Hitchcock - Review

I have to admit, I'm a bit surprised that it's taken this long to finally get a biopic made about Alfred Hitchcock, not only one of Hollywood's greatest artists but quite frankly one of filmmaking's most important innovators. He was (and still is) often nicknamed the "Master of Suspense." While that is most definitely true, I think even that kind of sells his talents short. You see, Hitchcock didn't only master the art of movie suspense, he pretty much created it, in the sense that he basically discovered the formula to consistently generating an emotional reaction from audiences. While his name has often been synonymous with the horror and thriller genres, the art of suspense isn't exclusive to any one genre, it's just a general concept to keep eyes glued to a screen, be it in a horror film when you're impatiently waiting for that masked killer to strike again, a thriller when a bomb in a building is less than a minute away from detonating, an action film where the hero and villain are fighting for their lives on the edge of cliff, or even a comedy when that clumsy main character just can't impress the parents of his would-be wife. Just about any kind of suspense beat (if it's well-done) is generally executed according to Hitchcock's methods and rules. Not only are his films and techniques being analyzed and studied in film schools across the world, his contributions to the art of film will forever echo across the silver screen. Yeah... as you can probably tell, I'm a HUGE fan of Alfred Hitchcock. So this film was kind of a big deal for me, and it's one for which I had pretty high expectations before seeing. How does it pan out? Let's take a look...

The film starts off at the premiere of Alfred Hitchcock's (played by Anthony Hopkins) 1959 classic, North By Northwest, where soon afterwords he starts searching for inspiration for his next film. When he comes across Robert Bloch's novel, Psycho, a story about a mother-obsessed psychopath (loosely inspired by the real-life murders of serial killer Ed Gein), he immediately decides that this will be his next movie. Despite backlash of the novel's violent content from everyone including the studio, producers, investors, and censors, he insists on making the film, going so far to even fund it out of his own pocket. His only real support is his dedicated wife, Alma Reville (played to perfection by Helen Mirren) who, despite her objections to the source material and a rocky relationship with her husband, stands by him and even assists in the production of the film (as she had done in most of his previous films). As production begins, controversy builds over the film's content and Hitchcock slowly starts loosing his mind attempting to execute such a risky and ambitious project while dealing with the increased stress of the strained relationship between him and Alma.

So despite my biases toward the real Hitchcock, the movie Psycho (which by the way is one of my all-time favorite movies), or horror movies and filmmaking in general, how does the film hold up? From a purely objective standpoint... it's good, but not great. It's got a great cast, solid production design, and includes some interesting tid-bits toward it's the man it's portraying as well as his influence plus some nice little shout-outs to his TV work. There's also a few shout-outs to some notable understated figures in Hollywood (Saul Bass, Bernard Herrmann, and others). It's unfortunately held back by an inconsistent tone, some predictable and formulaic story beats, and a lack of any real profound depth or insight into the Master of Suspense. While there's plenty to enjoy here, there's just no denying that for someone as important and interesting as Hitchcock, there's definitely something missing.

Had it not been for the cast selling the hell out of there roles, I doubt I'd be giving the movie any kind of recommendation. Anthony Hopkins was, by all accounts, a pretty damn awesome choice for the role of Hitch. While he wasn't exactly spot-on in the appearance department compared to the actual Hitchcock, they managed to get him looking fairly close to the real guy. At the very least, Hopkins manages to do a near uncanny impression of Hitchcock, getting his voice and mannerisms (at least how he presented himself on camera) down to a tee. The show-stealer, however, is none other than Helen Mirren as Alma Reville. Mirren always brings her A-game to her films, and this is no exception. She owns nearly every scene in which she appears, and at times even manages to upstage Hopkins (whose no stranger to stealing scenes) in some of the film's key moments. I think an Oscar nomination for Mirren as best supporting actress is all but guaranteed at this point. There are some other important figures and characters portrayed throughout the movie, but the film mainly keeps the focus on Alfred and Alma, so that's all I'm going to go into now. Though I will say that there were no bad performances, most were actually quite good, just not on screen long enough to make any real lasting impression.

The story is a bit of a mixed bag, which I have to admit is pretty disappointing. As I mentioned, for a man as important as Alfred Hitchcock and a movie as important as Psycho, you would really hope for something with a little more substance. What we get is essentially an account of the making of Psycho, and the troubles that entailed with a side story of Alfred and Alma's shaky marriage. The story about Psycho has some interesting moments, at times attempting to dive into the psyche of Hitchcock. There are a couple of scenes where he imagines interacting with Ed Gein (the real-life inspiration for Psycho's Norman Bates). These scenes are genuinely interesting and, along with some subtle hints of Hitchcock's obsessions with some of his actresses, really open up some doors for a creative and compelling character study about something like the psychological impact of the creative process or possibly the lengths of which an artist will go to accomplish one's vision. Unfortunately, in the end, all that is really revealed is that Hitchcock was an eccentric, slightly arrogant, and somewhat stubborn visionary fascinated by subjects like murder, crime, and the human mind's capacity for dark thoughts. To anyone whose seen a Hitchcock film or even two minutes of him being interviewed, that's not much of a revelation. In the end, it really comes down to the love story between Hitch and Alma, which is about as formulaic and predictable as they get. I will admit that's it kind of cool that they made Alma the unsung hero of the film. Hopefully she'll start receiving more credit for her work in her husband's films. Ultimately, the story is engaging enough I suppose, but it never has a solid grasp on it's tone or subject matter. At times it's a quirky comedy and times it borders on a psychological drama, and it just feels a little messy in the end.

Despite it's flaws, Hitchcock is definitely worth seeing. If you've got even a slight interest in Hitchcock's movies or film in general, then you'll probably find something to enjoy. At the very least, it's worth seeing for the great performances between Mirren and Hopkins, both of whom might come away with Oscar nominations. I saw it, I enjoyed it, and I think most will as well.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!