criterionforum.org

Funny, when I looked at the photo I thought Kim Novak.

Man, they made Hitchcock look too walrus-y. The double chin's taking up too much real estate.

(And I hope no one ever plays me in a movie, because God knows what awful descriptions of my physical features would be spoken as they try to get all the details right.)

I don't know - it took up a lot of real estate.

This just started filming five months ago, and has been pushed forward to this year with a November 23 release date. Fox obviously thinks they got an Oscar nom or two on their hands.

Here's the poster. James D'Arcy makes a helluva Anthony Perkins.

Hopkins' makeup is atrocious. Toby Jones looks much more the part in the television film.

Anthony Hopkins sounds more like Hannibal Lecter than Alfred Hitchcock (and his make up looks odd), but it will probably be entertaining. I loved the little bit right at the end.

The movie makes it look as if all the executives etc were totally against hitchcock in the making of it. Trailer reminds me of one of those sports movies with an over the hill player who wants to make one last comeback. And Hopkins doesn't sound anything like Hitchcock, just slowwwed Hannibal Lecter.

stroszeck wrote:The movie makes it look as if all the executives etc were totally against hitchcock in the making of it.

Well, they were. That's why Hitchcock funded Psycho himself and split the proceeds with Paramount - a decision that gave him financial security for life when it turned out to be a major blockbuster, but it was a big gamble at the time.

Trailer reminds me of one of those sports movies with an over the hill player who wants to make one last comeback.

Which also isn't at all far removed from the actual situation - Hitchcock made Psycho because he was genuinely worried that people thought his brand of cinema was old-fashioned, and he was feeling the competition (especially from the likes of Clouzot and Les Diaboliques, a film that strongly influenced Psycho).

It's looking pretty good to me - there's so much superb material in the book that it really would take a fair bit of effort to completely screw it up.

My problem with biopics (and I suspect many others') is I always compare the actors to the people they are playing in all their mannerisms and appearances, so ScarJo's voice stood out quite a bit considering how much of a contrast it is to Leigh's distinct voice. The way the trailer is cut it looks like your run-of-the-mill biopic, but there will probably be enough historical interest for us Hitch fans so I guess I'll give it a look. I did enjoy the bit about killing Leigh off as quick as possible.

The Guardian loves it - and it looks as though it's turned out just the way I was hoping.

F This Movie podcast on "Hitchcock". Patrick and JB (and myself) are big Hitchcok and "Psycho" fans, and the more you know about the making of the movie and Hitch & Alma's life the more dumbfounded you'll be at the decisions the filmmakers took (which are spoiled in the podcast, so don't listen to it if you intend to see "Hitchcock") of basically making up shit instead of letting more interesting true facts be the center of the narrative. Even knowing that most Hollywood movies take liberties with the facts, "Hitchcock" pole vaults above to tolerability threshold. I enjoyed it because it's still a better use of actors/budgets than another rom-com from hell or tired horror remake, plus the scene

Spoiler

of Janet Leigh giving Hitchcock a ride on her VW Beetle while he eats Jamie Lee Curtis' candy corn

was just campy fun. An Oscar contender or a good movie this ain't though, and by a country mile.