Monday, December 17, 2012

F This Movie! - Hitchcock

You should listen to Patrick and JB talk about Hitchcock even if you haven't seen Hitchcock, because they just might stop you from ever seeing Hitchcock.



Download this episode here. (29.7 MB)

Email F This Movie! at fthismoviepodcast(at)gmail.com

Subscribe to F This Movie! in iTunes

Become a fan of F This Movie! on Facebook and follow F This Movie! on Twitter

Also discussed this episode: The Hobbit (2012), Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012), Wreck-it Ralph (2012), Rise of the Guardians (2012)

14 comments:

  1. Being that F This Movie has become my go-to movie critique site I know have to designate The Hobbit and Beasts of the Southern Wild for the 'F This Movie Changeround' (i.e. a movie I really disliked but because the wise people at F This Movie see value in, I feel compelled to re-watch it and uncover something, anything at all). Thank you??

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great podcast, guys. While I was really bummed out to hear how bad HITCHCOCK is, I'm really, REALLY bummed out Eric the Actor isn't playing Hitchcock. Thanks for planting that seed, Patrick. Ack, ack.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know what to do...you KNOW...what to do.

      Delete
  3. It's such a shame this movie is as terrible as it is. A really good Hitchcock biopic seems like such a great and fascinating idea to me. I don't know if we'll ever get one that does the man justice, but I'll keep dreaming of it. Until then, it really sounds like this just isn't that movie.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm with JB. Bring back intermissions! Between recent viewings of Kill Bill and the six billion discs of the Lord of the Rings extended editions, I see the value of the hard movie break.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Now wait, wait, wait; does the movie simply ignore/make up shit about how Psycho is based on a novel by the great Robert Bloch? Seriously?

    On a different tack: as mentioned, Margo Epper's sister Jeannie Epper, is the stuntwoman who is profiled along with Zoe Bell in the interesting documentary "Double Dare." (Like Zoe was the stunt Xena, Epper was the stunt Wonder Woman for Lynda Carter.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The movie shows Hitchcock reading the novel pretty early on, so at least it doesn't lie about the fact that it was a book first. I'm hoping there's a deleted scene that says that Alma actually ghost wrote the novel.

      I love Double Dare, mostly because it allows me to spend more time with ZB. Thanks, Joseph!

      Delete
  6. I was really looking forward to Hitchcock, until I read an article specifying that the filmmakers weren't allowed to actually SHOW anything from Psycho. Then I saw a preview where Helen Mirren is shown suggesting they kill off the star halfway through, and I knew I was done. I've read Rebello's book, and I hate the idea that people will watch this movie and think it actually is based on the book.

    For Hitchcock fans, another terrific book is "Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light," by Patrick MacGilligan. It doesn't airbrush its subject, but I think it's more balanced than Spoto's book. It also goes into the making of the individual films in some depth.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I really like this podcast because you saved me the time of trying to find a theater to watch this turd. And I was wonder why it wasn't playing in very many theaters after the limited release. So Sad i really wnted it to be good. Thanks guys, and I saw the Hobbit last night and thought it was great. To long though for 3D and it wasn't in 48FPS. But it was really good!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wow, Hitchcock sounds like a really douchey movie. And regarding The Hobbit, I do like what JB said about how he wants the movie and not the stink. I've just about had it with best of and worst of lists (F This Movie! not included, because you guys are intelligent and humble, earnest dudes) and everything being THE GREATEST or THE WORST EVER. I'm seeing a VERY outspoken wave of hate for The Hobbit, and I just don't understand it. It's one thing to say it's too long, because it probably is. If it's not your thing, that's fine, but some people are just tearing it to pieces. But I'm getting really tired of all the hyperbole where everything has to be at an extreme. I went in with very modest expectations for The Hobbit. I was pretty suspicious about it being divided into a trilogy, and I was certainly not expecting greatness, but I had a good time. So far, the movies I went into like that have been the ones I've enjoyed the most. Like Patrick says, I can see it for the movie it is and not the movie I want it to be.

    Bree and I were just talking over the weekend as we prepared for The Hobbit about intermissions during long movies and how everything lasts 3 hours now. Bring back intermissions! I was really engaged during the movie and would have sat there for another 3 hours, bladder willing, but my wife fell asleep four times. 3 hours (not including trailers) is a lot to ask of an audience without giving them a chance to pee.

    Patrick, I'd love to hear your thoughts on The Hobbit after you've seen it. I have some things I'd love to talk about in detail once we're all safe from spoilers.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Great podcast guys.

    New suggestion for the Glossary: Psycho Bibliography.
    Use example: "Dammmn! You just got handed a Psycho Bibliography!"
    Meaning: When a movie or person gets totally and utterly "owned" in aggressive style, complete with multiple references.

    Beautifully done JB.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just came back from seeing "Hitchcock," which I was planning to see this weekend anyway along with "Hyde Park by Hudson." Both movies have a good actor at their center (so sue me, I liked Hopkins' take on Hitchcock as much as Bill Murray's on FDR; both actors seriously commit to their portrayals and made me forget I'm watching an actor) and both suffer from the same screenwriter malady of period characters talking with thoughts/comments/perspectives straight out of contemporary views of a well-chronicled past. And both movies also suffer from an unhealthy dose of fiction/BS/made-up stuff (mostly composite characters) taking away screen/narrative from the interesting real-life stuff.

    And even if FDR got a hand job from his mistress/cousin (which I'm pretty sure happened), it was as unnecessary an inclusion into "Hyde Park on Hudson" as Hitch imagining he was stabbing away his demons/enemies during the filming of the shower scene in "Hitchcock." Sometimes less really is more. And BTW, which is worse: Gus Van Sant inserting cows and clouds into his re-enactment of the shower scene in "Psycho" or Sacha Gervasi's 'Hitch stabs away' montage in "Hitchcock"? Heck, which of the two is the worse in your opinion?

    BTW, both Patrick and JB are confusing the ending of the movie as separate scenes. Hitch's monologue standing in front of his house (he's not sitting), the bird on his shoulder (I too thought a bird was gonna poop on him, "A Shot in the Dark" style) and Hitch walking back and waving toward his wife all happen in one uninterrupted take.

    Also, JB mentions that Hitch sees a couple kissing/making out that hints at what he wishes he had if he weren't a big fat guy. The couple Hitch is looking at is Vera Miles and, presumably, her husband, and that scene between the two comes a few moments after a previous scene in which Hitch and Vera talk about their falling out. Considering the myrad of problems with "Hitchcock" I think the liberties taken with the characterizations of Miles and Janet Leigh were on the acceptable level for Hollywood biopics. Yes, Leigh probably never gave Hitch a ride on her VW, but I really liked that scene between them eating candy corn. And they did show a scene toward the end of the movie with Vera not bald but with her wig off and very short hair that had clearly grown a tad during the time it took to make "Psycho." It didn't spell out for the audience "She Was Bald All Along!" but observant viewers would pick it up. Probably this is the compromise Sacha had to live with to get the actresses/studio happy, the same trick Richard Donner used to get Gene Hackman to play Lex Luthor in the original "Superman," although Gene did wear a bald cap for the final scene).

    Spielberg's "Lincoln" proves you can do a compelling biopic about a short period of time/specific achievement of a celebrated individual that tells us all we need to know about the life/achievement of that person. "Hitchcock" and "Hyde Park in Hudson" both had the same good intentions as "Lincoln," but both fall pray to filmmakers too in love with their own take on their subjects rather than the subjects themselves (Spielberg and Tony Kushner clearly are taken with not only Abraham Lincoln but also Mary Todd and their sons, Thaddeus Stevens, William Seward, etc.). A pox on the houses of Sacha Gervasi and Roger Michell for wasting their talented casts and resources on so much made-up maudlin soap opera antics about Alfred Hitchcock & Alma and FDR when the true events of the stories/characters it reenacts are so much more interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Michael GiammarinoJanuary 30, 2013 at 5:53 AM

    Shit just got real.

    http://agourahills.patch.com/articles/psycho-scribe-s-widow-hitchcock-film-full-of-mistakes-and-lies

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Better lies or the truth" You pretty much summed it up guys. Actually I never saw it, but thanks to you fellas I don't need to. Although, I am interested to hear more about the weird bird movie that this film so cleverly references.

    ReplyDelete