Hitchcock (2012) - Movie Review

A movie based on a book about the making of a movie.  If this loops on itself more, it'll create a singularity that will destroy us all.

Hitchcock is a behind-the-scenes look at the making of Psycho, a movie that starred Anne Heche and Vince Vaughn.  I'm kidding, of course.  That remake sure was a misfire, wasn't it?  I actually knew very little about the movie Hitchock going in, but I'm always up for a good biopic, especially when it's about such a fascinating person and iconic film.

We begin as Alfred Hitchcock is looking for an idea for his next film.  He wants to do something a little different, and thinks he's found it when he reads the book Psycho by Robert Bloch.  The studio, however, isn't too thrilled with his choice of project, so Hitchcock decides to take a risk and finance the film himself.  He's believes so strongly in the film, that he even has all copies of the book bought up, so that nobody would have the twists spoiled.  Even back then Hitchcock understood the value of no spoilers.  These days any asshat with a blog can spoil a movie for you.  Wait a second...

It's funny to me that a well respected director like Hitchcock didn't have full confidence from the studio when wanting to do a different project.  When you consider the crap that gets made these days, it blows my mind that he'd have difficulty getting a film made.  It also goes to show you how different the business is now.

Hitchcock is based on the book Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho by Stephen Rebello. From what I hear, it's a fantastic and extremely well researched book that I'm going to have to pick up after watching the film.  Despite being based off such a well respected book, the movie version of it felt a little thin.  I think the problem director Sacha Gervasi (Anvil: The Story of Anvil), and writer John J. McLaughlin had was that they couldn't decide on what to cut from the film.  There's a lot going on, so you have a mix of the film being a little tonally inconsistent and lacking depth in a few key areas.  For example, you learn about his relationship with his wife Alma (Helen Mirren) and their difficulties.  This was an area I wish the film would have gone a little more in depth into.

There are some funny moments, but you never feel like they were making a comedy, and there isn't enough about his personality to come away thinking it's a character study. Throughout the film you see these exchanges between Hitchcock and Ed Gein, an actual serial killer that the character of Norman Bates was based on.  I wasn't clear what these scenes were meant to represent, so they felt odd and seemed like they could have been removed in favor of focusing more on the making of Psychoand Hitchcock's personality and relationships.

I find it a little ironic that a movie about "The Master of Suspense" contained very little actual suspense.  We all know how this is going to turn out.  It's not like we're getting an alternate universe were he's never able to complete the film, or it's a bomb.  It's still fun to watch it all play out though.

As you'd guess, the strength of the film are the performances. Anytime you get Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren as your leads, you know you're going to get a well-acted film.  Mirren is wonderful and you see how Alma was 'the woman behind the man'.  She would have carried the movie by herself were it not for the performance of Anthony Hopkins as Hitchcock.  It seems like kind of an odd choice to get someone so well known to play Hitchcock, but the makeup job is so good, that it actually took me a bit before I realized it was him.  I thought Hopkins was playful and it made me like Hitchcock all the more.  Scarlett Johansson plays Anne Heche...I mean Janet Leigh and I found her to be very pleasant.  Jessica Biel and James D'Arcy have very small roles as Vera Miles and Anthony Perkins.  You'll recognize much of the supporting cast and I was surprised to see people of their caliber play such small roles.  Even The Karate Kid shows up.

Lastly, I wanted to give a small shout out to my favorite theater The Vine (www.vinecinema.com) in Livermore.  They upgraded their screens and projectors just this past week, and boy what an upgrade! The film looked fantastic.  It was bright and clear, with HD quality that rivaled my 3D TV.

Whether you're a fan of Hitchcock, the movie Psycho, or just like a good behind-the-scenes biopic, there's a lot to like about Hitchcock.  I had fun with the film and enjoyed it, but couldn't help thinking there needed to be more.  You have great performances from the cast, but it only scratches the surface.  This isn't something you need to rush out and see, but I do think it's worth seeing.

3.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Wrath of the Titans (2012) - Movie Review

I was actually shocked when I heard they were making a sequel to the already lackluster Clash of the Titans remake. The remake was a movie nobody was asking for in the first place, it performed poorly and was reviewed poorly.  Despite that, they decided it was a good idea to make another. Do we at least get another good Liam Neeson meme?  Unfortunately, no.  In fact, this time around some random character actually says the line, 'Release the Kraken!'  Really?

Anyway, after I saw the trailer for Wrath of the Titans, I thought it at least looked cool. Plus, it has Rosamund Pike dressed like a warrior.  It could have Rosamund Pike dressed in anything and it would have my interest on some level.  Could Wrath of the Titans be any worse than Clash?

The good news is that Wrath is better than Clash.  The bad news is that it's only marginally better.  I can pretty much sum up this movie into one word: flat!  Everything about the movie felt flat to me.  The dialog, the characters, the attempts at humor.  There's very little in the way of effective dialog or humor anyway.

While the effects are pretty good and there are some decent action scenes, you never feel any real threat or that the main characters are in any peril.  It doesn't help that the movie is pretty bloodless.  I can't buy in to a film featuring guys with spears and swords and that there's any danger when you barely see a drop of blood.  Granted, the lack of blood makes this something that you can allow younger kids watch, but if you like a little more maturity to your fantasy, you won't find it here.

This also suffers from the 'inconsistent powers' thing I hate in action movies.  Early on, Perseus gets pretty banged up by a creature and needs medical assistance after.  Throughout the rest of the movie, he's being hit with rock-smashing punches from gods and just popping up from them like it's no big deal.  Which is it?  You can be hurt or you're indestructible?

To illustrate the point about there being very little peril, the central plot of Wrath is that the gods are the ones in danger this time.  The movie begins showing you that Perseus (Sam Worthington) has rejected his destiny as a demigod and is content with fishing with his son.  Gemma Arterton couldn't be bothered with being in this, so her character has been killed off at some point, leaving Perseus a single father.  He's visited by Zeus who tells him that because nobody is praying to the gods anymore, they are losing power and this is causing the big, bad demons to break out of the underworld.  Zeus states that Hades (Ralph Fiennes) is attempting to resurrect Kronos, the father of Zeus, Hades and Poseidon (an unrecognizable Danny Huston).  It took their combined powers to stop him last time.  I don't understand how Kronos is anyone's father when he's this giant, lava monster.  His spawn are humanoids?  Anyway, Zeus wants Perseus to help, but Perseus just wants to fish with his son.  Oh guess what, stuff happens and Perseus is forced into action.

This movie is a 'God of War' video game come to life, expect that they took all of the fun, the interesting story and characters out of it.  You're better off simply playing a video game than watching this.  At least with the video game you'd be more invested in what was going on.

The main problem with Wrath is that there's nothing to give a shit about.  You've got this great cast and nothing ever happens to make you care about anything.  I mention Rosamund Pike, but she's barely given anything to do.  She might as well not been in the movie.  Bill Nighy played Hephaestus and I didn't even realize it was him until the credits rolled.  There's this scene towards the end where Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes' characters team up finally and for a second it's really cool, but then it's over just like that.  I don't want to hate on Sam Worthington, but he's probably the blandest actor in movies.  He's just so wooden and uninteresting.  You'd think an action star would be buff at least.

The 3D and IMAX do nothing for the film.  Clash of the Titans was notorious for being a bad example of converted 2D to 3D films looking terrible.  Wrath seems to have been filmed in 3D, but it still does nothing for the movie.  Save your money and watch it in normal 2D.

Director Jonathan Liebesman didn't do a very good job with the material.  He also directed the equally uninteresting Battle: Los Angeles.  As I've complained about other poor movies recently, this suffers from having too many people involved in the story.  Worse yet, they are mediocre writers at best.  Greg Berlanti (Green Lantern), David Johnson (Red Riding Hood) and first time writer Dan Mazeau.  Movie studios need to figure out that movies like this do not work when you have this many people involved, especially when their previous work was n6othing to get excited about.

Wrath of the Titans upgraded the special effects and the 3D from Clash of the Titans and it has better action.  However, the story and characters are still lifeless.  It's video game, popcorn entertainment at best.  I can't really recommend seeing it in the theater though.  Save it for rental.

I probably would have given the original 2 Death Stars, so I give Wrath of the Titans 2.5 (out of 5) Death Stars.