tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-499247432649483938.post3928856014594081196..comments2024-03-11T01:39:11.362-04:00Comments on At the Scene of the Crime: Why Couldn't They Make it Better?Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01844617192737950378noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-499247432649483938.post-42026951557612823992013-01-01T18:06:22.256-05:002013-01-01T18:06:22.256-05:00I just saw the movie– I thought that this was Hopk...I just saw the movie– I thought that this was Hopkins's best performance in years, and I did enjoy it, but I do think it could have been much better. Other scenes that should have been included: The Hitchcocks' daughter, Patricia, is never seen or mentioned, and she has a small part in Psycho! Perhaps she refused to grant permission to be portrayed on-screen, as she is still alive. Also, I would have liked a bit about how Hitchcock chose to make his trademark cameo in this movie– early on, he's seen outside of Marion Crane's workplace wearing a cowboy hat. Also, I would have loved a reference to the story about Walt Disney banning Hitchcock from Disneyland because he had "made that disgusting movie Psycho." And finally, on set, Hitchcock insisted on referring to Anthony Perkins as "Master Bates."Christopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03343947041898057102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-499247432649483938.post-36407946565970452482012-12-21T06:15:31.353-05:002012-12-21T06:15:31.353-05:00Such a missed opportunity! Sounds like textbook l...Such a missed opportunity! Sounds like textbook lazy and uninspired filmmaking to tuen it into simply a GirlPower! movie (D'Arcy does look like Perkins though!).The Passing Tramphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09830680639601570152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-499247432649483938.post-61111974234385740082012-12-19T19:26:40.198-05:002012-12-19T19:26:40.198-05:00Certainly sounds like a missed opportunity Patrick...Certainly sounds like a missed opportunity Patrick, what a shame. I don't have a problem with overtly fictionalising real people and events if you have a point to make (for instance, I felt I learned a lot about Clinton from Joe Klein's anonymously published PRIMARY COLOURS even though it only has the semblance of reality). If you ever get the chance the play HTCHCOCK BLONDE by Terry Johnson is a fantastic look at the man and his films that is completely fictional while Robert le Page's LE CONFESSIONAL remains the best film I have ever seen to make fictional use of Hitchcock as part of its narrativeSergio (Tipping My Fedora)http://bloodymurder.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-499247432649483938.post-85827057042757559912012-12-19T14:58:35.494-05:002012-12-19T14:58:35.494-05:00Helen Mirren seems to have been cast because she p...Helen Mirren seems to have been cast because she plays strong females and Alma is portrayed as basically being God, with silly little Hitch not understanding her but not being able to survive without her. What really pisses me off, in retrospect, is how at the end of the movie they used a quote from Hitch's speech when the AFI awarded him a Lifetime Achievement Award. It was a loving tribute to Alma and showed that, no matter what, at the end of the day these two people loved each other very much. All they do in this movie is bicker and exchange cheesy lines that are all-too-obviously scripted. As good as Hopkins is as Hitch, he and Mirren just haven't got good chemistry, and this is pushed to the foreground. I wouldn't have minded this as a subplot, but as the main storyline? <i>Mille fois, non!</i><br /><br />I would have liked this movie if it had quite simply been entertaining. They could have altered history considerably, but as long as they made it enjoyable to watch I would have forgiven it! For instance, MUNICH is a terrific film; the first part is an accurate (as far as I can tell) reconstruction of the massacre at the Munich Olympics, and the second part is largely fictionalized. Another terrific historical film is AMAZING GRACE, but that one used the other approach by being as close to history as possible, right down to the oft-misrepresented personality of William Pitt. What do these two movies have in common? They are *FUN TO WATCH*... and I can't say the same for HITCHCOCK.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844617192737950378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-499247432649483938.post-25533631232953081452012-12-19T14:23:57.776-05:002012-12-19T14:23:57.776-05:00I've not seen the movie, and to be honest I su...I've not seen the movie, and to be honest I suspect that it's one of those that I'm going to wait and see when it turns up on television. The real problem with any of these 'how famous movies were made' type of films is that the business of making these things tends to be fairly undramatic. I read the book a while back, and when I heard that it was going to be made into a movie it seemed a little puzzling. But, of course, they didn't make the book into a movie, but simply used their imagination.<br /><br />Maybe it they had read the book they would realise that one of the things that really attracted Hitch to the project was was a story where the leading lady is killed of after only half an hour. Ignoring Bloch's contribution seems about par for the course for Hollywood (I read a respected study of Hitch where it claimed that he took 'very little' from the original novel). The casting of Helen Mirren seems a little weird for Alma Reville, as she doesn't look like any photos that I've seen of her. Reville really does seem to have been an important collaborator with her husband, but did not push herself forward. She certainly didn't direct any bits of his movies!<br /><br />I enjoyed that loving pastiche of 60s romantic comedies DOWN WITH LOVE a few years ago.What a shame that someone didn't attempt to produce a pastiche of Hitch's movies with the actors and creators involved.Sextonblakenoreply@blogger.com