Prismark10 Alfred Hitchcock was a rightly admired director and the master of suspense.His filmography also shows that he had several actors that regularly appeared in his movies such as Cary Grant, Grace Kelly, James Stewart etc.The Girl is a television movie that depicts a harrowing working relationship between Alfred Hitchcock (Toby Jones) and Tippi Hedren (Sienna Miller) while making the films The Bird and Marnie.The problem is what is presented as the truth is really a fictional account with the spin that Tippi Hedren is still alive to embellish actual events.Here we have Hitchcock falling for the nubile, young starlet and making her life hell on the film set especially after he feels rejected by her. Hedren later complained that Hitchcock ruined her promising film career.Toby Jones to me does not quiet cut it as Hitchcock in his look and voice. It is as interpretation he is giving and that is of a man who is obsessed, slightly perverted and deranged.I was more impressed by Sienna Miller as Hedren who plays the role as the classic blonde that Hitchcock liked to have in his films.The film leaves a sour taste behind with what is a character assassination of a respected but difficult director three decades after he died.

room102 Another movie (made for TV, though) about Hitchcock, this time it takes place around the making of "The Birds".Between this and "Hitchcock" (the Anthony Hopkins movie), I definitely recommend the latter.It's weird. It's the second times Toby Jones portrays a real-life person at the same time another "bigger" (and better) movie is released, based on the same person - I'm referring to "Capote (2005)" vs. "Infamous (2006)".I can't make up my mind about Toby Jones. I see him everywhere. He appears in so many movies - some of them are serious ("The Girl", "Infamous"), others are plain stupid ("Your Highness"). Looks like he takes every role offered to him. I think he can do a decent job when given a good role, but I can't say I saw a movie in which he really impressed me.

Steve Ripple First, this is an excellent bit of film. It draws you into it's story with witty dialogue, excellent acting, and great cinematography. However one of the main criticisms of this story hinges on the somewhat negative portrayal of Hitchcock. This is not created out of thin air. Tippi Hedren has on many occasions told these stories - and many have backed her up. Others have also mentioned similar examples of Hitchcock's eccentricities, especially related to his female stars. There are many other stories about his disdain for actors in general (he was perhaps the opposite of an actor's director - though there are many others who have worse reputations!) This takes nothing away from Hitchcock as a film-maker. It simply means people are complicated. This film is one perspective on a set of relationships and can't, as a dramatic film, really be objective. However, it does not completely trash Hitchcock - it's actually more sympathetic than some. He was clever, charming, creative, witty, and talented, but also could be conceited, vindictive, and even vulnerable.

Nozz The title should warn you, and if it doesn't then the poster should warn you with the proud foreground stance of the female lead. This isn't a movie for Hitchcock fans. It's a wish-fulfillment movie for women-- in particular, for those who would like to daydream of effortlessly becoming a movie star, beloved by all (as well as being a successful mother who needs no husband to depend on), while maintaining integrity and never buckling under the harassment of piggish men. It even ends by reassuring the daydreamer that given the choice, the wise woman chooses not to pay the price of enduring stardom. Unfortunately, this beauty-and-the-beast tale takes the guise of a true story, and it renders Alfred Hitchcock as not just fat but deformed-- and devoid of understandable motivation. Moreover, there is nothing gradual, subtle, or devious to make his harassment of Tippi Hedren interesting. In a better movie-- a Hitchcockian, gaslight movie-- we would wonder at the beginning whether Hedren were imagining things, and we might even wonder after the end. In this one, though, the story is given no overlay of ambiguity; on the contrary, it is given extra bluntness beyond the known factual version.