor, and that they featured Ingrid Bergman. The woman from Casablanca. It just didn’t take enough advantage of those things.

*Not a lot of them would. It’s a sad fact, and I am in no way insulting their intelligences, but… Still. Even I, the most pretentious member of the younger generation, still hesitates about watching really old movies. First of all, they most likely (actually, they really won’t) have the eclectic dialogue of movies like Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and In Bruges. And that’s what I really liked about those movies. They talked. Like real people.

So many times, I end up watching a movie where the dialogue is simply a tool to keep the plot going. Sometimes, I’d rather have, “I don’t tip waitresses,” than a sturdy, “Well, let’s go rob that jewelry store.”

That’s a reference to Reservoir Dogs, by the way.

I especially enjoyed the fact that I discovered a lot about American cinema before Hitchcock’s movie, Psycho. Before his movie, a toilet had never been shown on camera in the entire history of American cinema. Also, it was the bloodiest movie at the time.

Bear in mind, that the “stabbing” scenes don’t even show the knife breaking flesh. That is genius.

And for that reason, I give this movie a 7.5/10.

It is a great movie. I’d ask you to think before watching it, but after that one second of hesitation, do it. 




(Note: The asterisk is a continuation of my original point about the younger generation not watching a movie like this without ample reason. Y’see, I get sidetracked really easily. )


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s