Films like this are confusing because regardless of how good they actually are they just seem to have "Oscar" written all over them and that can influence your opinion greatly. Remember Meryl Streep as Maggie Thatcher in The Iron Lady or Leonardo Di Caprio as Howard Hughes / J. Edgar Hoover. Both of those actors got nominated for academy awards even though the films they were in were not that great themselves. Your brain can make you believe what you are watching is actually much better than it is. That, ladies and gentlemen is called the "hype" and Chuck D advocates in not believing it. Thankfully this film does not suffer from that. This film-within-a-film does a good job of telling the story of how Hitchcock's most famous film "Psycho" came about.
Anthony Hopkins & Helen Mirren will no doubt be at the fore-front come award season, and justifiably so - as their performances in Hitchcock are truly astounding. I was about to write how Helen Mirren owns the film until I realised that Hopkins (who I really dislike as a person) did such a good job of playing Hitch that I genuinely forgot it was him under they fat-suit for pretty much the duration of the film.
The rest of the supporting cast are equally excellent and are full of recognisable faces: Danny Huston, Toni Collette, Michael Stuhlbarg (Arnold Rothstein from BWE), Kurtwood Smith, Ralph Macchio and Jessica Biel as Vera Miles. Her role really is the only one I felt ho-hum about, mainly as I felt they did not deal with her previous back-story in the correct way - then one has to remember this is not the story of the strained relationship between Vera Miles and Alfred Hitchcock - but rather the story of "Psycho".
The other two supporting actors who are sure to get the plaudits in the reviews are Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh and James D'Arcy as Anthony Perkins. I do not know if Johansson will get nominated for her supporting role as, well, the part itself could have been meatier (that seems to be my feelings towards the whole film) but regardless of the amount of time he had on screen I think D'Arcy should be recognised for his outstanding portrayal of Anthony Perkins. Honestly, the man just becomes him. If you did not know better you would swear it was Perkins himself. The only critique is that I felt he did not have enough screen time - but that is not the fault of the man at all as he was truly excellent.
For Hitchcock fans and film historians some of the material will not ring true. They have changed Hitch himself and instead of an odious, creepy, semi-sadistic leering pervert we now have a watered down, Hitch-lite version of the man. The troubles with his leading ladies are only hinted at briefly and the control he liked to bestow upon women is barely worthy of a back-story in the whole film. Mirren plays his devoted wife, Alma, ans her character is given much more of a backbone that I was lead to believe she ever had in reality. Maybe Helen Mirren just cannot play meek, I do not know. Anyway - of these changes are not really surprising as if Sacha Gervasi had represented the actual events and characteristics of the man then he would just come across as unlikable instead of, how shall I put it, "particular".
Overall I enjoyed Hitchcock. I enjoyed it much more thinking about it today though. Knowing what I do about the man himself I knew he was a torturer to the leading ladies he employed and sadly I felt that that could have been dealt with in a different tone in this film. Saying that I am aware that this film really had nothing to do with that - but it is hard for me to break the ties between them both. The script is fast paced, full of moment of genuine emotion and humour in equal doses. The cast really are excellent and it would not surprise me if there was nominations dished out come academy season.
Alas however I felt that certain elements have been altered in order to present a more well-rounded piece of celluloid. This I can not get past. I have learned about him in great detail and knowing what I know it was hard to not let that grate on me throughout. It would be like remaking a film and turning a genuine asshole (think Tim Roth in "Rob Roy") into a likeable asshole. Films are films but liberites should not be taken on certain occasions.
Anyway, in conclusion - this film really is well worth the watch. Even Anthony Hopkins is decent in it. A very enjoyable watch and at barely 100 minutes one that you can just let fly by. A good solid (if slightly liberty-taking) film. 3.5 / 5
No comments:
Post a Comment