Review: Hitchcock

Every year there seems to be an influx of films based around similar unique subjects. Who could forget last year when we saw the atrocious-looking Mirror Mirror go head to head with the also pretty poor Snow White and the Huntsman? Well, this year it seems to be the turn of the “the story behind the historical event/person” film. First came Hyde Park on Hudson, which saw Bill Murray do his best turn as FDR, welcoming the King and Queen of England for a weekend of bonding, Hot Dogs and revelations. The film promised audiences the “real” story, based on diaries by Franklin’s second cousin and lover, Daisy, and while the premise was interesting, the film was pale in comparison to Tom Hooper’s Oscar-Winner The King’s Speech, featuring the same royals. And now, with Anthony Hopkins donning a fatsuit, we have Hitchcock.

The film centres on the development and filming of Hitchcock’s seminal Psycho, taking us from the moment he first reads Robert Bloch’s book, to its first screening. As well as this, it offers us a side-plot based around Hitch and his wife Alma’s (as played by Helen Mirren, making the best she can out of an uninteresting script) marital difficulties after her friendship with an old writing partner is rekindled. It’s not exactly hard to guess which of these storylines flourish, and which fails. Sadly, just like Hyde Park on Hudson, Hitchcock’s makers seem to think that the most fascinating element of the film is “the man behind the myth”, and focuses most of the film on his personal life, rather than on the making of the film itself. While this may just be my interest in cinema talking, I found the parts of the film that detailed the filming process and casting to be more interesting than the rest. While it can be said that audiences enjoy learning more about their favourite influential figures, it is sometimes more interesting to see what you already know interpreted in a new way.

So, while there are elements of Hitchcock which work, overall the film just doesn’t spark as much excitement as it should, considering that it is based on one of the most influential directors of all time. Hopkins and Mirren, alongside supporting turns from the likes of Scarlett Johansson and Toni Collette are convincing enough, and at a length of just over an hour and a half, the film never feels too drawn out, and is always able to keep your attention. However, unlike most of Hitchcock’s oeuvre, it severely lacks charisma, charm and thrills. 

Grace Barber-Plentie