WFHM Movies DVDs

Hugh Jackman and the Cast of Les Misérables Weighs in on Famous Line

Fri, 28 Dec 2012 21:14:00 GMT

Crosswalk.com: Hugh Jackman and the Cast of Les Misérables Weighs in on Famous Line from crosswalkcom on GodTube.

Actors Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Eddie Redmayne, and Samantha Barks discuss Les Miserables' most poignant line: 'to love another person is to see the face of God.'

"Les Mis" Tries Hard but Peaks Too Soon

Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:35:00 GMT

For anyone who hasn’t experienced the neck-cricking discomfort of watching a movie from the front row, don’t worry, you’re about to get your chance with Les Misérables.

Perhaps, in an effort to underscore the sense of realism he’s fostered by having the actors sing live rather than lip sync, director Tom Hooper (The King’s Speech) relies heavily on dramatic close-ups that feel about an inch from showcasing the performers' tonsils. Yes, no matter where you’re sitting, you get that front row feeling, and after a while, your patience can’t help but wear thin.

Now if success—or lack thereof—was determined purely on effort, then no question, Les Misérables would easily earn an "A." From the outset, it’s clear that neither subtle nor run-of-the-mill is what Hooper and his cohorts were going for. The costumes, choreography, the sheer attention to detail in making France and its street folk look as grungy as possible... it’s all grandiose and spectacular, just as a big-budget, big-screen musical should be.

Unfortunately, ambition alone isn’t nearly enough to elevate Les Mis from merely good to great. If anything, the movie peaks a third of the way through. While there’s little doubt that Anne Hathaway’s heart-wrenching turn as the doomed Fantine will earn her Supporting Actress gold (and rightly so, considering her stunning, emotion-packed performance of “I’ve Dreamed a Dream”), the moment comes—and goes—much too soon.

See, as competent as theater veteran Hugh Jackman (Real Steel) is in the role of the persecuted hero Jean Valjean, who was imprisoned for nearly two decades for nothing more than stealing a bit of bread, he just doesn’t have the same scene-stealing sparkle that Hathaway (The Dark Knight Rises) does. And quite a bit of that can probably be attributed to the miscasting of his arch rival, the relentless pursuer of "justice," Javert (Russell Crowe, Robin Hood).

If Crowe and Jackman’s characters were allowed to communicate through dialogue, rather than song, it probably would’ve worked better. Sure, Crowe has the brawny physical presence to pull off such a menacing character, but the husky voice that was probably fine for his rock band simply isn’t up to the task here. From the get-go, his lack of bravado is actually a distraction, and while not nearly as embarrassing as Pierce Brosnan’s thin pipes in Mamma Mia!, one can’t help wondering who else was considered for the part.

The seemingly unending tension between Jean and Javert is crucial to the story, and because it’s not there, the audience is forced to look for inspiration elsewhere. There are a few bursts of excitement in the welcome comic relief of Cosette’s (Amanda Seyfried, Mamma Mia!) opportunistic innkeepers Thénardier and his Madame, played by Sacha Baron Cohen (Hugo) and Helena Bonham Carter (Dark Shadows), respectively. Eddie Redmayne (My Week With Marilyn) is also a standout, particularly vocally, as Marius, Cosette’s love interest. And theater alum Samantha Barks, who reportedly beat out Taylor Swift for the role of Eponine, was an inspired bit of casting. Like Hathaway, she immediately commands your attention and doesn’t let go.

Truth be told, the lengths the filmmakers go to tug at your heart strings with Les Misérables is gutsy. From beginning to end, they’re practically begging you to feel something, anything, even daring you not to tear up as you watch the plight of the suffering. But after a while, all the hand-held camerawork, the bloated soundtrack and shameless jerking with your emotions with all those close-ups just leaves you feeling dizzy. It’s not a journey without its merits, but dialing it down a little might have helped.

CAUTIONS:

Drugs/Alcohol: Social drinking and some drunkenness depicted.
Language/Profanity: A smattering of profanity including bi—h, bast---, da--, hel- and sh--. God’s name is exclaimed in a couple of occasions.
Sex/Nudity: Prostitutes, and what they do for money, figure prominently into the storyline. Many of these women sport very cleavage-y attire. References to sexual acts and male genitalia, some instances more explicit than others. A woman is raped, and while it’s not a particularly graphic scene, it’s still absolutely heartbreaking.
Violence: A woman sells her teeth to have money to care for her child, and we see the act of them being forcefully removed from her mouth. A couple of scenes involving war violence with several shooting fatalities, including a scene where a young boy dies. A man walks down a street that’s filled with blood. Close-ups of battered, scarred prisoners. Instances where children are neglected and abused. A man commits suicide by jumping from a bridge.
Thematic Material: Injustice, whether it be of the poor, women or children, plays a leading role in the story. While there is a love story in the midst of all the madness, it’s despair that’s the most prominent.

Christa Banister is an author and full-time freelancer writer, specializing in music, movies and books-related reviews and interviews and is the author of two novels, Around the World in 80 Dates and Blessed Are the Meddlers. Based in Dallas, Texas, she also weighs in on various aspects of pop culture on her personal blog.

For more on Les Misérables, visit www.crosswalk.com/special-coverage/les-miserables-2012/.

Page Source (url): http://www.crosswalk.com/culture/movies/les-miserables-2012-movie-review.html

3D Improves the Exceptional "Monsters, Inc."

Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:50:00 GMT

Every kid knows there are monsters lurking in their closet. What they don’t know is that it’s nothing personal; those monsters are just doing their jobs. Besides, kids aren’t in any danger from things that go bump in the night. As it turns out, parents who tell their kids “they’re more scared of you than you are of them” are right!

The lovable monsters of Monsters, Inc. are back—and this time, they’re in 3D. It’s good 3D, too, making Sully’s multicolored fur look soft as silk when it waves in the breeze and the long, institutional hallways of Monsters, Inc. seem even longer. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves: first, the story…

The city of Monstropolis is powered by children’s screams, gathered by teams of ‘scarers’ who sneak into kids’ rooms at night to frighten them so the screams can be collected (“We scare,” the company slogan reads, “because we care”). The best scarer of them all is James P. “Call me Sully” Sullivan (John Goodman), a big, furry creature who works with his short, green, eyeball of a friend named Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal). Sully is a lumbering, loveable cahoot; Mike is his highly-strung, worrywart opposite. They’re regular Joes working at your basic factory job and they’re good at it… until Sully accidentally lets a mischievous two-year-old (Mary Gibbs) into the factory. In Monstropolis this is considered an environmental hazard of the highest order. Hilarity and hijinks ensue as Sully and Mike try to cover up the problem until they can safely return little “Boo” back to her bedroom (which, considering they think children are highly toxic, is trickier than one might think).

Since monsters Sully and Mike are more friend than foe, the villain of the piece is Randall Boggs (Steve Buscemi), a chameleon-like creature with ambitions. Randall wants to dethrone Sully as the scare king, and that’s not all… but to say more would be a spoiler. Then there’s the big boss, Henry J. Waternoose, a spiderlike creature voiced by James Coburn. He’s having a hard time meeting scream quotas—today’s kids are getting harder and harder to scare—and the board is getting restless. How far will he go to turn a profit and save his company?

On one level, Monsters, Inc. is a story of how an unexpected relationship can change perceptions and even prejudice. On another, it’s a bit of a swipe at big business and the “success over people” mentality (even if those “people” are monsters). Like most Pixar films, it’s also a story of friendship under fire. But more than anything, Monsters, Inc. is the story of an ordinary guy who finds himself in an extraordinary situation and rises to the occasion. Oh, and it’s also a sweet, funny, charming, Oscar-nominated film the whole family can enjoy. So really, what’s not to love?

This being a Pixar product the animation is outstanding and, as mentioned earlier, even better in 3D. The roller-coaster-like chase scene through the archive of closet doors is particularly fabulous given the extra depth. The monsters come in all shapes, sizes, and colors, making the film a visual delight. Considering that Mike is basically an eyeball with arms and legs, he exhibits an impressive range of expressions. Having the likes of Crystal as his voice doesn’t hurt.

There are the usual puns and references to both pop culture and other Pixar films. Don’t miss the “outtakes” at the end—or, for that matter, the short called For the Birds shown before Monsters, Inc. begins. It’s an excellent opportunity for parents to point out the potential hazards of teasing, when a flock of snooty birds gets their well-deserved comeuppance.

CAUTIONS:

Drugs/Alcohol: None.
Language/Profanity: Some insults thrown around, but no profanity.
Sex/Nudity: Some romantic monster kissing, but that’s as far as it goes. A hairy monster is completely shaved as a safety precaution after exposure to a child.
Violence: Cartoon violence; no one is actually hurt. (It clearly states in the credits that “No monsters were harmed in the making of this motion picture.”) Some monsters do appear fairly threatening—child characters in the film are frightened—and there’s a close up of a scary roar. One character believes another has been crushed in a trash compactor but the audience knows nothing untoward has occurred.

Page Source (url): http://www.crosswalk.com/culture/movies/monsters-inc-3d-movie-review.html

"Jack Reacher" a Victim of Really Bad Timing

Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:50:00 GMT

In what’s the worst possible timing for a film with five gun-related fatalities in the first few minutes, Tom Cruise plays yet another action hero with panache in Jack Reacher, the creation of popular British novelist Lee Child. A tall order (quite literally) for the actor, considering that Child’s protagonist was 6’5", brawny and blonde. Cruise makes up for what he lacks in height (he’s 5’7") and flaxen locks with convincing expertise in taking down the bad guys by any means possible. And trust me, he’s forced to get creative, really creative, in a slew of prickly situations, using skills that were honed during his character’s years of dedicated military service.

Like the amnesiac with killer instincts before him, Jason Bourne, Reacher is also a bit of an enigma. While his memory is fully intact, no one even knows much about him until someone accused of the aforementioned shootings scribbles “Get Jack Reacher” on a sheet of paper. As it turns out, Reacher is a former military investigator who spent most of his life overseas. Now wandering from city to city by bus (off the grid, naturally) in the country he’s always served, Reacher makes his way to Pittsburgh.

Since the accused, now lying comatose in a hospital bed, got away with a similar crime in Iraq, Reacher is eventually hired by a dedicated defense lawyer (Rosamund Pike, An Education) to investigate exactly what went down. While the evidence at the crime scene seems to seal the ex-soldier’s fate, she’s ultimately committed to ensuring a fair trial for her client.

Not surprisingly, Reacher discovers that these seemingly random civilian shootings weren’t all that random at all. Uncovering an international crime ring’s elaborate plan to frame the case’s #1 suspect, the movie quickly segues into a crafty cat-and-mouse game with a big body count. While the car chases and ensuing brawls are nothing that moviegoers haven’t seen before from Bourne, Bond and the like, it’s Reacher’s deadpan sense of humor a la Dirty Harry that helps lighten the mood.

Rather than flashing his trademark toothy grin, it also helps that Cruise, now 50, actually looks a little weathered and rough around the edges. Instead of being Tom Cruise (Knight and Day), one of the world’s most recognizable movie stars, he actually disappears into the character. Managing to even one-up his own relatively humorless Ethan Hunt character, master of impossible situations, Cruise shares a couple of great scenes with his Days of Thunder co-star Robert Duvall (Get Low), who brings a welcome wackiness to these serious proceedings as the owner of a gun range.

Jack Reacher goes down smooth as a compelling action movie, but it’s not exactly what you’d call escapist entertainment—not in light of such horrific events in Connecticut recently. As the civilians in the opening frames just go about their business on a sunny day before facing their untimely, unnecessary demise, one can’t help thinking about the fallen from Sandy Hook Elementary and elsewhere.

While the poor timing for a violent movie isn’t ultimately the fault of the filmmakers behind Jack Reacher, it still can’t help but give many potential viewers pause when considering whether watching on the big screen this Christmas is ultimately worth their time.

CAUTIONS:

Drugs/Alcohol: Social drinking. Mention of a character who cooks crystal meth. We also see an older woman who’s strung out on drugs.
Language/Profanity: Instances where Jesus’s name is misused. A handful of expletives including sh--, dam-, he--, as- and one use of fu--. A man is called a pu--y.
Sex/Nudity: We briefly see a woman’s bare back as she puts her bra on after an implied sexual encounter. A young woman used to unsuccessfully seduce Jack is labeled a “whore,” “slut” and “easy.”
Violence: Five people are shot in the opening sequence, including a young woman holding a child. The shootings are shown a few times throughout the case, even from the vantage point of the shooter as he readies his kill shot. Gunplay is shown in several other scenes as well. There are several scenes where people’s heads are bashed with heavy objects or someone’s fist. Hand-to-hand combat, stabbings and the snapping of people’s necks shown. A man is kicked repeatedly in the groin. A woman has a gun pointed to her head. A man graphically details how he surrendered his fingers by chewing them off in order to avoid frostbite. He commands another man to do the same, but when he refuses, he’s immediately shot.

Page Source (url): http://www.crosswalk.com/culture/movies/jack-reacher-movie-review.html

"The Guilt Trip" is Not a Pleasant Journey

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:48:00 GMT

This mother-son road trip movie hits its share of potholes and almost swerves off the road a time or two. But what's that we spy on the horizon? Focus on the Family's Plugged In gives us a review of The Guilt Trip!

PluggedIn.com

"Wreck It Ralph" Helps Build Values in Kids

Sun, 16 Dec 2012 05:32:00 GMT

The level-ups in this animated arcade game send-up are messages encouraging friendship, love, and self-sacrifice. But there are a few in-game "extras" that serve as obstacles along the way.
Focus on the Family's Unplugged reviews Wreck it Ralph

Used with permission - www.PluggedIn.com

Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" Rings False

Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:58:00 GMT

In the early 2000s, director Peter Jackson brought the sweeping, epic story of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings to meticulous life on the big screen. It was a large undertaking, based on an immense three-volume book. With so much story to tell, New Line Cinema staked its future on Tolkien’s tale, turning it into a trilogy of films. The result? Hundreds of millions of dollars in box-office grosses, capped off by a Best Picture Oscar win for the concluding film, The Return of the King.

When New Line and Jackson decided to team again to adapt Tolkien’s Rings prequel, The Hobbit (the film's first director, Guillermo del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth), dropped out but is one of four writers credited with its screenplay), there must have been a great temptation to expand what is a relatively slender single volume into multiple installments. However, the fact that The Hobbit, unlike The Lord of the Rings, is a story for children, presented certain pitfalls.

Nonetheless, the filmmakers gave in to temptation. Jackson and New Line decided to break The Hobbit, or There and Back Again into a three-part epic. The first installment, An Unexpected Journey, runs 169 minutes. If your gut tells you that such an approach to Tolkien’s slim children's tale might not work, then rest assured: your instincts are correct. Although The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey finally takes hold in its final hour—when Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) and Gollum (Andy Serkis) square off—the film is a long slog to reach that point.

Sixty years before the events of The Lord of the Rings, Bilbo is living contentedly in his hobbit-hole when Gandalf (Ian McKellen) pays him a visit to recruit him for a journey. He’ll join a group of dwarves on a mission to reclaim their homeland of Erebor, from which the dwarves have been chased by the dragon Smaug. Although initially reluctant to be part of the quest, Bilbo acquiesces and decides to help.

Less persuaded of Bilbo’s presence within the group’s ranks is dwarf leader Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), who, through encounters with elves and battles with trolls and orcs, remains unconvinced that the hobbit is more of an asset than a hindrance to the mission. But Gandalf, who has encouraged Bilbo’s inclusion, holds contrary beliefs.

The movie takes a full hour to set up the journey, and it's an hour that feels sorely padded. By the time Bilbo says, shortly after setting out on his journey, "Wait! I forgot my handkerchief!" and turns back toward home, you may have to restrain yourself from shouting at the screen, "No! Please, keep going!" The film at this point is already suffering from a lack of momentum.

Unfortunately, Jackson and his co-screenwriters (Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens, and del Toro) add so much Rings-style violence to Tolkien’s tale that The Hobbit earns a PG-13 rating—making the film inappropriate for younger audience members who otherwise might have enjoyed the storyline. At one point, Gandalf raises his own concerns about the story’s characters by declaring, "Save me from the stubbornness of dwarves. Your pride will be your downfall." That line could also apply to those who came up with the Hobbit-as-trilogy idea. Their insistence on expanding and bloodying-up The Hobbit could undo the goodwill built up by the extraordinary Lord of the Rings films.

The best part of The Hobbit—the battle of wills between Bilbo and Gollum—remains intact in this telling, and although it doesn’t arrive until the film’s final hour, it’s enough to inspire hope for the upcoming two films. Bilbo encounters Gollum, a pathetic creature preoccupied with a golden ring he calls "Precious," following a fit of self-doubt that causes him to separate himself from the larger group. The payoff is compelling. The Ring, as anyone who has seen or read The Lord of the Rings knows, has great power, and will end up with Bilbo—but not until a captivating dialogue between the two characters settles the issue of the ring's owner.

Filmed at 48 frames per second—twice the standard frames-per-second rate—The Hobbit has a hyper-real quality that works against expectations in a bad way. Rather than looking like something we’ve never seen before and giving the proceedings a greater sense of cinematic wonder, the higher frame rate accentuates a sense of artificiality about the film’s imagery. It’s closer to the look of a British TV production or even a soap opera at times, yet we’re supposed to embrace this new look as a great advance, a thing to be desired for all future films. If 48 frames per second has potential to redefine the viewing experience, The Hobbit doesn't point to obvious gains. It's simply another element that raises basic questions about the filmmakers' approach to the material.

The missteps of this first film do not bode well for the upcoming two segments of The Hobbit, but if Jackson and his cohorts can find a way to tone down the violence and kindle a gentler spirit in the subsequent chapters, they may yet salvage their adaptation. This movie is likely to leave Tolkien fans hesitant and uncertain about the upcoming films, while those new to The Hobbit will wonder why the story is so beloved. That's a long way from audience reaction to The Fellowship of the Ring, which left viewers eagerly anticipating what was to come.

CAUTIONS:

Language/Profanity: "bal-s;" Dwarf scum;" "elvish filth"
Alcohol/Smoking/Drugs: Pipe smoking; drinking
Sex/Nudity: None
Violence/Crime: A fire-breathing dragon; a head-butt greeting; an orc holds a human head, throws it; trolls steal horses and try to roast dwarves and hobbits over an open fire; trolls are killed; battles with orcs; an orc is thrown to his death, and others fall to their deaths; Gollum menaces Bilbo; a goblin cleaver; an explosion; Gandalf slays a goblin; kick to Gollum’s head
Religion: Fate cited as the reason for Bilbo’s journey; a character is said to have never forgiven, or forgotten, a wrong; a character says, "Fate is with you;" a belief that only great power can hold evil in check is contrasted with another view about how acts of love and everyday things can overcome darkness

Questions? Comments? Contact the writer at crosswalkchristian@hotmail.com.

Page Source (url): http://www.crosswalk.com/culture/movies/the-hobbit-movie-review.html

"Playing for Keeps" is a Kick

Fri, 07 Dec 2012 08:51:00 GMT

Gerard Butler, Jessica Biel, Uma Thurman, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Dennis Quaid star in Playing for Keeps, a romantic comedy about a former soccer star (Butler) who returns home to try to start a new career and put new life in his family. As a means to rebuild his relationship with his son, he gets talked into coaching the boy's soccer team. Focus on the Family's Plugged In tells us whether Playing for Keeps is good sport for your family!

Used with permission - www.pluggedin.com

Life of Pi

Thu, 06 Dec 2012 22:50:00 GMT

A novelist (Rafe Spall) is promised a story that would make him believe in God at the beginning of “Life of Pi.”

The writer was told by a friend to visit a man named Pi whose life story is so unbelievable the writer must hear it from the man himself. Pi, played as an older man by Irrfan Khan, takes the writer into his home and accepts the challenge. He agrees to tell the tragic but beautiful story of his life.

The film, adapted from the best-selling novel by Yann Martel, begins with the older Pi and the writer sitting together and then flashes back to Pi’s younger days. Growing up, Pi (Suraj Sharma) lived with his family in India, where his parents owned and operated a local zoo. When he was in his teens, Pi’s family decided to move away taking the animals with them.

The boat that is carrying the family and dozens of their animals, however, sinks during a terrible storm and the orphaned Pi is left standing on a small row boat with a few surviving animals. One of the animals—a nasty hyena—soon attacks the injured zebra and the orangutan that have survived the storm. [It should be noted-- for parental guidance alone-- that these scenes are quite violent and should have earned this movie a PG-13 rating instead of its generous PG label.]

After the hyena has attacked its companions, a tiger jumps onboard killing the hyena and setting up a dynamic where Pi – a young man who was taught to fear tigers as a boy – is left alone on a boat with a ferocious tiger as his only companion.

As he tries to figure out how he can survive a long ordeal with a creature that wants to devour him, Pi seeks guidance from both himself and from religion. His character sees himself as a Hindu, a Christian and a Muslim and understands that his life is part of a larger plan, despite the fact that it’s hard to see how his difficult circumstances are part of that plan.

Ang Lee, the Oscar-winning director of “Brokeback Mountain,” brings this unique story to life despite the fact that much of it takes place with only a tiger and a man onscreen. Through the brilliant use of 3D—which, it turns out, isn’t an oxymoron—Lee creates realistic scenes and animals that seem like they could leap off the screen at any moment.

The story’s major flaw, though, is its narrative structure. The screenplay by David Magee oftentimes seems a bit too contrived. For instance, the way that the film is bookended with the older Pi recounting his tale feels awkward because it disappears for much of the film. Other movies, like “Titanic,” have more seamlessly been able to use that device.

Despite that complaint, and the sense that some scenes with the boy and the tiger drag on too long, “Pi” is a visual achievement that should be celebrated.

Lee deserves credit for bringing this difficult story to life and for capturing it imaginatively in three dimensions.

Review by: John Hanlon

Used with permission http://www.johnhanlonreviews.com/

Hitchcock Lacks Little (Except His Famed Visual Style)

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:03:00 GMT

Hitchcock, a new biopic of the famed Master of Suspense, zeroes in on a particular time in Alfred Hitchcock’s life: his biggest career gamble, the making of Psycho (for which, if you've never seen it, this movie would be a huge spoiler). The end result is more entertaining than biographically revealing, but that’s likely the kind of tribute Hitch would prefer.

Often, with box office success comes either artistic stagnation (the artist’s fault) or artistic strangulation (the studio’s fault). By 1960, after a string of classics including Rear Window and Vertigo, this legend-in-his-own-time was suffering from the latter. He wanted to explore darker territories while studio chiefs kept whining “Why can’t you just give us another North By Northwest?”

Hitchcock’s ambitions finally met their hopes in the little-known thriller novel "Psycho," a fictionalization of actual events. The more sadistic elements sparked Hitchcock, but made it a non-starter for studios. We know how this story ends, but seeing the risks Hitchcock took to get there – including a test of his own marriage – are what make this chapter of his life the best from which to explore the man.

The title, interestingly enough, is applicable to more than one person. This movie is not just an exploration of Alfred but also his wife, Alma. Their partnership was as much professional as personal. Alma – an assistant director, screenwriter, and editor in her own right – was Alfred’s first confidant, best barometer, and at times the more skilled artist. She made aesthetic choices that have become classic despite them being initially rejected by the auteur himself. Hitchcock publicly stated over the years the importance of her role in his work, but this film finally gives Alma her due in a way history never fully has.

Along with the strength of their partnership we see a jealous tension. There was Alfred’s paranoia over her affections for other artists (one man in particular) who would seek her collaboration. Alma, in turn, couldn’t help but judge herself against Alfred’s female leads (the blondes in particular) and his not-so-subtle fetishizing of them. The difference between the two is that the basis for Alfred’s fears were imagined but Alma’s were real, a fact brought home in the film’s most riveting moment in which Alma calls out Alfred on this disparity.

Beyond this relationship, the other filter through which the film attempts to really get at Hitchcock is through Psycho itself. Connecting many of Norman Bates’s proclivities to Hitchcock’s own demons (via Hitch’s hallucinations of real-life Bates inspiration Ed Gein) feels credible, but the screenplay ultimately strains under too many direct correlations between the material and the man. Such on-the-nose Freudian reductionism is at times an oversimplification rather than a revelation. It’s certainly not without merit but all feels just a little too perfect.

The other underachieving element here is the visual style, or, more accurately, the lack thereof. For a film about arguably the medium’s greatest visual stylist, that’s a big lazy blunder. Fault lies at the feet of first-time dramatic director Sacha Gervasi whose sole previous effort was the rock-and-roll documentary Anvil: The Story of Anvil. Gervasi is better at narrative and timing than tone; story seems to be his singular focus.

Given Gervasi’s fairly pedestrian approach, that there still exists such a compelling experience both comic and dramatic can be credited to the leads, Oscar-winners Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren. As Hitchcock, Hopkins (Thor) gives much more than an eerily spot-on affectation; his Hitchcock is multi-dimensional, not only in his giddy joy of the macabre but also in how he thinks and what he struggles with. A moment when Hitch chokes-up recalling his early career’s passion and freedom may alone land Hopkins an Oscar nomination. Even under a mountain of makeup and prosthetics, a depth of complex humanity shows through.

Mirren (Red) is equal to Hopkins, making Alma’s strengths formidable while still revealing her tenderness and vulnerability. Scarlett Johansson (We Bought a Zoo) provides a particularly interesting take on Psycho star Janet Leigh, showing a smart woman who’s not oblivious to Hitchcock’s leering gazes yet still respects – and even appreciates – him as both a man and artist. She sees him in the way Alma does. As the tenacious but level-headed agent Lew Wasserman, Michael Stuhlbarg (Hugo) is the other supporting standout. Wasserman’s ingenuity empowered Hitchcock to independently finance Psycho, a feat that proved a telling prologue for a man who would become the head of Universal and considered the smartest studio head of his time (a record which included mentoring Hitchcock acolyte Steven Spielberg).

To suggest (as this film does) that everything you need to know about Alfred Hitchcock can be found in the frames of Psycho is certainly too convenient to be true. The redeeming quality, though, is that it doesn’t make that connection insincerely. Rather, it’s a genuine attempt to humanize an icon. It may not tell us things we didn’t already intuit, but it reminds us why we loved (still do) Hitchcock and his films.

To whatever extent Hitchcock stretches the truth, it does so in a reverent way, while never forgetting to entertain first. I have a hunch Alfred would approve, and maybe even be a little mad for never having done this himself.

CAUTIONS:

Drugs/Alcohol Content: A few instances of wine consumption and cigar/cigarette smoking.
Language/Profanity: Three mild obscenitiies, two uses of the Lord’s name in vain, a derogatory term for a homosexual accompanied by a suggestive hand gesture.
Sexual Content/Nudity: A woman in a bra. A “peeping Tom” moment, woman takes off bra (no nudity). Man and woman in bed together, half-undressed. Man and woman half-undressed, passionately kissing. A few mild sexual innuendos/flirtations. A few verbal references to breasts and sex.
Violence/Other: Man hit over head with shovel, killed. Man lays next to a dead woman. Pictures of a cut corpse. Woman’s dead body in a bathtub. Restaging of Psycho’s violent shower scene (though not visually graphic). Discussions of topics such as murder, rape, necrophilia.

Page Source (url): http://www.crosswalk.com/culture/movies/hitchcock-movie-review.html