I stumbled across this one day while scanning through the channels. I saw "Hitchcock" in the description, so I decided to have a look. Now I'll admit, I don't know all that much about Hitchcock. I know he's a great director, but I know next to nothing about his personal life or any controversy that may have lead to this movie. Instead I focused on the movie itself. After watching, I decided to look it up, where I came across the rather large controversy that this film has created. So here's my humble take on the film.
"The Girl" is a brilliant film from a mechanical standpoint. The acting is brilliant. Toby Jones sounds almost IDENTICAL to Hitchcock. It was really quite eerie to listen to the two. He seemed to capture the mannerisms from the director quite well. Sienna Miller was okay, but was a bit dry in some parts. Otherwise it was a fine group of actors. Likewise, directing, cinematography and editing were all exceptional, so why does this film fail?
A question I have instead of all the "is this a true story?" is, if you have all of the makings of a great film-a great cast, a great director, great camera-work-why base the story on such a controversial and doubtful series of events? Why not use the tools you have to make a biopic of sorts? This is what baffles me. If this film had followed a different story, it would probably have a much better rating. Everything points to a successful film EXCEPT the story, so why do it?
I suppose this is the problem with film these days. People are more concerned about the shock factor than an actual quality film. It's a shame too, because this could have been much, much better and free from controversy.
"The Girl" is a brilliant film from a mechanical standpoint. The acting is brilliant. Toby Jones sounds almost IDENTICAL to Hitchcock. It was really quite eerie to listen to the two. He seemed to capture the mannerisms from the director quite well. Sienna Miller was okay, but was a bit dry in some parts. Otherwise it was a fine group of actors. Likewise, directing, cinematography and editing were all exceptional, so why does this film fail?
A question I have instead of all the "is this a true story?" is, if you have all of the makings of a great film-a great cast, a great director, great camera-work-why base the story on such a controversial and doubtful series of events? Why not use the tools you have to make a biopic of sorts? This is what baffles me. If this film had followed a different story, it would probably have a much better rating. Everything points to a successful film EXCEPT the story, so why do it?
I suppose this is the problem with film these days. People are more concerned about the shock factor than an actual quality film. It's a shame too, because this could have been much, much better and free from controversy.