20th Century Fox Home Entertainment has revealed that it is planning to release a combo pack edition of director Sacha Gervasi's Hitchcock (2012), starring Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren and Scarlett Johansson. The preliminary release date set by the studio is March 12th.
Technical specs and supplemental features to be included with this upcoming release are yet to be revealed.
Hitchcock is a love story about one of the most influential filmmakers of the last century, Alfred Hitchcock, and his wife and partner Alma Reville. The film takes place during the making of Hitchcock's seminal movie Psycho.
Update: Special features and new coverwork added up.
Becoming the Master: From Hopkins to Hitchcock
Obsessed with Hitchcock
Sacha Gervasi's Behind the Scenes Cell Phone Footage
Despite having "real" stars, it was an Fox Searchlight indie film, so of course it was fast. (They don't have to worry as much about theatrical windows.)
Basically "Ed Wood" with better actors, but an enjoyable piece for Hopkins and Mirren. Could've used a little more about the actual -making- of Psycho, though, instead of the whole invented subplots.
I will buy it. Only one minor quibble with the film though, I wish they spent a bit more time on how he filmed the shower scene. i have read alot about it, but it would have been fun to see it come alive on the screen.
Most historically inaccurate film in years! Watch the "making of" bonus feature on the "Psycho" Blu-ray if you want the truth. This film's got it so wrong it shows it being filmed at Paramount when in reality it was filmed on the Universal lot! It's a total pile of crap
@van - Ohh yeah. (Hence the "Ed Wood" pop-culture-malarkey comparison.)
Hopkins' Hitch is dead-on, but the movie tries to suggest that, gasp!, Hitch was more interested in poking at everyone's secret sexual hangups than in being a tight, competent auteur who liked to show off that he knew what he was doing.
Think we had TWO moments in the entire movie that were taken from the actual making-of (the dressing-room prank on Leigh), and the rest was MadMen-style retro-pop fantasia. We never even got the real Hitch's famous line when he first introduced Leigh to Perkins on the set ("Miss Crane, this is Master Bates."), or any theories.of Hitch's "rivalry" with B-master William Castle. (Compare Castle's "Homicidal" to Psycho's "ending" theater gimmick, and you can visibly see one trying to outdo the other for who was the King of Lovable Self-Ballyhooing Macabre.)
I don't know how accurate it is, but I can tell you it was a very entertaining watch and Anthony Hopkins is fantastic. I will deffinetly be picking this up and I am especially excited that they will continue to do that cool slipcover style like the one they did with Beasts of the Southern Wild.
I keep seeing people concerned with inaccuracies (often moments which have a defined basis in what actually occurred - but apparently some still find such things "incredibly inaccurate")...and, presumably being Hitchcock fans, one would think that they recognize the difference between reality and film. Or that they'd be more concerned with embellishments regarding The Wrong Man or between the real case of Ed Gein and Psycho's formation as a narrative (even while many still cling to the notion that there's a greater intentional similarity between the two than there was). You know...anything to ruin the fun with their inaccurate perceptions of "reality." Hitchcock would certainly not approve.
Many complaining about such things (including many known film critics) even go so far as to ignore the often necessary adjustments when adapting nonfiction to film. Or they ignore how many "myths" regarding Hitchcock some people have accepted as fact (and how that could include themselves). No - they ignore all of that and, instead, complain that a surrealistic, seriocomic "homage" film isn't a textbook.
@Ashedemaniac, Good Lord man, this was NOT a "surrealistic seriocomic homage" - it was Hollywood crap, by a crap director who I'm thinking was trying to impress his girl by showing that Htch just wasn't Hitch without his Alma, and see "women are important too." To compare a film ABOUT Hitchcock WITH a Hitchcock film is ridiculous.
Yeah I don't need a textbook, thanks I have several on the director already, but I would like even a fictional account of the making of "Psycho" to at least get which studio it was filmed at correct
@ashedmaniac, wow so much to respond to for so little of film, well to say Alma's status is "unsung" is one thing, to indicate as the film vigorously proposes, that Hitchcock without Alma is crap but Hitchcock with Alma is genius is a bit of a leap, but that seems to be the main narrative through-point of the piece.
Ah yes there is that "surreal" aspect of him conversing with Ed Gein. The scenes were so bad and contrived and pointless I forgot them. As for the film being reverent of Hitchcock, well fine I guess, Yeah, I mean he doesn't exactly show him as an ass so there's that.
At any time feel free to tell what the point of the film was, Hey everyone, come see a "not really the making of Psycho and the at best dubious behind the scenes life of the director and his wife" yeah good times
As for your last paragraph, no, I don't need the film to cover every aspect. But once again I DO expect the film to get the studio right. Now either the director didn't know it was shot at Universal or he did and didn't care. It is an appalling oversight. I did NOT view this through the lens of utter cynicism. Yes, there are people who see movies to hate and attack them. I do not. As a fan of Hitch, Helen, and Anthony I expected a good film. I did not get it. You can like the film all you want, that doesn't make it a good film.
@vanscottie I don't feel that the film vigorously proposes that. I think the film is trying to tell a unique sort of love story and so, where reality supports that, they stress the matter. To me, asking what "the point" is implies that all films must have a point - which is debatable as sometimes fluff is fluff and that's fine (although sometimes that seems to be the point). In my view, this film was establishing that "Hitchcock" was more than just Alfred. What we have come to perceive of the director's work has, more than anyone other than Alfred himself, a direct relationship with Alma. And so when we view Hitchcockian films, we are viewing labors of love just as Alma and Alfred's relationship was. To me, that's the type of thing it was "about" or somewhere in the realm of "the point" - that love can bring people together and help create art.
I'm sure the director knew where it was shot but I imagine the screenwriter didn't wish to include unnecessary complications which don't add to the drama. Why include confusing "trivia" which puts reality before the needs of the narrative to a disproportionate degree for a film which is meant to entertain rather than expressly inform? Omitting such needless complications is often the direct job of screenwriters who are adapting material.
As for my alluding to cynicism perhaps shaping your view, I get the impression (maybe I'm incorrect) that you found yourself greatly displeased with the film and now you're using that to cast aspersions concerning its intentions, formation, the makers' awareness, etc. Sure, the movie may be terrible as far as you're concerned but I don't think that justifies thinking everybody went into the matter backwards. Sometimes films that "don't work" for some are made with the best intentions, artists, material, etc. - and somehow the whole thing still manages to fall apart as far as some are concerned.
I did not state whether I liked the film or not. And I don't intend to. But I do intend to question when people act like a biopic which takes evident artistic license (given the surrealistic aspects which make this clear) should somehow stick 100% to the facts - even if doing so would likely confuse the audience or unnecessarily complicate matters.
Yes, I can see how saying/showing the film being filmed on Universal rather than Paramount would greatly confuse the audience. Again, this is at best a piffle of a film, and not worth either yours or my critical thought. And again, I'm not even sure what you're defending if you don't take a personal liking of the film. This film is not any means a good solid well done film having flopped both critically and commercially. I was pointing out perhaps why while perhaps you're defending it I daresay more for your own reasons of film theory rather than for what's actually up on the screen.
@vanscottie You keep using particularly negative or dismissive terms to describe aspects of the film rather than explaining WHY or HOW you think such things are the case (even though you said you were trying to establish a possible reasoning for what you consider to be the film's lack of success). Which makes me wonder if you feel personally slighted by it, given that you would let hollow sentiment be the manner in which you express your distaste rather than really laying into what's actually "WRONG" with it - not merely that which you're annoyed is inaccurate or that which is simply not to your liking. I'd enjoy hearing your genuine reasoning as I see no reason for discussion if people won't share differing (or even similar) views and come to better understand themselves and each other.
As far as my awareness has shown, when one feels "personally wronged," one often has a tendency to blame the other party rather than more deeply consider why one feels that way - and your comment that it doesn't deserve any critical thought seems to fall in line with that IF you do feel somehow "wronged" in relation to this film.
I do not have a defined personal investment in the success/failure/critics/finances/actors concerning this film. So, when I discuss it, I tend to lay out why I feel the way I do about it rather than just describing it in negative or positive terms. Just using negative or positive generalities with no clarity, to me, seems like a willfully ignorant thing to do. No matter which terms one uses - if one doesn't explain (or even consider) one's reasoning - it tends to come down to the, "IT'S AMAZING!" and "IT SUCKS!" extremes with no real expression of content. I'm sure you're aware of why you didn't like it and could explain that without ignoring due considerations like the need for clarity (omission, adjustment, etc. - which might allow for relatively minor, within the dramatic narrative of the film, "inaccuracies" - compared to "the reality" outside of the film) when adapting nonfiction to fiction - which is the type of thing I've been calling for all along here in relation to the film.
So, if you wish to discuss the content in that form - "with clear reasoning," please do so. And if you genuinely do feel it's not worthy of further critical thought (although I would think some occurs regardless when discerning the quality of a film), just ignore this comment.
@Ash, I do not understand what you do not understand about WHY I didn't like the film? The historical inaccuracies were egregious! And there was for my money no counter-balancing on any other level to even it out, i.e. acting, interesting characters, good plot, cinematography, directing. Now you can disagree with everything I've said and that's fine. Now if you want me to write a dissertation on the subject I could probably do it. I've studied film, I've worked in the industry. But as I said earlier this is hardly the kind of film to get either of our panties in an uproar over; it's not a film on the scale of great and near-great films that have divided critical opinion down through the ages. "Hitchcock" is on my list of the Worst Films of 2012. I'm not sure how much or to what extent I need to justify that based on an intellectual or emotional response to the film
I wasn't looking for a dissertation but to see you delve into what you disliked (aside from "inaccuracies"). You've now stated that - although you didn't explain what you found lacking about the acting, plot, etc. Previously, you'd say "pointless" and "piffle" - describing things dismissively without clarifying how it was that or what you mean.
What do historical inaccuracies have to do with anything? It is fiction. Based on real life, but as a dramatization, Hitchcock would likely admit that consideration must be given for omissions, alterations, etc. So, ignoring "reality," what was wrong with it as a FILM? I want to hear that to gain a greater understanding of your particular perspective and, obviously, I am unconcerned with what you found inaccurate - as, although you seem to, I don't feel that enters into a discussion of genuine quality in this regard.
If you can distance yourself from the "inaccuracies," perhaps you can elaborate on the issues at play so I can see where we MIGHT differ on those and better appreciate your perspective. As, otherwise, I get the impression that potentially misplaced expectations ("It will be realistic and like a textbook!" - ?) and high personal investment distorted your viewing.
A dramatization of events is just that - inspired by real life, shaped into something suitable for entertainment/drama/etc. and then displayed in that regard...it is meant to be viewed IN that regard. To ignore that is, I feel, to dismiss Hitchcock's perspective and efforts themselves. Besides, if you watched most of his films wanting "reality," you would likely hate Hitchcock. The issue with such expectations is, "Can the audience ignore needless preconceptions or do they drag them like a dead, repeatedly-beaten horse into the theater with them?"
So, if we are to still discuss "inaccuracies," the question appears - In relation to Hitchcock as a subject, do you hold Hitchcockian perceptions or "reality" more dear? If the latter, it makes sense to be at least a bit let down by the film. However, if the latter, one might question why you bothered to see a film about Hitchcock in the first place.
It' now Jan 8th. I gave up. I've stated my case, not stating it further. If I turn around now and say I thought the acting was amateurish you'll just turn around and ask "Well HOW was it amateurish?" And then we'll go back and forth more. You'll obviously never get what you want. I didn't like it. It moved me neither emotionally, intellectually or artistically. And now to impugn my reasons for going to see the film is absurd, whatever dude. As a fellow Film Lover, which I'm assuming you are, I sincerely hope you have many good and rewarding hours in the movie theatres this year. I checked your list of Blu's, we agree on a lot and disagree on a lot, as is the case of most two disparate people.
I was just looking for clarity on your points because you made them unclear. If you could back up your broad statements of opinion with some semblance of their basis, I would discuss those with you and agree or agree to disagree. I didn't intend to imply anything but was earnestly questioning why someone might see a film about a subject if they seem intent not to recognize the influence of the subject upon the film. You might not be such a person but drawing the conclusions you have indicates the possibility - which interests me.