I seemed to recall when this film was being made that Anthony Hopkins was cast to portray the movie world's 'Master of Suspense', but when the picture started and the character of Alfred Hitchcock came on screen, I had no idea who was playing him. It was only when I checked the credits afterward that I realized that yes indeed, that was Hopkins in the title role, fitted out with padding and latex appliances as part of his transformation. And yet he didn't really look like the legendary director I remembered from my youth, which was somewhat distracting as I watched the movie. Nevertheless, Hopkins did a fine job in the role as he always does.
Now the actor who portrayed Anthony Perkins, wow!, James D'Arcy really did look like Perkins to me. He had those quirky mannerisms that were perfect for rendering an unbalanced character like Norman Bates. The rest of the cast appeared generally fine, though aspects of the story didn't ring true, as in the relationship between Hitch and his wife Alma (Helen Mirren). I know the director did fantasize about his leading ladies, especially blondes, but he was always faithful to his wife as a collaborator and inspiration. The suggested love triangle with Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston) didn't seem all that necessary as part of the story line, and in fact, tended to remove one from an appreciation of what the film was intended for, i.e., the making of the movie "Psycho".
Aside from that, I did enjoy the way the movie began and ended, hearkeing back to the way Hitchcock opened and closed his eponymous television program. I thought that was a neat touch. And I might be mistaken on this minor bit, but knowing that Hitch always found a way to insert a cameo of himself in his films, I thought it was a neat touch when a silhouette of the director appeared in the window of Janet Leigh's (Scarlett Johansson) dressing room. To me, that appeared to be a nod to Hitchcock's creative appearances that didn't always depend on a physical presence.
Overall, an entertaining picture for the casual fan, perhaps not so much for the serious Hitchcock cinephile. But then again, after seeing so many botched biographical interpretations by Hollywood, one becomes immune enough to the fact to just sit back and enjoy.
Now the actor who portrayed Anthony Perkins, wow!, James D'Arcy really did look like Perkins to me. He had those quirky mannerisms that were perfect for rendering an unbalanced character like Norman Bates. The rest of the cast appeared generally fine, though aspects of the story didn't ring true, as in the relationship between Hitch and his wife Alma (Helen Mirren). I know the director did fantasize about his leading ladies, especially blondes, but he was always faithful to his wife as a collaborator and inspiration. The suggested love triangle with Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston) didn't seem all that necessary as part of the story line, and in fact, tended to remove one from an appreciation of what the film was intended for, i.e., the making of the movie "Psycho".
Aside from that, I did enjoy the way the movie began and ended, hearkeing back to the way Hitchcock opened and closed his eponymous television program. I thought that was a neat touch. And I might be mistaken on this minor bit, but knowing that Hitch always found a way to insert a cameo of himself in his films, I thought it was a neat touch when a silhouette of the director appeared in the window of Janet Leigh's (Scarlett Johansson) dressing room. To me, that appeared to be a nod to Hitchcock's creative appearances that didn't always depend on a physical presence.
Overall, an entertaining picture for the casual fan, perhaps not so much for the serious Hitchcock cinephile. But then again, after seeing so many botched biographical interpretations by Hollywood, one becomes immune enough to the fact to just sit back and enjoy.