NOAH Is The First and Only Art-Film Biblical Fantasy-Epic

 NOAH Review:

- Darren Aronofsky's biblical epic, NOAH, has all of the scope and grandeur you would expect out of this story. And yet, Noah is unlike any bible-based film we've yet seen. Aronofsky, ever the auteur, goes for broke here - crafting a film with complex morality, apocalyptic darkness, and, oh yeah ... giant rock-monsters engaged in Lord of the Rings-style battles with human armies. This is a movie that is most definitely NOT playing it safe, and to me, that's what makes this such a riveting and uniquely entrancing spectacle.

In interviews, Aronofsky - raised Jewish but a proclaimed atheist - expresses his desire to capture the awe-inspiring and very-much-relevant story of Noah and recast it as an epic morality play in the style of Greek myth. And that's exactly what he's done. Freeing himself from the need to take one of the bible's most outlandish stories and tell it as literal history, Aronofsky is instead able to make this story every bit as sweeping, mind-blowing, and thought-provoking as it can be. So to those who perhaps shied away from the film because of the supposed controversy, I say open your mind and recognize that this film actually presents the meat of the biblical story in a surprisingly un-whitewashed fashion - instead of dancing around the questions raised by the text, it addresses them head-on. Any biblical scholar should be able to appreciate that. For those on the other end of the spectrum - those who are wary of any biblically-derived story on the big screen - I think that when you look at these tales as morality plays, as myth with still-resonant themes and lessons - there is a lot to be gained from them, and there's a reason why they've endured in our collective imaginations for so long. What Aronofsky has done here is to imbue a visionary's imagination into one of the greatest story's ever told. This is one of today's best filmmakers going bigger and crazier than he's ever gone. And that means that Noah is a must-see not just for biblical scholars, but for any and all film fans.

I found so much about Noah fascinating, but what immediately grabbed me was the pre-Flood world that Arnofsky has crafted. It's a primitive world, in which the descendents of the murderous Cain have spread across the globe, eradicating environmental resources and building crude and lawless cities. On one hand, it's a world that's unspoiled compared to what we have today. On the other hand, it's a world that very quickly became depleted and barren, with large swaths of wasteland emptied of trees and vegetation. While the tribes of Cain live in violence and sin, the nomadic descendents of Seth live in relative peace - living off the land and keeping to themselves. One such person is Noah, who lives with his wife and children, adopting a simple and quiet lifestyle. Noah, in fact, is one of the few holy men left in the world. While the tribes of Cain believe that the Creator has abandoned the earth, Noah believes that he still guides them. One day, Noah begins having prophetic visions, and becomes convinced that a world-ending flood is on its way. Acting on his divine dreams, he begins building a massive ark (with help from the Watchers: fallen angels-turned-rock-creatures, more on them later) to help his family - as well as representatives of every animal species on earth - to ensure that he and earth's animal kingdom survives the flood and can start the world anew. Of course, when the tribes of Cain - led by the desperate Tubal-cain - begin to sense their oncoming doom, they rise up and revolt against Noah, leading to an all-consuming battle as the flood rains begin to fall.

And ... that's just the first half of the movie.

What is both jarring and sort of cool about the whole thing is that Aronofsky goes all out in crafting a world where divine miracles are part of the fabric of reality. Using the vocabulary we know from other pop-culture, this is a world of magic - the pre-Flood biblical earth as Aronofsky's version of Middle Earth. The aesthetics of the film - from the giant battles, to the monstrous, Ent-like Watchers, to the costuming - support that notion. But the magical nature of this world takes root in other ways as well. Anthony Hopkins' character, for example. Hopkins plays Noah's wizened grandfather, Methusala, a hermit who lives alone in a cave atop a mountain, whose ramblings are a mix of age-induced senility and a genuine knack for divine magic that proves crucial to the plot. The Watchers, meanwhile, are sort of insane, yet undeniably cool if you just go with it (and yes, their appearance in the film is inspired by allusions in the biblical text). They are angels who were long ago cast out of heaven, and who have since lay dormant on earth, pledged to not interfere in the affairs of man. They move like stop-motion animated creatures, channeling the spirit of Ray Harryhausen, lumbering around with divine light shining through their rocky exteriors. I loved the look and feel of the Watchers in the film - while it was initially odd to see fantasy creatures like this in this film, their presence ultimately adds to the film's sense of mythic scope.

At the same time, Aronofsky makes this a very human story. There is real weight to the movie's destructive events. Noah is a good man, but as the responsibility and survivor's guilt begins to weigh on him, he goes just a bit mad. And he becomes sort of a jerk, if not a full-blown antagonist. In the second half of the film, as Noah and his family stay cooped up within the ark, the issue of what happens after the flood begins to come to the forefront. Noah's eldest son Shem has taken up with Ila, a girl who Noah and his wife Naameh adopted and saved from certain death as a young child. But Noah's second-oldest, Ham, is growing restless. He has no woman of his own, and the thought of being forever alone in the new world begins to turn him against his father, to an extent. What's surprising is just how seriously the movie addresses the idea of post-apocalyptic repopulation. Noah, eventually, is convinced that all people are meant to die out after the flood. Which is a major issue, since Ila is pregnant. Noah's grim determination to do what needs to be done, to carry out what he believes to be the Creator's will, is what actually turns him into the movie's de facto villain. That's where the moral complexity I mentioned comes into play. On one hand, we see how wicked and horrible many of the descendents of Cain truly are. On the other hand, we see just how cruel and terrifying the decision to wipe them *all* off the face of the earth really is. In one key scene, Ham goes to a village to try to find a decent woman to bring with him on the ark. He seems to find one, but Noah refuses to help her when an angry horde of tribesmen chases him, Ham, and the girl. "She was innocent!" screams Ham, later, in condemnation of his father. And as far as we know, she was. Similar feelings of dread run through our heads when we see the great flood killing people. This isn't simply some cleansing water whose apocalyptic effect goes unseen. We see people scrambling for higher ground, clinging desperately to rocks, and being swept violently into the cascading waters. We ultimately feel less good about Noah and his family surviving the flood, and more mournful for those who did not.

Aronofsky has dabbled in the world of high-concept epics before (I'm a huge fan of the underrated The Fountain), but he's never done anything quite like this. But man, he shows that he's got the chops to go big - and not just in the same way that so many other blockbuster filmmakers go big. Aronofsky uses his artist's touch to make NOAH not just big, but awe-inspiring - as it should be. I talked about the ominous, fantastical, almost alien look of the movie's world. But the way he shoots Noah, his family, and the Watchers constructing the ark is a a thing of beauty. So too are the scenes in which the animals make their way onto the ark, compelled by a divine calling. You can't help but gasp a little as you watch the procession of beasts. And yet, Aronofsky makes the film seem even more epic by interspersing interesting, non-traditional vignettes amidst the big set-pieces. The most memorable of these is a cutaway that essentially re-tells the story of Genesis in a manner that's both mesmerizing and thought-provoking. In a Cosmos-worthy montage, we see the seven days of creation juxtaposed over what is, essentially, the process of evolution. I love that Aronofsky included this, because it's a concept that I've always personally embraced: that when taken as myth and parable, and not literally, the biblical text is actually a fascinatingly accurate overview of the scientific genesis of humankind, and a remarkably rich document worthy of discussion and debate as to how to interpret its meaning (something which us Jews have been doing for our entire history). In any case, Aronofsky adds texture to his film by giving it a hypnotic art-film feel. Even though I compared it to things like Lord of the Rings, that's not entirely accurate - because Aronofsky goes big, but he also never abandons his love for hallucinatory mind-trip aesthetics.

It's funny - in another review, I saw it mentioned that Aronofsky made this film for no one. And I laugh because it's true. A morally complex art-film biblical fantasy epic? It's incredible that a studio put money behind this, and even more so, in a way, that the movie proved a box office hit. At the same time, it seems a lot of moviegoers came away from the film sort of perplexed, which is understandable. NOAH is, easily, one of the weirdest blockbuster films ever made. If you don't dig weird, then you might be one of the naysayers. But those of us who have followed Aronofsky's career, and who go in knowing that we're getting a version of Noah from the guy who made Pi, Requiem For a Dream, and Black Swan ... well, this is, most certainly, and above all else, a Darren Aronofsky film.

Part of the great fun of this film (yes, it's fun, despite also being super-dark and intense), is seeing Russell Crowe once again play the epic hero. The dude was born for this type of role, and he brings all the gravitas you'd want to the table. The fact that Crowe makes Noah the undeniable hero, only to turn the tables and recast him as a morally-ambiguous character, is a credit to the actor's ability to bring nuance to even his most bombastic roles. Meanwhile, Emma Watson as his adopted daughter Ila is the other major standout here. Watson does fantastic work, acting as the movie's heart, soul, and conscience. Jennifer Connelly is excellent as Noah's wife, and Logan Lerman also really sells his character's angst and torment as Noah's problem-child son Ham. Speaking of which, I also got a huge kick out of Anthony Hopkins's hammy awesomeness as Methusala. One of the movie's most endearing scenes is when Methusala talks to one of his youngest great-grandsons about what they love most in life. I won't spoil it, but the over-the-topness of it all is quite entertaining. I'll also give a shout-out to the always-great Ray Winstone as Tubal-cain. While he is clearly the villain of the story, there is also much truth in what he says, and if the story were told in a slightly different light, he may well have been its hero. Winstone does a commendable job of showing both the character's repugnance and his more sympathetic side.

Noah does at time walk a fine line between treating the biblical story as grandiose mythology, and yet also putting a microscope up to some of the text's more puzzling and contradictory aspects. When the movie ends, we're still not sure what mankind's future could be. Are we really meant to speculate on who repopulates with who, and how exactly Noah's family is to "be fruitful and multiply" given the lack of of-age males and females? Probably not, but Aronofsky invites us to wonder about these things given the way he's told his story. At times, there does seem to be a slight disconnect between the movie's mythological ambitions and its desire to present these characters as real, grounded, and morally complex.

But what ultimately makes the movie work is that Aronofsky is able to turn this sprawling story into a resonant parable - about the goodness that we as humans are capable of, despite the flaws inherent in our makeup. Noah becomes convinced that all people are wicked, and therefore condemned. But the lesson of the story of Noah is, perhaps, that all people are both wicked and good, and all we can hope for is that as that eternal battle between our dualities is waged, the good will find a way to prevail. NOAH posits that even when things are at their worst, we've still got a fighting chance.

My Grade: A-

THOR: THE DARK WORLD Is Cosmic Craziness That Ushers In Marvel's "Phase 2" Era

THOR: THE DARK WORLD Review:

- And now we get to the fun part. I mean, let's face it, we all love superheroes, but I could live without another origin story anytime soon. Especially when said origins tend to be told in such a by-the-book, cut-and-paste manner on the big-screen. But man, Marvel seems to have a lot of ambition these days. They've moved firmly into "Phase 2" of their Marvel Cinematic Universe plan, and they are going boldly into the fringes and not looking back. THOR: THE DARK WORLD has a lot of the familiar elements that have made Marvel movies so popular and accessible: the light and bouncy tone, the mix of epic action with liberal doses of humor, the blending of fantastic fantasy with street-level authenticity. In short, the Marvel movies are emulating the formula that made Marvel comics so successful back in their Stan Lee-written heyday. But now, we're getting to the Jack Kirby of it all. The larger-than-life stuff, the cosmic stuff, the flat-out weird stuff. The kind of stuff that, until now, has still largely been confined to the pages of comic books - a format blissfully unconstrained by budgetary concerns and delightfully conducive to the sorts of mind-melting ideas that emanated from the mind of Kirby, Jim Starlin, Walt Simonson, and the other iconic writer/artists who made superhero comics into cosmic space-opera on an epic scale. So yes, THOR: THE DARK WORLD has quippy dialogue, inventive action, and a much better-developed romance between its leads than we got in Part 1. But I have to confess, what endeared it to me so much was that, above all else, it seemed to be about big and weird and cosmic ideas in a way that most live-action superhero movies have not yet dared to approach.

All that said, I don't want to act like this movie is the second coming of superhero movies. It's still got a couple of issues that, ultimately, keep it a step behind the best Marvel movies like The Avengers and (in my opinion) Captain America. But before I dive into what doesn't work, let me talk about what does ...

First and foremost - Chris Hemsworth. Before the first Thor was released, I think I and many others wondered how the character could translate to screen without seeming like a big, goofy joke. I think about 80% of the answer to that question lies with Hemsworth. He pretty much is Thor, and not only that, but he's slowly but surely been developing as an actor (case in point: his excellent turn in this year's Ron Howard film, Rush). His Thor is larger-than-life and Olympian, but also believably human. And he glides rather effortlessly between charged-up superhero action, Shakespearean melodrama, self-deprecating comedy, and more earthbound romance.

Not far behind Hemsworth in the "Franchise MVP" category is Tom Hiddleston as Loki. You couldn't have THOR without Hemsworth, but THOR would be a lot less awesome without Hiddleston, who simply kills it in this sequel. If anything, you're left wishing that the movie didn't take so long to get Loki involved in the story. Here's the thing about Hiddleston - Marvel movies, and superhero movies in general - have had their share of stars-playing-villains who still, at the end of the day, felt like movie stars playing comic book villains. Hiddleston, to an even greater extent than Hemsworth, pretty much IS Loki in these films, and that full-scale transformation is even more pronounced here than in Part 1. The guy seethes with such otherworldly villainy that he alone helps you buy into THE DARK WORLD's general cosmic craziness. Hiddleston sells it because he's so darn believable as Loki that he, in turn, lends a credibility by osmosis to all of the other gods and monsters in the film. I never would have expected this, but Thor vs. Loki is now the best hero/villain rivalry in the entire Marvel MCU.

Overall, I think THE DARK WORLD makes better use of its supporting cast than the first film did. Natalie Portman gets a larger and more filled-out role here as Jane Foster. She's much more pivotal to the story than before, and her rleationship with Thor is less the annoying schoolgirl crush of Part 1, and more of a genuine-seeming affection that puts her on more equal footing with the God of Thunder. Sir Anthony Hopkins is once again a lot of fun as Odin, and Rene Russo actually gets some substantive (and, surprisingly kick-ass) moments as Thor's mom Frigga. Meanwhile, Jamie Alexander makes the most of warrior-woman Sif's limited dialogue - in only a few key scenes, she establishes an "it's complicated" status with Thor that lends the character an air of tragic bad-romance. And as for everyone's favorite broke girl, Kat Dennings - she seems less annoying and more funny than in the first movie, working well as genuine comic relief. Stellan Skarsgård is also quite funny this go-round as nutty professor Erik. While it's a shame he doesn't get more dramatic moments (given the actor's chops) it's still fun to see him rant and rave like a crazy person and share a great moment with Stan Lee (appearing in his now-customary cameo, True Believers). Finally, I'll mention the great Idris Elba as Heimdall. It seems odd to have such a fantastic actor in such a minor role, but hey, Elba makes Heimdell super badass in his brief appearances.

One note on Portman though. Look, I'm a huge fan - she kills it in movies like Black Swan and is a top-notch actress. But one thing about Portman ... I just don't know if she's at her best in these types of comic-booky roles. Her default mode of acting is super-serious and intense. That works well in a dark drama like Black Swan, or even in a comedy that makes fun of her seriousness, like Your Highness. But she doesn't necessarily nail the sort of slightly self-aware quippiness needed to knock it out of the park in a Marvel movie like Thor. And so, as in the first film (and as in other pulpy sci-fi fare like Star Wars), she feels a bit wooden here. Like I said, Jane Foster is written better and has more to do than in Part 1. But if I had to point to one actor who just feels a bit out-of-place amid the epic comic book hamminess of Hemsworth, Hiddleston, Hopkins, etc., it'd be her.

So Portman's Jane Foster is sort of a mixed bag, but overall, it does feel like this movie is much more chock full of substantial female characters than the previous film, and as compared to most Marvel movies. Less substantial, however, is the movie's big bad - the dark elf (yes, you heard me) named Malekith, played by Christopher Eccleston (unrecognizable behind transformative makeup/costuming). Malekith is a visually-cool villain - a monstrous, otherdimensional creature who leads an army of raygun-wielding evil warriors that look like Kirby drawings come to life. Awesome in concept, for sure. But the problem with Malekith is that he's just sort of there. We know that his realm was destroyed thanks to a magical MacGuffin known as the Aether, and that he now seeks to reclaim the Aether and use it to cause major destruction (to further complicate things, the Aether has been absorbed into Jane's body, making her invulnerable, but also slowly killing her). The thing with Malekith is that all he really needs is an extra scene or two to really sell his appetite for cosmic destruction. And I've heard that these scenes may exist, but were cut for time - in which case I'd be very eager to see them as originally shot. Because, hey, sometimes having an evil dark elf who just wants to %$&@ $%&# up is fine ... 'nuff said (to quote Stan The Man). But just a little something to make this dude pop as a character would have gone a long way.

Luckily, there's more than enough conflict and intrigue between Thor and Loki - who must forge an uneasy alliance to take on Malekith - to make up for Malekith's lack of personality. Hemsworth and Hiddleston are the engine that makes the movie go, and, by having him in the background for much of the film, THE DARK WORLD builds him up into that much of a greater (and cooler) potential threat.

Where THOR gets sloppy is in its plotting. There are a metric ton of cool ideas in this movie, but a lot of it feels sort of fast and loose. I talked about Malekith being sort of a nebulous character, and about the Aether being your typical sci-fi movie MacGuffin. But there are lots of other things that stand out as feeling not-fully-thought-out. One example I'll toss out there: the use of Loki's (admittedly cool) illusion-creating powers. While this ability leads to some cool moments, it also feels overused - to the point where something happens, and then you immediately expect it to be revealed as an illusion. Another example is a cliffhanger-y element of the ending that is sorta cool, yet also feels like a bit of a cheat. Who knows if and when the how's and why's of the reveal will be explained, but I was left with a bit of a feeling of the movie not quite playing fair with us. Overall, THE DARK WORLD packs in so many characters and plot points that it's no wonder it elicits the occasional "huh?". The fast pace is a blessing and a curse - giving the film a sugar-rush sensibility, but also a feeling of giving potentially great moments and scenes short shrift.

At times though, there were moments that truly wowed me. A viking-like Asgardian funeral scene - rife with eye-popping imagery and looking like a fantasy painting brought to life - may actually be my favorite scene of the film. Conversely, the final battle between Thor and Malekith's forces is pretty imaginative - with Portal-esque location-warping hurtling Thor and his adversary from place to place in a flurry of action-packed, dizzying jumps. Director Alan Taylor does a great job with the action, infusing the CGI f/x-fests with a degree of old-school fantasy feel, with moments that evoke the iconography of classic 80's fantasy films. Whereas the first film sometimes felt flat visually, this one has much more comic book grandeur, and the fantasy worlds of Asgard, etc. seem full of life and fully-realized.

The movie perhaps feels a little more disjointed than it should thanks to some oddly-placed post-credits scenes, with one in particular feeling like it should have simply been the last few minutes of the movie. But the other post-credits scene - a prelude to Guardians of the Galaxy, of sorts - left me giddy from its sheer cosmic weirdness. This scene helped reinforce the sentiment I expressed at the beginning of the review - that Marvel's "Phase 2" was ushering in an era of full-on Kirby comic-book weirdness, an era in which the kinds of things that fans thought they'd never see outside of the comics are actually materializing on screen. Now, I don't just say that from the fanboy perspective of "look, an obscure character from the comics is appearing!" I'm not even enough of a Marvel geek to be able to say that credibly. But I do say it from the perspective of a fan who's been growing weary with superhero films - adapted from stories that tend towards the weird and out-there - becoming increasingly cookie-cutter and generic and bland. What I love about these stories is the imagination, the weirdness, the colorfulness, the subversiveness, and the idea that anything can happen. For Lee, Kirby, Shooter, Simonson, and the like - there were never any limits. The universe itself was the canvass. And to see these movies get to that point, embracing all this stuff (I'm still traumatized from the second Fantastic Four movie's "cloud" Galactus) ... it's incredibly cool.

So yeah, THOR: THE DARK WORLD's got flaws, and it feels overstuffed at times, and its main villain is undercooked. But its got an infectious sense of fun that won me over. The more I thought about it, the more I liked it, flaws and all. If this is the beginning of the new anything-goes, post-Avengers era of Marvel movies, then hell, alls I can say is "excelsior."

My Grade: B+

HITCHCOCK Is a Fun Tribute to a Film Icon

HITCHCOCK Review:

- Its seems as though many critics are jumping aboard the "hate-on-Hitchcock" bandwagon, and I'm not sure why. While this true-life tale of the making of Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" has its flaws, it also features an incredible cast, highlighted by two fantastic performances from Anthony Hopkins as Hitch, and Helen Mirren as the iconic director's wife and creative partner, Alma. I greatly enjoyed the tone of the film - framed like a modern-day episode of Alfred Hitchcock presents. Quirky, funny, and surprisingly touching, HITCHCOCK does drag and meander at times - but at the end of the day, it won me over with its telling of an important chapter in the master director's life.

HITCHCOCK is set in 1959. At that point, Hitchcock was a living legend. He had just released North By Northwest to great acclaim, and was unquestionably the "Master of Suspense." And yet, it was becoming harder for him to take creative risks, and he was perceived as some less as a still-vibrant creative force, and more as a cartoon character. After all, he was the grimly funny host of the TV program Alfred Hitchcock Presents (back when TV was seen as a much lesser medium than film), and he was no longer the fresh young ingenue - he was now sixty years old. Hitchcock wanted to surprise audiences and challenge himself, so he took on an adaptation of the book Psycho as his next project. Now, especially for the time, Psycho was pretty hardcore. The nature of the material scared off the studios and ruffled the feathers of the censors. But Hitchcock remained adamant that Psycho would be his next film - he put up his own money to finance it, determined to prove the naysayers wrong. The film also focuses on the role that Hitch's wife Alma played on Psycho and in her husband's career in general. Alma was Hitch's secret weapon - a creative heavyweight and a talented editor, Alma was a key part of many of the director's biggest films. And she stuck with him, even though doing so undermined her own career. The film explores the strain that the collaboration put on Hitch and Alma's relationship. Hitch fixated on the shapely young starlets in his films. Alma strikes up a flirtatious friendship with writer Whitfield Cook. And so the question becomes: can Hitchcock save Psycho, his career, his reputation, and his marriage?

Anthony Hopkins is really good as Hitchcock, in my opinion. Okay, so he doesn't exactly resemble the director, even with prosthetics that perfectly mimic Hitch's iconic silhouette. But he does seem to capture the right spirit. Hitchcock was a really unique, pretty weird guy - and so in turn Hopkins' performance is very unique and a bit weird. But I think it fits. Some may say Hopkins doesn't go deep enough. Some may say he looks silly with an added neck bulge and protruding gut. But I think Hopkins' performance - a bit cartoonish, but plenty captivating - fits the tone of the film. Equally great is Helen Mirren. She makes us believe in her relationship with Hitch. It's a weird one, especially by modern standards - seemingly sexless and passionless. But Mirren makes us believe in the couple as a sweet, grandparently duo of geniuses who thrive in each other's company. But she also displays her frustration with her husband with fiery scorn and pent-up sizzle. What I love about both performances is the way in which they capture the joyfulness of creative inspiration and accomplishment. While their personal lives are a strange brew of simmering resentments and hang-ups, all is overcome by the power of shared creative spark. To quote Alanis Morisette, it's intellectual intercourse.

There is also a great lineup of supporting actors. Michael Stuhlbarg (apparently in everything now) as Hitch's loyal agent, Kurtwood Smith as the antagonistically prudish MPAA censor, and Danny Huston as Whit - the smarmy would-be suitor to Alma. Toni Colette is a lot of fun as Hitch's put-upon assistant, as is James D'Arcy as Anthony Perkins, the skittish actor who portrayed Norman Bates. The movie also features a great turn from Scarlett Johansson as the remarkably well-adjusted leading lady Janet Leigh. ScarJo mixes movie-star charisma with down-home sensibility to make Leigh come off as the sanest person in the movie - very much game for all of Hitchcock's intensity and personality quirks, but not afraid to talk straight with him. Jessica Biel is also pretty good as second banana Vera Miles - Hitch's would-be leading lady who feuded with the director over his controlling nature. Overall, it's an amazing cast.

Now, where HITCHCOCK fumbles is in its use of flashes to serial killer Ed Gein, the real-life basis for Norman Bates. The movie awkwardly uses Gein as a sort of muse / nightmare for Hitch, with Hitch having visions of Gein that both terrify him and motivate him to press onward with his movie. These imaginary sequences fall a bit flat though. A lot of this is because most of the film doesn't really explore the nature of the director's fascination with the morbid and the macabre. Most of the movie isn't really about that - so these sequences feel out of place and jarring. They pose a lot of questions about Hitch's psyche that seem largely tangential to the rest of the film.

The other stumbling block here is just the rather disproportionate time spent on creating a melodramatic rift between Hitch and Alma, as opposed to showing us the really fun stuff - the making of Psycho. Don't get me wrong - I really like the relationship between the couple, and the fireworks and chemistry between Hopkins and Mirren are fantastic. But there are moments where the storyline might have worked better as a running theme more in the background of the movie - where a subtler approach might have worked better. The fact that every petty squabble between Hitch and Alma is given such melodramatic weight at times gives the movie too sitcomish of a tone. Meanwhile, the bits that reveal how Hitchcock envisioned the famous shower scene, how he cast Norman Bates, how he at first protested the iconic soundtrack but then embraced it - are all really cool and interesting, and leave you wanting more of the behind-the-scenes stuff.

Still, there are moments of sublime fun where it all works really well. I really like Sacha Gervasi. I loved his first film, the rock-doc Anvil: The Story of Anvil, and he shows signs here of potential greatness in the world of scripted features. In fact, the movie's whole third act really recovers from a mid-movie slump and delivers the goods - I was riveted as we finally see Psycho come together, as Hitch's innovative marketing ideas go into effect to make the movie's premiere an event, and as Hitch proudly watches the first audience view the film - conducting their symphony of screams from outside the theater doors.

HITCHCOCK's self-aware, playful tone may turn off some, but I found it keeping with the spirit of Alfred Hitchcock. The man is a larger-than-life icon whose presence still looms large, so I enjoyed the film as a tribute to he and Alma, and didn't mind that it didn't dive too deep into the mind of the master. This is a great showpiece for Hopkins and Mirren, and a fun treat for anyone who appreciates Hollywood history.

My Grade: B+