Hitchcock (Movie Review)

*Updated 2026

In 2026, when filmmaker biopics are judged for what they reveal beyond icon worship, Hitchcock still works best as a playful movie-lover’s look at Psycho and its maker.

Sacha Gervasi’s Hitchcock is a fun, amusing film for fans of “The Master of Suspense,” director Alfred Hitchcock. It is an enjoyable experience because we are provided so much of the movie we revere and the man we already want to know more of. For those who love the 1960 classic Psycho, this is essential viewing.

That in itself makes it a success. Add memorable performances by Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, and James D’Arcy, and you have yourself a movie worth paying to see. The only problem arises if you never saw Psycho and couldn’t care less about Hitchcock.

A Love Story Disguised as a Biopic

Contrary to what the title says, Hitchcock is actually a complex love story, not a standard biopic. Lurking behind Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins), cinema’s horror icon known for orchestrating intense menace, was a hidden side. It was his creative and explosive romance with his supportive wife and filmmaking collaborator, Alma Reville (Helen Mirren).

Many say she was the secret to his success. Acting as a backdrop to the Hitchcock love life is the making of the hair-raising 1960 thriller Psycho. It would become the director’s most controversial and legendary film.

When the tumultuous production was over, nothing about movies would ever be the same. Few realized that it took two to pull it off. The story is rife with surprises, comic ironies, and dark twists in the Hitchcockian tradition.

RELATED: Hugo (Movie Review)

But at the heart of the film lies not only the obsessions and fears of two people. It reveals the distinctively tenacious love that drove Hitchcock’s art behind the curtain.

The Battle for Psycho

Cinematically, Gervasi infuses the film with clichés and quirks that serve as winks to fans. For example, the opening has Hopkins giving an introduction as if it was an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Very clever and cool.

The whole movie is sprinkled with moments like this, much like spotting one of Hitchcock’s 37 film cameos. Gervasi also manages to provide us with an insightful look at how difficult it was to make Psycho. The challenges were both financial and marketing-based.

Furthermore, the MPAA would not allow it a release at first. When it did, the editing wasn’t up to par, in particular the shower scene. Go figure.

The script by John J. McLaughlin is tight and moves quickly. However, the choice of a love story based on Stephen Rebello’s book Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho isn’t what I necessarily wanted to see. As much as Alma was a part of his life, she wasn’t in ours.

More interesting are the moments that take place on the set. Alas, Hollywood always feels we need a love story, but I was fine without one.

Hopkins and Mirren Command the Screen

The acting is superb. Anthony Hopkins nailed Hitchcock as we remember him, even if he might have been a bit cartoonish at times. It is a performance that rivals his work in other major films, leading to more high-profile roles like when Hopkins joined a Woody Allen pic.

Helen Mirren is wonderful and commands the screen as she usually does. But I thoroughly enjoyed James D’Arcy‘s performance of actor Anthony Perkins. Not only did he look like him, but he also embodied his essence.

One blunder that was evident was the miscast of Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh. She was Scarlett Johansson trying to act like someone else. The true indication of a great actor is when they can make you forget the star they are in the public eye.

This was not the case for Johansson. Despite this minor oversight, Hitchcock is a must-see movie for anyone curious about the filmmaking process. It reveals the idiosyncrasies of the man and the type of husband he was.

RELATED: Blue Jasmine (Movie Review)