OUR RATING SYSTEM
(*****) = do NOT miss! This one is as good as they come.
(****) = Fantastic - It's worth the price of the ticket (and then some).
(***) = Average - Nothing really bad, nothing really spectacular...
(**) = Perhaps you should find another movie to see.
(*) =
The bottom of the barrel. It would be hard to find something less entertaining or more unworthy of your time.



Maureen
(Mo) holds a PhD in marine geophysics (Dr. Maureen, to you) and works for the U.S. Geological Survey in Santa Cruz, CA. Maureen enjoys the outdoors (skiing, swimming, hiking, camping), dogs, cooking, singing, getting into (and out of) uncomfortable situations, and most importantly, watching quality movies. She makes a point of seeing as many Oscar-nominated films as possible each year and (correctly) predicting the winners. Her role on this blog is primarily as an advisor, collaborator, and "chime in"-er.

John (Jo) holds a Bachelor's Degree in Nursing, as well as a Bachelor of Arts degree in Film Studies. He currently lives in Chicago, Illinois and works as a nurse. His one true obsession in life is movies... The good, the bad, and everything in between. Other than that, he is busy caring for his cat, painting, writing, exploring Chicago, and debating on whether or not to worship Tilda Swinton as a deity. John is the master and commander and primary author of this blog.

Saturday, November 24, 2012

Hitchcock (Jo**1/2)

Alfred Hitchcock is undoubtably one of cinema's most iconic characters. We knew so much about his films, his style, his creative processes, but the man himself was little more than a silhouette. What Hitchcock then sets out to do is admirable, but ultimately lost in its own sensationalism. Here is a film that had potential for greatness but failed to see where.

The film, of course, is a chronicle of the making of Hitchcock's most famous film, 'Psycho,' based on a Wisconsin serial killer named Ed Gein. Finding his next project after the enormous success of 'North By Northwest,' Hitchcock ultimately stumbles upon the novel, and without further debate, settles on the film as his next project. Much of the film's humor comes from the macabre topics the story is ultimately based on, as Hitchcock casually shows backers photographs of severed heads when trying to raise money for the project.

The film, which could have elaborated the struggles to make the film and the creative processes behind it, instead veers towards Hitchcock's marital problems. There is no doubt that Alma Hitchcock, his wife, was an integral part of his life, but when you are making a film about the behind the scenes aspect of a famous film, we as an audience do not necessarily want to spend an hour watching suspicions of an affair. In fact, little of the film even focuses on 'Psycho,' itself. And there's the problem. The film fails to recognize its target audience: film buffs. How much of Alma's story portrayed in the film is speculative? The same goes for Alfred. It is very easy to find a film about a troubled marriage, but how many films deal with the creative processes of Alfred Hitchcock, himself?

The acting, however, is exemplary. Anthony Hopkins all but disappears in the role (and makeup) to create a convincing Hitchcock, though at times it does feel a bit more caricature. Helen Mirren, likewise, is once again stunning in her co-leading role. Her character undoubtedly deals with much of the film's conflict, and in many ways she could be the film's actual protagonist.

Though there are a few nominations that could be had with Hitchcock, I would not be surprised to see it passed by entirely. The film had potential, but it truly failed to deliver what could have easily been one of the best films of the year.

(Awards potential: Best Actor (Hopkins), Best Actress (Mirren), Best Makeup)

No comments:

Post a Comment