Borserie it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

MisterWhiplash This was my introduction to Alfred Hitchcock, and it makes for a splendid introduction! This was shown on the Starz network around this time of release, and it was a good overview of Hitchcock's career. It may be somewhat standard in that it look at the major Hollywood films more than some of the British fare (that does get some spotlight, and there's actually more time spent on films you might not expect like Foreign Correspondent and Saboteur), and you get some expected talking heads like Brian De Palma (this was probably the first time I can remember seeing him interviewed) and Peter Bogdanovich (would any Hitchcock doc be complete without him, I'm not sure). But if you consider that someone like me, a young and aspiring movie buff in the 90's, could get a lot from it and realize how much there is to learn about Hitchcock, it's best recommended as a primer for people who want to learn more about his films and why he mattered so much and what an impact he made (i.e. the Psycho shower scene for audiences who were seeing it for the first time in theaters).

Charles Herold (cherold) This might be a fine documentary to watch if you've never seen anything at all on Hitchcock before; it gives you the basic facts and a chronology of his career and all that. But for anyone with any actual familiarity with Hitchcock, this will all have been seen before.This documentary is basically a pedestrian retelling of Hitchcock's film life. It rarely dips beneath the surface. Surprisingly, the most interesting comments on Hitchcock's approach to film are made not by the directors and academicians but by actresses who have worked with him. But the documentary fails to shed any light on what makes Hitchcock important, or give any insights into his artistry. It just tells you he is important and artistic.I wouldn't say this was without any merit at all. There is an occasional interesting comment, or brief snippet of film, that is worthwhile. But it is very weak.

rollo_tomaso Some magnificent background on early Hitchcock and marvelous seldom-seen footage gets this well-meaning documentary off on the right track for the first 40 min. The rest is a waste of time with the same old clips being shown as the same old talking heads concur one-at-a-time to what has become accepted wisdom among today's entertainment artist intelligencia. It's a shame that Billy Wilder, Stanley Kramer and other quasi-contemporaries of Hitchcock were not interviewed to provide balance -- Truffaut's adoration of Hitchcock has proven to be both a blessing and a curse because there is now a protected unified front over what Hitchcock "loved" and didn't love. For example, despite Selznicks' "interference", Rebecca is still a picture for the ages, and Suspicion was quite successful at the box office despite revisionist history. The Wrong Man was also ignored totally since it didn't fit into the thesis.

Brian Blueskye This is a great look into the man known as Hitchcock. There are alot of interviews with alot of the stars who worked with Hitchcock telling all about him, and the movies they were in. There are some appearences by alot of the directors of today saying what they admired of Hitchcock. Hitchcock is the master of suspense, and this is a look into how he worked, who he worked with, where he got some of the ideas for his movies, and a great documentary you shouldn't miss. You also see how "Psycho" shocked some people in a way where they had nightmares for years. A must see, a most definite must see.