Dracula (1992)

Directed by: Francis Ford Coppola
Released: 1992
Staring: Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Keanu Reeves, Anthony Hopkins, Clary Ewles
Rated: R
Times Viewed 5+

 There is a moment in film making when the artistic choices go beyond  filling a lot, clothing an actor, and underscoring a scene; the artistic team behind Bram Stoker's Dracula immortalized not only a literary character but multiple periods of art and history, all on screen.

   Nothing dates a film more than bad special effects, whether they be shoddy stop motion or CGI. Francis Ford Coppela's adaption of the iconic novel by Bram Stoker will forever stand the test of time due to his traditional method of special effects and camera technique. When one says "traditional"the usual connotation is old, boring, out of day; however, by using practical effects and no CGI, Dracula is  a back of all treats and no tricks. Coppela's collaboration with costume designer Eiko Ishioka, scenic designer Joseph Hodges, special effects artist Roman Coppola, and composer Wojciech Kilar resulted in a true work of classic, cinematic art. 

  The only thing more engrossing than watching Coppola's adaption is watching the production documentaries and videos following the development of the film. I own a copy of the 15th anniversary edition DVD which is packed with hours of such footage. Absolutely no green screen's were used all sets were built on screen and effects only produced as they would have been in the early 1900's. Magic tricks, reverse photography, and double exposure were all used to create the unique and often haunting effects that give Dracula it's classic flair. In this Coppola really must be applauded, his passion and unrelenting dedication to the classic art of film is something sorely missed in today's Hollywood. There are some truly BRILLIANT effects and sequences created in this film...all of which are addressed in this fantastic short The Naive Visual Effects of Bram Stoker's Dracula. I highly suggest checking it out, it's a great look at the technical craft and ingenuity that goes into practical classic film making. 

  Special Effects included, Bram Stoker's Dracula is wickedly theatrical and full of art history and this is most apparent than in it's costume designs. Eiko Ishioka one of Hollywood's most creative and dramatic costume designer's created looks that not only elude to famous works of art , but become art themselves; Dracula's garments specifically span generations and cultures. Coppola refers to images as "swatches" during the visual production period and the these "swatches" from Klimt to numerous other's are...There are just too many brilliant pieces to choose from, each gorgeous in it's own individual fashion...

 The quality of the production design is beyond words, and let's not forget that the film one best Oscar for Costume Design, Make-up, and Sound Effects/Editing...The old age make-up on Gary Oldman is truly THEE best over put on screen, I've yet to see it's rival...Benjamin Button, eat your heart out. Besides age make-up, the creature prosthetics are incredibly detailed and quite honestly perfection; every line was considered, every hair in place. The costumes are pure theater, and the make-up pure magic.

Wojciech Kilar's melodies are equally haunting as the tale they underscore. A multiple repetition of chords that build and build, creating tension; Kilar compliments these heavy tracks with a light as air romanic theme that twists itself and soon becomes a hair raising refrain.This soundtrack is the perfect mix of horror, danger, and romance.

  Now let's address the one conflicting factor that takes this Art History masterpiece of Romanic Horror and turns it from Oscar gold, to B-film camp. The acting...Specifically Keanu Reeves acting.

  Poor, poor Keanu Reeves...he tried, He really, REALLY tired. While he's one of those actors who's been consistently bad in almost every movie he's in I, due to some unknown force, like his movies. {The Matrix, Constantine, & of course Dracula} Some roles are juste cursed and the role of Jonathan Harker is on of them...first of all, he's like Raoul in The Phantom of the Opera...the writer's try SO desperately to turn him into the romantic lead when it's obviously the opposer. Second, he's a bit of a pussy...he goes to the castle, get's imprisoned, get's out then whines the entire rest of the story...I don't think anyone has every felt badly for Jonathan Harker in Dracula's history. THAT, however, does not excuse the exceptionally painful job that Reeves did in this role. His acting befits that of a high school freshman...who doesn't enjoy theater.

  Keanu Reeves is not the only one having a hard time in their roles...Sadie Frost who plays the part of Lucy Winestra struggles through her character by series of sexual moans and screeches. Winona Ryder as a whole makes a mostly successful transition from child star to leading lady with this role, however she does have a couple awkward moments herself. And if I must be totally honest I have to confess that, while he's brilliant, this is not Sir Anthony Hopkin's best role. He was and is perfect for the part, it's simply falls upon some rather odd physical choices he makes that bring the performance down to a satire level.

  Check out this clip below, it shows not only the faltering attempts of Reeves, but also the levels that Gary Oldman brings to his performance of Dracula as well as the rich costume, set, and sound designs...it's definitely a defining scene of the film.

  The shining star in this sometimes fading constellation without a doubt is Gary Oldman. Oldman's versatility and complete commitment never fails to blow me away, Dracula is no exception. In a performance that could have been weighed down by make-up and costume, Oldman uses them to his advantage and brings a timeless, yet fresh take to the most iconic of Monsters. The performance plays on the subtleties and theatricality of the character of Dracula creating a new character who you are both revolted and attracted to. My personal favorite, of all Gary Oldman's performances.

  So if you haven't see it yet, Bram Stoker's Dracula is the one to watch this Halloween evening. With his stunning costumes, intriguing set and special effects designs and above all Gary Oldman's performance it's not only my pick of  Halloween movie, but also happens to be my FAVORITE movie.

The Phantom of the Opera (1989)

You all think I'm going to talk about the 2004 Gerard Butler, Joel Schumaker adaption of Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical don't you? That's adorable.

Directed by: Dwight H. Little
Released: 1989
Staring: Robert Englund, Jill Schoelen, Bill Nye,
Rated: R
Times Viewed: 4

  There are certain movies you watching thinking...I'm really enjoying this, I know I shouldn't because it's probably a ridiculously cheesy horrible movie, but I really am enjoying this. You watch it about three or four times, making jokes in your head but it doesn't matter because it's still a good movie. Then you watch that movie with other people and you realize all those jokes you made to yourself were totally justified and you should probably hide the fact that you bought this movie off of Amazon and you really love it from the general public....Anyone else have that movie?
        Anyone?
                 No?
  Well the 1989 adaption of The Phantom of the Opera staring Robert Englund and Bill Nye is mine. It's 80's, it's gore, it's ridiculous, it's not an accurate adaption of the book, and it is AWESOME. This being said, I have to let you all know....

  The bane of my existence presents itself in two forms. Bad Dracula adaptions {we'll get to this in a review later this month} and bad Phantom of the Opera adaptions. Is it really so impossible to produce a faithful adaption to the book??? The book has all the elements of an awesome horror/romance/mystery movie because it's an awesome horror/romance/mystery novel!
As of 2007 there were over 40 adaptions of Gaston Leroux's book. 
  I really love Phantom of the Opera. I got hooked thanks to a cassette of the Andrew Lloyd Webber Musical my parents bought after seeing the production in the early 90's. I forgot about the show for a while until 2004 when Joel Schumaker made it into a colorless, sub-par, yet enjoyable adaption. After being reunited with the story I hunted down the book and basically every other adaption I could get my hands on...let me tell you, there are A LOT of adaptions of The Phantom of the Opera. Most bad, all cheesy, but all (save the Dario Argento adaption) have their redeeming qualities.

  The 1989 adaptions' is it's 80's thrill and gore and Robert Englund....Poor, poor Freddy Kru... I mean ROBERT ENGLUND. The poor guy signed his action soul to the Devil the day he decided to do Nightmare on Elm Street. I'm sure he's made quite the pretty penny on the series, which boast 7 sequels to the first as well as the 2010 remake, but they've limited him creatively. ROBERT ENGLUND IS A GOOD ACTOR, I truly believe he is. Sadly, like make villains of 80's horror, he's been typecast to no end. Whenever he DOES land a role that is not Kruger, the character still haunts him. Marking people are mainly to blame for this and I have to say whoever was captain for this ship should have been fired because this is not acceptable...He's basically a marketing strategy

Seriously, I don't mean to be rude, but what assholes. From what I've read on the web Englund wasn't too happy about this either, and for good reason! I would not want people to go to a film because they expected to see Freddy, I would want them to go to see what else Freddy can do!
.

  This all being said, the character Englund creates is brilliant but he does offer several Freddy-esque characteristics. He has some great, macabre one liners, creepy laugh, and dream-like presence...In reality this has nothing to do with Englund's acting and more about screen writing. This may be a strong statement, but Robert Englund's interpretation of The Phantom is the closes to what I had generated in my mind from the book.
The Phantom is not a nice, cuddly guy chilling in the basement waiting to watch The Notebook with you *cough* Charles Dance *cough* he's a bad ass, crazy stalker. I say this with nothing but love in my heart, but he is out of his mind. He kills people, he LIKES killing people; but he's some how charming and intelligent!

  The rest of the cast is mediocre at best, even Bill Nye is odd in the role of the Opera House manager. Please don't even get me started on Christine...the young Jill Schoelen is not the worst Christine to grace stage or screen but she's not the best either. Her singing voice {which I don't believe is her own, is no where near "angelic"} I don't think I've ever seen a performance of Christine Daae (outside the musical content) that I enjoyed. Always winy, annoying, just uh...Not much praise can be showered upon this cast apart of Englund of course.


Now let's talk about the movie itself. This is NOT accurate adaption of the Leroux novel, it takes many, MANY heavy handed liberties included name, location changes, and TIME TRAVEL. The Paris Opera House becomes the London Opera House, I see no reason for this...it's not like they actually shot in either location...Daae becomes to American DAY a change which I despise and Erik disfigurement comes for the Devil in the form of a midget in a brothel....ya I'm just gonna let that one sink in.  LIKE I SAID, heavy handed liberties...they were taken. I've seen so many adaptions I've learned to take them as they come and all the changes in this adaption, while crazy and outlandish WORK with the film and I *screams quietly* love this movie!

  One of the main reasons, it's gross. Just sick...and so good! While no one has ever gotten anywhere close to showing Erik's true disfigurement on screen, the 1989 adaptions offers a pretty nasty take. Instead of wearing a mask made of any synthetic material or fabric, the Phantom chooses to cover his burned face in HUMAN SKIN...that's right a la Buffalo Bill, this Phantom does some patch work sewing on his own face. This is where that 80's gore and horror come in. We the audience get several scenes of Erik skinning people, sewing the skin to his face, the skin be ripped off...and it's awesomely disgusting. There are some top notch make-up jobs in this film no matter how Nightmare on Elm Street inspired they may appear. Having The Phantom wear a mask of human flesh really bumps up the gross out factor that the original novel held so close {in the scene where Christine takes off Erik's mask he takes her hands, and digs her nails into her skull, pealing off dead skin}

Did I mention, Erik has a really AWESOME Red Death costume in this adaption?

  It's not perfect, it's occasionally ridiculous in it's retro-ness, and it's ghastly gory, but it's for those reasons I enjoy it! I don't take it seriously, and you shouldn't either! So if you've watched your collection of Nightmare on Elm Street so many times you can pin point the second a prosthetic tongue worms it's way out of a cored phone, give The Phantom of the Opera a try. Not as hokey as Nightmare but retaining a similar atmosphere and leading man of course. Robert Englund's performance is reason enough to watch Phantom but the gory 80's style are PERFECT for a Halloween viewing. Someday I hope this film will worm it's way onto the cult classic shelf along Nightmare, Halloween and Friday the 13th.

  I was going to talk about the Charles Dance tv miniseries of Phantom from 1990 but it's quite an extensive review all ready. All you need to know is I like it for unknown Charles Dance-y reasons.

I love Charles Dance...he is my favorite character on GOT and I didn't even know this until I rewatched season 2. Dance is no Lion in this miniseries however...he's almost the opposite.

  Charles Dance is an adorable English man who plays a French man with an American accent while everyone else around him keeps their English accents. I'm sorry but when I hear the voice of an Angel he doesn't sound like he's from Iowa. He is a cute and cuddly phantom who actually sings. Possibly one of the worst Christine's even if she is blond like she is in the book. It's both horribly bad and charming all at the same time. If you're bored you can watch the whole whole mini series on youtube.

 You guys...Tywin Lanister was a total FOX.

NOTE: This is definitely NOT from the 1990 adaption of Phantom.

He's just fun to look at

Captain Phillips

 While Gravity may have been King of last weekends box office, Captain Phillips is packed full of just as much intensity and thrilling action; not to mention brilliant performances. 

Directed by: Paul Greengrass
Released: 2013
Staring: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi, Barkhad Abdiraham, Faysal Ahmed, Mahat M. Ali, & Michael Chernus.
Rated: PG-13
Times Viewed: 1

"Based on a True Story" often leads to over-exposed and ultimate let down of many films in today's market; however, Captain Phillips lives up to the hype and offers the audience a solid and memorable action thriller.

  When Captain Phillips first crossed my radar I wasn't overly concerned with it's presence. Yes Tom Hanks is good but it was just going to be another dumbed down action-withouth action movie, nothing to get excited about. Weeks passed and the hype over the true tale of a brave cargo ship captain grew  and grew, traveling from media sites to my own parents. "That Tom Hanks is just incredible" my Dad boasted "Very good. Very intense" my Mother described via text. With their stamps of approval and the ever present accompaniment of "Oscar Buzz" I thought it was time to give Captain Phillips a chance. If all else fails, it has Tom Hanks, he's always a treat to watch!


  Captain Phillips successfully lives up to it's praise. Paul Greengrass creates a film that is not only laden with suspense, intensity, and action, but REALITY. Too often in Hollywood, action films turn into monstrous feasts of CGI, Good Guy vs. Bad Guy, and unnecessary SFX. Captain Phillips minimizes all the artificial aspects of an action film and allows the story be the source of action, not the effects. Granted, Greengrass had quite the story to work with. NOT to say I believe every event depicted in the film was what happened in real life, but how often is that what a film sets out to do?
  Based on True Event films like Captain Phillips set out to raise awareness and tell a great story. Is that always the right thing to do? No, but it's what making films is so often about, interpretation and presentation, not give an exact account. Yes, telling the real story is important but audiences must understand that this cinema and liberties will always be taken. I'm not here to tell you if Captain Phillips was an accurate presentation of the hijacking of Maersk Alabama in 2009, I'm here to review the film. If a movie like this is presented in such a way that it sparks my curiosity about the real events and compels me to do a bit of research, it's done it's job...along with entertaining of course.

  Greengrass' execution builds upon constant tension without feeling like a one note movie. Captain Phillips isn't confined to one space or vantage point, allowing the audience insight to more than just it's title character while retaining a sense of perspective. That perspective, while slightly slanted, is not singular. From beginning to end, the audience is shown both Phillips' and Pirate leader Muse's lives, motivations, and approach to their respective situations. Greengrass does this by presenting parallels in each man's life, showing the audience that the American Captain and Somali Pirate are not so different. I really loved this. Muse{pronounced "Moo-Say" I think}is , without a doubt, the antagonist; however, he's not completely unsympathetic. Audiences are shown why he's Pirating, his struggles, and his determination to prove himself. You're not necessarily rooting for the Pirates, but because of the insight into their lives and motivations, you're don't entirely want them to fail. A fresh take for the worn, one sided approach Hollywood so often takes. To quote one, Tom Hiddlestone "Every Villain is a Hero in his own mind."  Captain Phillips illustrates this beautifully.  

Director Paul Greengrass with his cast of Somali Actors on the
set of Captain Phillips (2013)

"From the Director of The Borne Supremacy & Ultimatum" had me nervous. These are the films that brought us the current action film staple...SHAKEY HAND-CAM. Yes that lovely, belligerent craft of strapping a camera to one's hand and not giving a frame as to whether the audience can acutely tell what's being filmed for not...Everyone rats on J.J. Abrams for lens flares? Shaky Cam will always be my ultimate enemy...

  So you see why I had my reserves about the film due to it's director, but Greengrass blew away all preconceived assumptions and delivered one helluva great action film. A great story helps, but the way this movie was filmed is what made it a such a success for me. "No tricks" as many characters in the movie often repeat, there were no tricks while making Captain Phillips. No ridiculous camera tricks, SFX tricks, or (most importantly) CGI tricks. This was solid thrills and action done without a single explosion or illogical car {boat} chase. In simpler terms, everything in Captain Phillips made sense. I never felt there was a time when I was apart of a sequence of action that didn't NEED to happen.

  Now action cannot be anything without actors and Captain Phillips' cast is ripe with raw, talented actors. Tom Hanks, I don't think this man has made a bad movie. And don't you dare say the Da Vinci Code because I immensely enjoy that movie! We all know Hanks can be the good guy, the nice guy, the funny guy, but we rarely see him in such a HUMAN role. It's refreshing to see him portraying a though, sometimes verging on unlikable character. Hanks doesn't milk the scene he has with his wife at the beginning, he just makes it real. The same goes for the first couple scenes as his character first takes charge of the Alabama and it's crew. Dare I say, he's kind of a hard ass. But it's truth, it's real. Hanks' final scene, after his rescue, is one of the most heart wrenching on film this year. The pure emotion that he exhibits is unbelievable and leaves not one dry eye in the theater.

  While Hanks is the obviously the big star in the film his rookie co-stars are not to be cast into his illustrious shadow. Much of the hype that's followed Captain Phillips has been surrounding the Somali actors who portray the hijacking pirates. All who, I might add, are from MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA! The four amateurs play it like old pros, all unforgiving and truthful as Hanks himself. Barkhad Abdi, the leader of the pirate crew, is getting a fair amount of Oscar Buzz for his performance and for good reason. Even in his silent moments we see the cogs turing in his mind, calculating and determining. Abdi holds his own against Hanks and gives a truly outstanding performance that is reason enough to check out Captain Phillips.

  If you haven't seen it yet, Captain Phillips is the one to watch this weekend. Where Gravity staggered in acting, Captain Phillips sores above. This film is everything that a GOOD action film should be complimented by top notch acting. It's bound to score at least one Academy Award nom come early next year; this is one Oscar film that can be enjoyed by any and all audiences.

Gravity

This whole problem could have been solved if you had a Time Lord...

Directed by: Alfonso Cuarón
Released: 2013
Rated: PG-13
Staring: Sandra Bullock & George Clooney
Times Viewed: 1

  But all Doctor Who jokes aside, Gravity reiterates a fact embraced by many a Whovian...Space is AWESOME. Not since Kubrick has a director translated the terrifying desolation and beauty that is Space onto the silver screen so spectacularly. Alfonso Cuarón utilizes Space like no other, continuously flirting with varying levels of depth of field as well as sound. The scope of Gravity, at first glimpse, appears vast and daunting but Cuarón brings this epic down to human reaches by interjecting immense cinematography with tight, extreme close-ups of it's leading lady. The director plays with reflections in space suit helmets, POV shots, and even drops nod to Kubrick if you're a cool enough cat to catch it. Alfonso Cuarón's variety, sharpness, and seamless blending of film and CGI creates an irrefutable Sci-Fi classic. The great this about Gravity thought is that it's hardly Sci-Fi at all..no aliens, no laser guns, just real space and real people. 

   Sandra Bullock, who wouldn't have been my (nor I believe the directors) first choice for the role, can be a bit distracting at times...a kinder word than annoying. Bullock was not the worst actress to be cast in a role such as this and did demonstrate great command over her body, hours of trainer where evident in her physical being, but when it came to a vocal presence she's not one I appreciated. She gives literal life to the phrase "Ah, Ahh, Ahhh." This being said, the Academy Award Winner brings a human "real life" presence to the role.

  Opposite Sandra Bullcock, the ever charming George Clooney does what he does best...charms his way through the film. George Clooney plays George Clooney, and the first 10 minutes of the film try so unbelievably hard to establish a (charming) character for Clooney it's somewhat painful. On the verge of cliché, his veteran Matt Kowalski (charmingly) reflects on past missions, mishaps, and memories with Huston as he takes his final walk throughout space, alluding to retirement and lamenting that he'll never surpass the record for most time spent wondering the heavens above.  

  Does anyone remember Michael Clayton? An angry, passionate George Clooney, that's what I'd love to see again...he's a talented actor but I feel he choses roles that too closely reflect him as a person. In that perspective Gravity was a perfect match, but I'd love to see him take a real, unforgiving RISK.

But perhaps I pick on the leads too much...I've yet to decide if my reservations about each actor was due to the performances or a sub-par script; my conscious tells me it's the later. 

  Unfortunately the script (mind you not the story) proved to be the film's weakest attribute. Majority of the film belongs to Bullock who, again, wouldn't have been my first choice for a role like this but my overall impression was she carried many of the scenes well enough. The attempts to build an emotional back story for her character Ryan Stone failed,  transforming from bone dry to down right cliché. Creating back story for a character is important so the audience can develop that emotional connection and, ESPECIALLY in a film like Gravity feel the character's tension, anxieties, fear ex. as they push forward to the climax and an undeterminable end. Again, this was more the writers fault than Bullock's. I do appreciate we didn't get any cheesy flash backs of Stone on earth with her beloved daughter, the accident, and Stone's sedated life afterwards. In the hands of another director, poorly plotted flash backs such as these could have ruined the entire film; thankfully Cuarón keeps us in the now, in the space, and in what's important. Any return to Earth before the finale would have broken the atmosphere and caused utter disaster. For keeping such consistency, I must say bravo Caurón on a bold decision.

  Sound, or the absence of sound surrounds Gravity but doesn't let itself become the most memorable thing about the film...although it does make a sizable impact. Explosions are witnessed in almost complete silence with nothing but Steven Price's haunting and inspiring score to accompany them.

Check it out here!

  

  While the character development and back story may be predictable, the film itself is not. Visually unique, one cannot help but return to Kubrick's game changer 2001: A Space Odyssey and remember the impact it had on audiences and film makers alike. Just consider what Gravity means for this generation? With Star Trek and Star Wars with their own come backs underway, Gravity has certainly forced the sequels to up their game. The CGI is flawless and the use of the 3D is the BEST I've ever seen. The cinematography is unbelievable . Simply unbelievable. I would attempt to describe it but in Gravity's case, the pictures really are worth a thousand words. 

    There's not much else I can or will tell you about Gravity other than GO SEE IT! Go see it in Theaters in 3D. It is without a doubt THEE film to watching this fall season. It's an experience unlike any other that you've had at the theater. Tension, anxiety, and frustration are all felt and shared by the audience. Visually impeccable and emotionally heightened, Gravity simply cannot be missed. 

Hitchcock

I figured if this film was filmed in only 36 days, I can take some time and give it a quick review.

Directed By: Sacha Gervasi 

Released: 2012

Rated: PG-13

Staring: Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson, & Danny Huston 

  Well my dears it's October once again, my favorite time of the year! Horror films shall soon be filling up my schedule but before they do I thought I'd give you all a review of a movie I caught earlier this summer, Hitchcock. Released in 2012 this quick, well acted piece tells the tale of cinema's master of suspense Alfred Hitchcock and his wife Alma during the filming and production of his most iconic film Psycho. Labeled a suspense thriller, Psycho has been terrifying audience goers for generations.
  The 60's saw a boom in the psychological horror genre with hits like Rosemary's Baby, Psycho was no exception. Hitchcock revealed the true horror that a brutal killer could be ANYONE. The real monsters are the ones right down the street. Hitchcock reflects this thought and portrays some top notch creepy scenes delving into the psychology of both the story behind the movie and the man brining it to life.

 
  That being said, the movie confuses it's protagonist flitting between Hitchcock, his brief decent into  madness, and his wife Alma; self conscious, dealing with an inattentive husband and her own career. The movie tries to show us what's going on in Hitch's mind, but also tell the story of the woman behind the man and how much she attributed to his success. This is where it becomes muddled and a question of WHO'S movie is this? Hitchcock feels like two films; one about Hitchcock and one about his wife.  On their own they'd be good, but lacking in impact for the silver screen. The story of the director and the story of his wife both seem fit for an HBO movie or mini series. Putting them together made sense for a feature film but not enough for the film to garner any attention from the Academy.

Anthony Hopkins & Michael Wincott have a little chat about murder
as Hitchcock and serial killer Ed Gein. 

The always lovely Helen Mirren, although I don't remember her
smiling this much... 

   All that may give the impression that I didn't care for the movie, but I actually did! Despite it's somewhat confused center, Hitchcock is a charming, witty, and bright film...enough so that some of the more morbid scenes featuring a grizzly Ed Gein popping up in Hitch's subconscious don't bring the film too far south. As a period piece, costumes and hair and make-up especially were spot on! Hitchcock retains a light atmosphere regardless of the unsettling movie that it's characters are producing {referring to Psycho} Hitchcock simply looks clean and features a strong leading, as well as ensemble cast. My concerns expressed above, while valid, didn't produce a negative effect upon my final opinion.  I quite enjoyed this film and I think movie lovers, especially Hitchcock fans will too! 

Jessica Beil reenacts an iconic scene as Vera Miles 

  If you're not a huge film history junky like myself, it's fun to see for the first time just how secretive Hitchcock was during the production and release of Psycho. From buying all copies of the book, to enforcing his rule of no one entering the theater after the movie had started all to preserve the secrecy of the final plot twist!
   
  Pros like Hopkins and Mirren are bound to get the job done and in Hitchcock they did just that, in only 36 days no less! To Hitchcock's benefit, it' running time concludes a few minutes over an hour and a half. Great for a casual watch or popcorn movie marathons, it doesn't depress and it doesn't condescend. Had it been any longer the material would have stretched too thin and turn melodramatic but it ends nicely and with a bit of a humor as well.
 
  There are periods of darkness in the film where we see Hitchcock imagine himself performing grizzly murders accompanied by Ed Gein (the inspiration for Norman Bates for those who didn't know) and dramatic sections featuring Alma wrestling with fidelity to her husband and her own work, but when the two sides come together to produce the final cut of Psycho it's a fun and entertaining insight.
 
Don't let the title fool you, this is Helen Mirren's movie; creating a believable and relatable character. Mirren tops the bill followed closely by Hopkins who's Hitchcock is good (with the help of make-up crew) but never comes to a definitive portrayal of the Master of Suspense. Scarlett Johansson surprised me with her fresh performance of Janet Lee; I feel she, as an actress, is finally coming into her own.

The Remake & Television

  Gus Van Sant, an undeniably talented director, fell short in 1998 when he directed a shot for shot remake of Hitchcock's original. This film is one where we cross ourselves and whisper "God save the Cinema" He produces compelling work, but why would you waste time, money, and talent on such a project? Reason escapes me...

 
  2013 brought us another in a long line of horror movie prequel T.V. shows. Bates Model on paper was a brilliant idea and had so much promise. All the Mommy issues and back story on the characters of Norman Bates and his mother rooted in the book give writers so much to work with...but then, as with almost all made for television prequels, it *excuse me* got it's head stuck too far up it's backside and became ridiculous and outlandish on the verge of a joke. I can honestly say I think Hitchcock would turn over in his grave if he saw what they did with such solid source material. Initially I looked forward to the series but dropped it half way through due to increased head shaking and face palms I implied after every episode. Vera Farmiga's talent alone can't carry this sinking ship.