Why on earth were critics so mixed on this film? It’s delightful! Nicely acted, well-written, interesting, and fun. It has something to say about getting older and feeling less relevant, about the creative process, about creative collaboration, about advertising and creating media hype, about Hitchcock himself as an artist, a person and a husband, and about the historical inequality between men and women. It’s a very satisfying movie. My wife and I agreed we might even watch it again at some point.

And why didn’t Anthony Hopkins get an Oscar Nomination? They’ll give one to Joaquin Phoenix for doing nothing but groaning and spazzing out in that abomination The Master, but nothing for Hopkins, who managed to submerge his many tics and his overly strong personality to give us a very convincing and human Alfred Hitchcock. Helen Miren got a best supporting actress nomination from the Golden Globes, even though it’s clearly a leading role (Scarlett Johansson and Toni Collette are supporting roles, what’s wrong with these nominators?) but any recognition of her performance is well deserved. Speaking of Scarlett Johansson, now that she has stopped playing herself in movies and started taking real acting roles, she is proving to be a really good actress with a wonderful presence, and Hitchcock is no exception. All the other supporting casting and acting is pretty solid, and the incidental casting is adequate.

There’s no reason to not see this film. It’s very fun and rewarding. You won’t be sorry.