Hitchcock

User Score
6.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 105 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 82 out of 105
  2. Negative: 5 out of 105
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Sep 17, 2013
    6
    As lightweight and featherlike a it is, is still a good film. Anthony Hopkins does portray the master of suspense pretty well, and Helen Mirren is likable in her role. The film is smooth for the most part, but drags a little bit. It could've been better, yes, but it still was acceptable nonetheless.
  2. Sep 1, 2014
    6
    An interesting take on the creation of an American classic. Although, the film lacks a certain niche which made Hitchcock films so powerful. Nevertheless, Helen Mirren and Anthony Hopkins' performances are able to elevate the film to a higher level.
  3. Apr 20, 2013
    5
    Hopkins is great and he is the only reason why this film is worth watching. The rest of the cast is ok. The plot isn't that satisfying and is rather uneventful, It simply fails to suck you in like I thought the movie would have.
  4. May 4, 2014
    5
    Hitchcock is a fine Sunday afternoon drama. The cast does an admirable job and the film skips along breezily. But don't look for depth here though. Hitchcock is a bit short on that.
  5. Nov 23, 2012
    6
    It's a decent film, but there's just not a whole lot to it. If you're a fan of Psycho, specifically, it gives you a nice window into the financial making of the film. But the movie feels like it just scratches the surface of the truly interesting aspects of the filmmaker's life and career. Mirren is solid, as usual, but it feels like the range of her talents are a bit wasted. HopkinsIt's a decent film, but there's just not a whole lot to it. If you're a fan of Psycho, specifically, it gives you a nice window into the financial making of the film. But the movie feels like it just scratches the surface of the truly interesting aspects of the filmmaker's life and career. Mirren is solid, as usual, but it feels like the range of her talents are a bit wasted. Hopkins (with his make-up artist) truly transforms himself (the actor) into larger than life director. It seems to me like the script could have been a touch more ambitious. Expand
  6. Dec 10, 2012
    6
    As fine an actor as Anthony Hopkins is he gets wiped off the screen, as everyone else does, when Helen Mirren appears in the new film **** There is a 2 minute scene near the latter part of the film when Mirren, (as Alma Reville, **** wife) that is mesmerizing and screams Oscar. Right now the two best actresses in the cinema world are Judi Dench and Helen Mirren and they are both on movieAs fine an actor as Anthony Hopkins is he gets wiped off the screen, as everyone else does, when Helen Mirren appears in the new film **** There is a 2 minute scene near the latter part of the film when Mirren, (as Alma Reville, **** wife) that is mesmerizing and screams Oscar. Right now the two best actresses in the cinema world are Judi Dench and Helen Mirren and they are both on movie screens for the holiday with Dench in Expand
  7. Jan 6, 2013
    4
    I just saw this film and it was quite a lightweight. Anthony Hopkins, donning a lot of makeup that makes him look nothing like Alfred Hitch, reads his way through a weak script that attempts to chronicle the master filmmaker's struggle in making his classic film, Psycho. This movie isn't short on simplicity, but its definitely short on depth. It narrows this mystic, yet legendaryI just saw this film and it was quite a lightweight. Anthony Hopkins, donning a lot of makeup that makes him look nothing like Alfred Hitch, reads his way through a weak script that attempts to chronicle the master filmmaker's struggle in making his classic film, Psycho. This movie isn't short on simplicity, but its definitely short on depth. It narrows this mystic, yet legendary filmmaker, down to a caricature and presents all his genuine human and creative struggles in a farcical manner. I was not a fan of that approach and the movie's tonal inconsistencies were also a bothersome thing of note, that's sure to give audiences a puzzling viewing experience. I wouldn't consider this film offensive to Hitch by any means, I just felt it lacked some incite. We didn't truly learn much about the man, by the film's end. While James D'Arcy and Scarlett Johansson excel in their respective roles, those were only small things to appreciate in this relatively poor film. Expand
  8. Jan 26, 2013
    5
    **** is a decent film. Sometimes good, but sometimes not really interesting. When the film focuses on the casting for psycho or the problems in the set, Sasha Gervasi's film is entertaining, but halfway through the film, it goes in another direction, the movie starts to follow ****'s wife, Alma, and goes to a silly place. Also, there are so many good misused actors, like Jessica Biel (what**** is a decent film. Sometimes good, but sometimes not really interesting. When the film focuses on the casting for psycho or the problems in the set, Sasha Gervasi's film is entertaining, but halfway through the film, it goes in another direction, the movie starts to follow ****'s wife, Alma, and goes to a silly place. Also, there are so many good misused actors, like Jessica Biel (what was the point of her character?) and James Darcy. At the end, **** is worth seeing for Anthony Hopkins's performance. Wait for the dvd. Expand
  9. Nov 30, 2012
    5
    The legacy of Alfred **** lives on in his wide assortment of suspense films, some of which took their time to become classics, and others that became instant hits upon release. Psycho was one of his films that received mixed reviews critically, yet was adored by audiences, becoming a box office success for **** and ultimately maintaining itself as the highest grossing film of his career.The legacy of Alfred **** lives on in his wide assortment of suspense films, some of which took their time to become classics, and others that became instant hits upon release. Psycho was one of his films that received mixed reviews critically, yet was adored by audiences, becoming a box office success for **** and ultimately maintaining itself as the highest grossing film of his career. The production on the film has been noteworthy for several reasons, such as the lack of studio support from Paramount, a change of style for ****, and battles with the Motion Picture Production Code. In ****, all of this is addressed and then this biopic of the master of suspense becomes a film trying to walk the line between fact and fiction. The world is introduced to a peeping tom, always watching everything, obsessed with blondes, worried about how his film is received, and married to Alma Reville (Helen Mirren) who acts more as a mother figure than anything else. Acting aside, the movie has but a few mere moments of entertainment before it slouches back into its attempt to craft a fictional life behind one of the greatest directors of all time, in an extremely boring fashion. Check out the rest of the review at http://independentcinema.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/****-was-apparently-a-perverted-worrisome-mamas-boy/ Expand
  10. Jan 20, 2013
    6
    Above all this is a polite movie. After the closing lines I had a feeling that everything was left on the surface, like that the director was afraid or too well mannered to dig beneath, I'm referring, among other things, to the fight between **** and Alma which lacks emotions. And I was not convinced at all about H. fascination with his leading ladies. This is mentioned throughout theAbove all this is a polite movie. After the closing lines I had a feeling that everything was left on the surface, like that the director was afraid or too well mannered to dig beneath, I'm referring, among other things, to the fight between **** and Alma which lacks emotions. And I was not convinced at all about H. fascination with his leading ladies. This is mentioned throughout the movie, but I was not convinced (that is the movie did not convince me, the real life and true H. is something else). The cast is superb, as one can only expect from Mirren and Hopkins. Expand
  11. Mar 19, 2013
    5
    Awesome performances by the cast overall. This is a decent movie just a tad shallow. Nothing new came from watching it, we all know Hitch was crazy, we all know he was weird with his leading ladies... so what? I didn't come away from the picture with any better understanding for Hitch the man. Honestly your time is probably better spent watching some great films.
Metascore
55

Mixed or average reviews - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 20 out of 40
  2. Negative: 4 out of 40
  1. Reviewed by: Peter Bradshaw
    Feb 9, 2013
    40
    A disappointing excursion into movie history.
  2. Reviewed by: Ian Nathan
    Feb 4, 2013
    60
    Hitchcock for dummies: brisk, jolly, well-played but oversimplified.
  3. Reviewed by: Mike Scott
    Dec 7, 2012
    60
    Hitchcock purists will certainly take issue with some details, but Gervasi's film shouldn't be taken as an ironclad factual film docudrama. Rather, it is fact-inspired fiction -- a film based on real events but one that isn't shy about taking creative liberties. As long as viewers keep that in mind, Gervasi's stands to be a nice bit of murderous fun.