"What if someone really good made a horror picture." After the success of North By Northwest Alfred Hitchcock (Hopkins) was looking for his next film to direct. After reading a book he finds what he is looking for. The studio is against it but Hitchcock decided to finance the movie himself, breaking all the rules as he goes. The story is real, the horror is real, this is the story of the making of Psycho. I'm not sure why but I am a big fan of movies about movies. I was very interested in seeing this not only for that but also because I am a big Anthony Hopkins fan and thought he would be a good choice for this role. The movie itself is really good with some pretty creepy aspects to it but the job that Hopkins does is pretty amazing and sometimes you actually see Hitchcock himself. I'm not sure how accurate this is but Hopkins played a man on the edge of sanity and knowing what I know about Hitchcock it seems to fit. If you are looking for a complete bio-pic of Hitchcock this is not it, but if you are a fan of his then this is a movie not to be missed. I recommend this. Overall, the movie is good but Hopkins is great. I give it a B+.

The film "Hitchcock" is set before and during the filming of "Psycho" and is about Alfred Hitchcock and creative process in getting this film made. Unfortunately, "Hitchcock" is a very uneven film for me. When it talks about how "Psycho" was made and shows the film being made, it's very good. However, when it comes to the private lives of Alfred Hitchcock and his wife, Alma, it became very problematic for me. According to the film, Alma may have been cheating on him and the relationship was quite troubled. However, every source I read about them refutes this. Further, the Hitchcock's daughter, Patricia, is never mentioned and she apparently wasn't consulted for the film. Why? Perhaps this is because the filmmakers really didn't intend to give a balanced or realistic portrait of the director--and fiction is much more entertaining. I have a serious problem with this--entertaining folks by sullying the names of folks who cannot defend themselves because they have long since died. While the film IS entertaining, it is also unsettling because of its portrayals of the Hitchcocks.

By the way, at one point Hitchcock's agent mentions that "Winchester '73" is a bad Jimmy Stewart film. This is complete crap--it's an excellent western. Here again, the filmmakers don't have a lot of respect for the dead.

'Hitchcock' had real potential to be great, being a biopic on one of the greatest and most influential directors ever and with such a great cast. It could have been much better and is an uneven film, but is a better Hitchcock biopic than 'The Girl' from the same period.

It looks great for starters. The cinematography is sumptuous and colourful, and the costume, set and production design and scenery are both eye-catching and evocative. Danny Elfman's score has a lot of atmosphere but also a liveliness and whimsy, even including a chilling and very well used nod to the iconic score from 'Psycho'.

A very heavily up Anthony Hopkins makes a valiant effort as Hitch, and it is a spirited, gleefully relished and well-studied characterisation that is much more subtly written than how Hitch was written in 'The Girl' (though in that Toby Jones did do very well indeed with what he was given). Helen Mirren cuts an enigmatic and firm yet sympathetic presence as wife Alma. In support, coming off particularly well are Scarlett Johanssen's spot-on Janet Leigh and Toni Collette who is always good even in material beneath her. While under-used, the Anthony Perkins of James D'Arcy is also ideal casting.

Coming off less well are Danny Huston's pretty irritating Whitfield Cook, Ralph Macchio's too old and jarringly too modern-looking Joseph Stefano (kept seeing the Karate Kid rather than Stefano, which really took me out of the film) and Jessica Biel who also feels miscast as Vera Miles, a case of recognisable name and star quality over whether they fit the character or period or both (neither of which Biel does).

'Hitchcock's' storytelling is also uneven and unfocused, likewise with the direction which badly struggles with the balancing of plot strand and tone shifts. 'Hitchcock' fares well in the making of 'Pyscho' and Hitch's belligerent reaction to 'North By Northwest's' success, which is fascinating and there should have been much more of it, and in the strong and quite touching chemistry between Hopkins and Mirren.

It however underwhelms badly in the very unconvincingly written and unlikely love triangle, which sees Alma falling for Whitfield Cook, a big problem when that has more screen time than the story elements 'Hitchcock' does well in. And also in the tonally odd, padded out (they were clearly there for padding too) and out of place scenes with Ed Gein which was an attempt to bring a fantasy element to the film, and a ghoulish one, but it was woefully misjudged (a shame because Michael Wincott is eerily good as Gein, so much so that if a film is made about Gein in the future Wincott should be up for serious consideration to play him).

Some of the dialogue is clunky and not just underuses characters that would have made the film even more interesting (Perkins definitely should have been in the film longer) but the way Alma is written can be considered a character assassination, practically hero-worshipping her and while not vilifying Hitch necessarily there is the very strong and blatant implication that he was lazy, not as clever as he clearly was to make so many great films and that he would not have had the success he had without Alma. The way the characters are written are sketchy and one-dimensional, and despite so much promise one does question the film's point.

All in all, intriguing enough but very uneven. 5/10 Bethany Cox