---
title: "Hitchcock"
year: 2012
kind: "film"
canonical: "https://film.one/film/hitchcock"
fi1m_id: "hitchcock"
imdb_id: "tt0975645"
tmdb_id: 112336
wikidata_id: "Q247733"
fi1m_score: 55
critics_score: 54
critics_reviews: 22
published: "2026-10-01T22:04:38.144879+00:00"
updated: "2026-10-01T22:04:48.918147+00:00"
region: "HK"
licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL."
---

# Hitchcock (2012)

Directed by Sacha Gervasi · 1h 38m · OFNAA IIA · Drama

## Identity

Hitchcock

- **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/hitchcock
- **Type:** Film
- **Fi1m ID:** hitchcock
- **IMDb ID:** tt0975645
- **TMDB ID:** 112336
- **Wikidata ID:** Q247733
- **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0975645/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/112336, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q247733

**Fi1m score: 55** · Critics 54 from 22 reviews

*In a sentence:* We came for *Psycho* and spent rather a lot of time listening to a couple argue

> Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren bring wit to the marriage, but Sacha Gervasi’s *Hitchcock* offers little insight into the making of *Psycho*. Two pleasing performances in a disappointingly shallow film.

## Synopsis

In Hollywood, Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) sets out to make *Psycho*, a horror film the industry is reluctant to support. His wife, Alma Reville (Helen Mirren), has to contend with the proposed picture and the tensions within their marriage. Janet Leigh (Scarlett Johansson) joins the production as the director presses ahead with his choice of material. The business of making the film runs alongside the couple’s disagreements, with Alfred Hitchcock’s determination to get his own way meeting resistance both at work and at home.

## Review

Sacha Gervasi’s *Hitchcock* has a sensible subject: the marriage behind the making of [*Psycho*](https://film.one/film/psycho), and the difficulty of living with a man accustomed to giving directions. The trouble is that the film makes the marriage predictable and the filmmaking strangely uninteresting. Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren provide enough friction and humour to keep us watching, but the screenplay by John J. McLaughlin rarely gets beyond familiar complaints about a demanding husband. It is watchable, thin, and less curious about its subject than it ought to be.

Anthony Hopkins is most enjoyable when he allows Alfred Hitchcock to be stubborn and faintly ridiculous without making him impossible company. The jokes have an appetite behind them; this is a man who enjoys keeping other people occupied with him. Helen Mirren’s Alma Reville has the harder task of making exasperation feel specific rather than dutiful. We laughed at their dry exchanges, because she refuses to treat his stubbornness as another reason to admire him. Their familiarity makes the domestic scenes work for a while.

But John J. McLaughlin keeps returning to marital strain as though each fresh disagreement explains something about the work. It does not help that Alma Reville is more persuasive as a person than the disputes arranged around her. Helen Mirren makes us interested in what she thinks; the script keeps asking how she feels about her husband. That is a dispiriting limitation in a film that wants to give the wife her due.

Jeff Cronenweth’s photography contributes little of the unease the subject invites, while Judy Becker’s production design is more satisfying as period Hollywood recreation than as a place where people work. We can recognise the setting without learning much about the job. Danny Elfman’s music helps the lighter passages along, but it cannot supply the tension missing from the marriage. The film’s comfortable manner keeps suggesting that none of these difficulties should trouble us for long.

Pamela Martin’s editing keeps the 98 minutes moving, though a brisk pace does not prevent the middle from sagging. The difficulty is repetition: returning to the marriage does not necessarily deepen our understanding of it. Scarlett Johansson provides a welcome change as Janet Leigh, with a composure that makes the production passages feel less laboured. She also gives us someone worth watching outside the central couple, whose disagreements have begun to feel like an obligation by the time the film returns to them.

The scenes linking Alfred Hitchcock with Ed Gein, played by Michael Wincott, are the least convincing attempt to get inside the director’s head. They press for a psychological explanation that the rest of the film has not earned. We do not need a biographical drama to solve its subject, but we do need more than the suggestion that private unhappiness accounts for disturbing work. A film about filmmaking has plenty of room for competing personalities and awkward decisions; here those possibilities are repeatedly narrowed to the husband’s problems.

There is enough pleasure in Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren together to understand the appeal. Anyone chiefly interested in the making of *Psycho*, however, will have to sit through a good deal of domestic business for surprisingly little illumination. Come for their sparring if that is enough; do not expect much instruction in how to frighten an audience.

*Fi1m score 55, published 1 October 2026.*

## What the critics say

The consensus on Hitchcock is mixed, with praise clustering around the cast rather than the film’s account of creativity or marriage. Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren earn repeated approval for their playful exchanges, dry humour and suggestions of affection beneath the friction. Even several unfavourable reviews find something to enjoy in the performances, while Scarlett Johansson’s Janet Leigh receives occasional praise. The more receptive critics find a lively, accessible entertainment, despite uneven storytelling.

The divide is wide over how much those performances can compensate for a shallow portrait. Reservations centre on tidy psychological explanations and a marital drama that several critics find less compelling than the making of Psycho. The Hollywood Reporter welcomes the marriage’s tensions and warmth; the Los Angeles Times finds it uninteresting. There is disagreement over the Ed Gein scenes, too: Little White Lies praises their intensity, while Digital Spy faults the framing device.

## Straight answers

**Is Hitchcock worth watching?**

*Hitchcock* is watchable for Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren’s dry marital sparring, but we find it too shallow to recommend without reservations and score it 55 out of 100. Their humour helps, though anyone hoping for insight into the making of *Psycho* gets repetitive domestic disagreements and surprisingly little about the work.

**How long is Hitchcock, and what is it rated?**

*Hitchcock* runs 1h 38m and is rated IIA by the OFNAA in Hong Kong. It is a drama film.

**Where can I watch Hitchcock in Hong Kong?**

*Hitchcock* is streaming on Disney+ in Hong Kong. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.

**How violent or frightening is Hitchcock, and is it suitable for children?**

*Hitchcock* has a UK 12A certificate, so children under 12 need an accompanying adult at the cinema; that classification does not make it suitable for every child. We would steer families towards caution: the focus is adult marital tension, with scenes linking Hitchcock to Ed Gein, though we cannot give a precise account of violence or frightening imagery.

**How does Hitchcock compare to Ed Wood?**

*Hitchcock* is the less rewarding choice beside [*Ed Wood*](https://film.one/film/ed-wood), which we recommend for its humour, kindness and greater affection for people struggling to finish a film. Hopkins and Mirren make *Hitchcock* intermittently enjoyable, but its marital disputes grow repetitive; *Ed Wood* gives artistic failure more substance, despite running long.

**What should I watch after Hitchcock?**

After *Hitchcock*, try [*Ed Wood*](https://film.one/film/ed-wood) (1994, Fi1m 84): Another troublesome production, with more affection for the people determined to finish it. Then [*The Bad and the Beautiful*](https://film.one/film/the-bad-and-the-beautiful) (1952, Fi1m 84): Hollywood ambition and damaged loyalties, with sharper teeth behind the polished manners; and [*Berberian Sound Studio*](https://film.one/film/berberian-sound-studio) (2012, Fi1m 78): A far more unsettling encounter with the work of manufacturing screen horror.

### Reviews we read (22)

- **The New Yorker**, Richard Brody (80/100, inferred): The critic finds the docudrama lively and engaging despite its workmanlike direction and formulaic storytelling. He singles out Hopkins’s performance and an ecstatic late scene in which Hitchcock conducts a famous set piece. [Read](https://www.newyorker.com/goings-on-about-town/movies/hitchcock-2)
- **IndieWire**, Eric Kohn (B): The review finds the film engaging but ultimately weakened by its detour into marital drama. It praises Anthony Hopkins’s vivid, likable performance as Hitchcock. [Read](https://www.indiewire.com/criticism/culture/afi-fest-review-hitchcock-sports-a-fine-anthony-hopkins-performance-but-does-it-downplay-hitchs-genius-43683/)
- **The Guardian**, John Patterson (75/100, inferred): The critic finds the film clever and witty, though its middle section sags. Hopkins and Mirren’s performances are singled out as what makes it live and breathe. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2012/nov/02/hitchcock-first-look-review)
- **The Hollywood Reporter**, Todd McCarthy (75/100, inferred): McCarthy finds the film absorbing, entertaining, and lively despite some dramatic ups and downs. He especially praises the dryly witty exchanges between Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren, which bring the Hitchcock marriage’s tensions and affection to life. [Read](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/hitchcock-film-review-385938/)
- **Film Comment**, Violet Lucca (64/100, inferred): The page frames the piece as a review comparing Hitchcock and The Girl. Its accessible text does not reveal the critic’s verdict or a specific point of praise or complaint. [Read](https://www.filmcomment.com/review-hitchcock-anthony-hopkins-the-girl-toby-jones/)
- **Screen Daily**, Tim Grierson (64/100, inferred): The accessible page does not reveal the critic’s verdict. No specific praise or complaint is visible beyond the film’s identification and metadata. [Read](https://www.screendaily.com/hitchcock/5048538.article)
- **RogerEbert.com**, Roger Ebert (2.5/4): Ebert found the film entertaining but limited as a portrait of Hitchcock. He singled out the performances of Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren as a strength. [Read](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/hitchcock-2012)
- **Time Out**, Trevor Johnston (3/5): The accessible page identifies this as a three-star review, but its verdict is unavailable in the page text. The description highlights Hitchcock’s gamble on making a horror film that Hollywood considered toxic. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/hitchcock-1)
- **The AV Club**, Scott Tobias (C): Tobias finds the film uneven, arguing that its focus on Hitchcock’s domestic life distracts from the more compelling story of making Psycho. He praises the scenes of Hitchcock asserting his creative vision, especially the playful depiction of him anticipating and manipulating audience reactions. [Read](https://avclub.com/hitchcock-1798175074)
- **Little White Lies**, Glenn Heath Jr (2/2/2): The critic finds the biopic middling, glib, and psychologically stilted. They praise the intense scenes linking Hitchcock with Ed Gein, but fault the film’s lack of cohesive visual style and ambition. [Read](https://lwlies.com/reviews/hitchcock)
- **Radio Times**, Andrew Collins (2/5): The review finds the film agreeably comic but ultimately shallow. It praises Anthony Hopkins’s playful portrayal of Hitchcock as a stubborn, wisecracking teddy bear. [Read](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-fczyy5/hitchcock/)
- **Empire**, Ian Nathan (35/100, inferred): Nathan finds the film brisk and entertaining in places but ultimately shallow and unconvincing. He praises Scarlett Johansson’s performance as Janet Leigh, while faulting the film’s surface-level portrayal of Hitchcock and his creative life. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/hitchcock-review/)
- **Variety**, Justin Chang (35/100, inferred): Chang finds the film diverting but dramatically shallow, with little insight into Hitchcock or the making of Psycho. He praises Helen Mirren’s nuanced performance as Alma, while faulting the film’s superficial treatment of its subject. [Read](https://variety.com/2012/film/reviews/hitchcock-1117948672/)
- **Los Angeles Times**, Kenneth Turan (25/100, inferred): Turan finds the film listless and its central marriage uninteresting, with little reason to care about the characters’ predicaments. He praises Scarlett Johansson’s performance as Janet Leigh and the period Hollywood cameos as bright spots. [Read](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-xpm-2012-nov-21-la-et-mn-hitchcock-review-alfred-hitchcock-20121123-story.html)
- **Evening Standard** (15/100, inferred): The critic finds the film banal, predictable and phoney, unable to compete with Hitchcock’s own work. Helen Mirren’s formidable performance stands out, while the critic particularly objects to the corny romantic reconciliation. [Read](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/hitchcock-review-8486431.html)
- **Slant Magazine**, Andrew Schenker (0.5/4): The critic finds the film a colossal failure, arguing that it reduces Hitchcock’s life and the making of Psycho to superficial, tidy explanations. He singles out the shower-scene sequence as especially risible for conflating Hitchcock’s personal insecurities with his filmmaking. [Read](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/hitchcock/)
- **Paste**, Tyler Chase (8.2/10): The review finds the film tremendously enjoyable despite uneven elements. It praises Anthony Hopkins’s layered performance and Helen Mirren’s portrayal of Alma as the film’s heart. [Read](https://www.pastemagazine.com/movies/hitchcock)
- **Den of Geek**, David Crow (B): Crow finds the film enjoyable but lacking suspense, with its drama often feeling contrived. He singles out Hopkins and Mirren’s lively performances and their sparring as its strongest feature. [Read](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/hitchcock-review/)
- **The Wrap** (65/100, inferred): The critic finds the film enjoyable despite judging it not especially good. Hopkins and Mirren’s energetic, playful performances are singled out for giving it a lively jolt. [Read](https://www.thewrap.com/hitchcock-review-almost-over-top-anthony-hopkins-helen-mirren-make-it-fun-66156/)
- **Digital Spy**, Ben Rawson-Jones (3/5): The critic finds the film watchable but uneven, with its characters and relationships insufficiently explored. The Psycho recreation and Hopkins and Mirren’s performances stand out, while the Ed Gein framing device is faulted. [Read](https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a447944/hitchcock-review-marginally-more-flesh-than-norman-batess-mother/)
- **The Playlist** (55/100, inferred): The review calls the film breezy but disposable, with the performances keeping it afloat. It singles out Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren for their dedicated work. [Read](https://theplaylist.net/review-hitchcock-a-breezy-disposable-effort-saved-by-anthony-hopkins-helen-mirrens-dedicated-performances-20121121/)
- **Collider**, Matt Goldberg (C-): Goldberg finds the film an unconvincing, predictable marriage drama that fails to make the making of Psycho compelling. He praises Helen Mirren’s performance and the moments when the leads’ offbeat qualities emerge. [Read](https://collider.com/hitchcock-review/)

## Details

- **Director:** Sacha Gervasi
- **Director:** Sacha Gervasi
- **Screenplay:** John J. McLaughlin
- **Cinematography:** Jeff Cronenweth
- **Editor:** Pamela Martin
- **Music:** Danny Elfman
- **Production design:** Judy Becker
- **Costume design:** Julie Weiss
- **Producer:** Tom Pollock, Alan Barnette, Joe Medjuck
- **Cast:** Anthony Hopkins as Alfred Hitchcock; Helen Mirren as Alma Reville; Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh; Danny Huston as Whitfield Cook; Toni Collette as Peggy Robertson; Michael Stuhlbarg as Lew Wasserman; Michael Wincott as Ed Gein; Jessica Biel as Vera Miles
- **Runtime:** 1h 38m
- **Certificate (OFNAA):** IIA
- **Release (Hong Kong):** 14 February 2013
- **Genres:** Drama
- **Budget:** $16 million
- **Box office:** $27 million
- **Trailer:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Uw6fweoB8E

## Where to watch in Hong Kong

- Disney+: streaming, hd

*Checked 2026-10-01.*

Also available in: AE, AR, AT, AU, BE, BG, BR, CA, CH, CL, CO, CZ, DE, DK, EC, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HK, HU, IE, IL, IT, JP, KR, LT, MX, NL, NO, NZ, PA, PE, PL, PT, RO, SE, SG, TR, UA, US, ZA. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country.

## Awards

- Academy Awards 2013: Best Makeup and Hairstyling (nominated)

## If you liked this

- *Ed Wood* (1994), Fi1m 84: Another troublesome production, with more affection for the people determined to finish it. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/ed-wood.md)
- *Day for Night* (1973): For the daily muddle of filmmaking and the relationships strained by it.
- *The Bad and the Beautiful* (1952), Fi1m 84: Hollywood ambition and damaged loyalties, with sharper teeth behind the polished manners. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-bad-and-the-beautiful.md)
- *Berberian Sound Studio* (2012), Fi1m 78: A far more unsettling encounter with the work of manufacturing screen horror. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/berberian-sound-studio.md)
- *The Wife* (2017): A celebrated husband and an overlooked wife, with the resentment given room.

---
© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/hitchcock