User reviews

Despite wonderful performances by Toby Jones and Sienna Miller, "The Girl," purporting to be the story of Hitchcock's obsession with Tippi Hedren, was tough going.

I'm getting a little tired of reading on the message board that Tippi Hedren "needed the money." I guess I'm unclear as to how she's cashed in on this story. Did she write the book? The screenplay? She gets a "thanks" in the credits. I have a thanks on a film's credit and I didn't get a cent. If she acted as a consultant, I doubt for a TV movie it would help her wildlife preserve much.

Hitchcock fans know several things: filming "The Birds" was a miserable experience for Hedren; Alfred Hitchcock was a brilliant, complicated man who probably had some sexual hangups; and Alfred Hitchcock had fallen for other leading ladies. However, those leading ladies remained friends with him (Bergman and Kelly) so one wonders if the way he is depicted in this film is correct. If someone tried to ram his tongue down my throat or recited dirty limericks to me or asked me to touch him, I'd have gone running.

The screenplay was criticized by one of the people who worked on the film and was interviewed, so you already know it's sensationalized.

In this version, Hitchcock falls for Tippi Hedren and makes her life a living hell after she rejects him. I have no idea if this happened or not. Toby Jones has again proved his gifts as a mimic - his Hitchcock is perfection, just as his Capote was. Sienna Miller is beautiful and strangely resembles Janet Leigh in this film! She did a good job playing a vapid actress.

The problem with the film is that it's skewed toward Hedren instead of telling a story in a balanced manner. The second problem is that even at 90 minutes it's too long with scene after scene of Tippi sighing over her bad treatment or someone commiserating with her over her bad treatment and scene after scene of Hitchcock staring at her and then plotting another way to torture her.

I had the pleasure of transcribing interviews that Donald Spoto did on his important book on Alfred Hitchcock, The Dark Side of Genius. I can testify that he worked for years on this book and left no stone unturned. I remember one part of the book, where Hitchcock is through with Hedren as an actress, saying, "She did the unimaginable -- she mentioned my WEIGHT." They didn't get along, that's evident. Hitchcock here is presented as a sicko whack job. Were that the case, he wouldn't have had so many people -- so many women -- working with him over and over again, which they did.

I suggest to people that if they want to know the whole story that they read Spoto's two books, Spellbound, about Hitchcock and his leading ladies, and The Dark Side of Genius. He is given to psychobabble but believe me, it's more interesting material than this. And if any of this is in his writing, you can believe it.

We are to believe in this movie that Hitchcock was hurtful and insulting to everyone, that he tortured, threw himself at, and belittled Tippi Hedren to such an extent that she made a second film with him. Yeah, that's what I would have done.

I'm guessing there might be a little more to this story that would possibly not present Ms. Hedren in the best light. I admire her very much for her work on her wildlife preserve, and in interviews, she always comes across as a lovely woman. That doesn't mean she is as shown in this film.

Hitchcock had his demons. Somehow Cary Grant, Grace Kelly, Ingrid Bergman, Teresa Wright, Janet Leigh, Vera Miles, and Barbara Harris got through it. Granted, they didn't have birds attacking them. They did, however, admire the genius behind the films.

The Girl is an interesting movie about Hitchcock's obsession with Tippi Hedren as they made two movies together. It's stylishly made, with good performances. It is focused very much on Hitchcock's cruelty to Hedren.

My main objection to this movie is that its focus makes it rather unbalanced. Hedren herself says this. She says working with Hitchcock was great at first, and while the movie portrays her as dealing with one indignity after another, she says this was only really a problem toward the end of Marnie. It might have been interesting to see more of Hitchock's process - I liked the scene where he helps her work on her lines - but it's a short movie and they had a story to tell.

What is more interesting than the movie is its detractors here. While some people just don't find The Girl interesting, the vast majority seem to dislike it because they don't believe it. Some reviews will even say they're not invested in Hitchcock's reputation, but then follow it up by saying they don't believe this happened.

First off, the movie is based on information from a book by a respected biography writer, based on what he was told by both Hedren and those who worked with her. And Hitchcock was certainly a dark, obsessive, and sometimes cruel (witness his vicious "practical jokes") person. His movies are about obsessions and cruelty, so it would hardly be surprising if he acted poorly with his actress.

Yet, many of the movie's critics express outrage that Hitchcock's name is being besmirched. They say Hedren lied; that she is just trying to scapegoat Hitchcock for her lack of major successes after the Hitchcock films. They say she couldn't act. They say she should have been grateful that Hitchcock gave her a career.

There is a phrase I don't like, because it sounds extremist and harsh and overly politically correct, but that I increasingly realize accurately describes something, and that is "rape culture," the idea that sexual harassment and attacks on women are so ingrained in our society that they aren't even seen as abnormal. The reactions to this movie seem to me examples of this. What is the difference between saying Hedren lied about Hitchcock and the claims that a woman lies about being raped? What does her acting ability have to do with anything? (And what are people basing their assessment on? I suspect most of us have only seen her in two movies, made by a director who got exactly the performances he wanted from his actors).

Many people are saying,essentially, "he didn't do it, and if he did do it, she deserved it."

Look, I understand that people feel a need to defend great artists, but many great artists are not especially great people. That's inevitable; art often comes from a strange place. Don't attack the victim because you think the aggressor was a cool dude.

Overall a decent film but lots of mistakes. All of the major scenes from The Birds only show one camera being used in one take. The phone booth scene, the attic scene for instance. One scene shows Hedren entering the upstairs bedroom already bloodied before she is attacked. The scene where she arrives at Mitch's with the Lovebirds is highly exaggerated. In the film, the ladder is maybe two or three rungs. In The Girl it is like climbing the Empire State Building. The first scene in Marnie at the railroad station was filmed in San Jose not on a soundstage. No biggie. Overall an okay film but could have been better. Now, in regards to Tippi Hedren's allegations. So many people are angry with her for daring to accuse the mighty Hitchcock of sexual harassment. For stabbing him in the back after all that he did for her. For being the only actress who had problems with him. For waiting so long to "come out" with her accusations. Back in 1985 I had a phone conversation with Diane Baker (Hedren's co-star in Marnie) on radio station KGO in San Francisco. Curious about her experience's working with Hitchcock I asked her what it was like. She immediately spent about ten minutes talking about Hitchcock's mistreatment of Tippi Hedren during the filming. She pulled no punches. I had no reason not to believe her. She was there. She saw it. In recent interviews she goes so far as to say she did not like Hitchcock at all. Those who accuse Hedren of being a liar need to add Diane Baker to their list. I believe them both.

This TV movie looks at Alfred Hitchcock's obsession with Tippi Hedren during the making of the Birds.

This is quite fascinating compared to the film "Hitchcock" starring Anthony Hopkins. It shows Hitchcock's obsession with his leading ladies in a more predatory abusive nature than the Hopkins movie. Wonder which is closer to the truth? Sienna Miller doesn't look much like Tippi - she has a harder look but she does a good job. Toby looks more like Hitch than Anthony Hopkins.

Watch "The Birds" first and then watch this. The peek a the behind the scenes creative process is fascinating for Hitchcock fans.

It's been suggested that Tippi Hedren lied about Hitchcock since no one else came out against him. BS. During the 30s to early 60s,actors and actresses didn't rock the boat. They stayed frieny with men who abused them or angered them. Studio execs were a powerful boys club, and if you attacked one, you.attacked them all. The only actor I ever heard attacking a studio big shot was Errol Flynn physically attacking director Michael. Curtiz for using trip wire during the Charge of the Light Brigade. Dozens of horses were injured and about 30 had to be put down. Appalled, Flynn.went straight for Curtiz and attacked him. He had to be pulled away from killing Curtis, he was so angry. No one punished him. They knew he had a hot temper and didn't care if he was blacklisted - he'd go back to Australia in a.heartbeat.

Tippi couldn't physically fight Hitchcock or go to any other country to work. As for Bergman, Kelly, and Novak, what would be the upside in attacking/accusing Hitchcock? He was a very powerful director and could get anyone blacklisted for even.telling it friends. Better to stay on good terms with him. Look at Harvey Weinstein and who stayed friends with him for years even.after being assaulted..Besides, the casting couch wasn't a fairy tale. These girls knew the score: keep.your mouth shut and you might get rich.

Tippi waited a long time before telling of her being assaulted. The small.details of her story make the whole thing have the ring of truth. I believe her. And I believe she wasn't the only one.

"The Girl" is a recent British television film about the difficult relationship between Alfred Hitchcock and Tippi Hedren, who starred in two of his films in the 1960s. In 1963 Hedren, then aged 33, was a relatively obscure model with little acting experience, when Hitchcock spotted her in a television commercial and asked her to star in his next film "The Birds". The director, famous of his preference for blonde actresses, had been struck by Hedren's looks, and felt that she could be the next Ingrid Bergman or Grace Kelly, two actresses who had each appeared in three Hitchcock films.

The film, based upon Hedren's own recollections, alleges that Hitchcock became obsessed with his leading lady, and that when she rejected his sexual advances he took his revenge by subjecting her to various traumatic and humiliating experiences during the filming of both "The Birds" and "Marnie". After completing this second film, Hedren refused to work with him again, but because she was still under contract to him, a contract from which he refused to release her, she was unable to work elsewhere in Hollywood. Hedren has said that his treatment of her effectively ruined her career.

Biopics of famous actresses from the past, especially of those who were noted for their beauty, often suffer from difficulties with casting, as it is not always possible to find a modern actress who bears the necessary resemblance to the woman she is playing, even with the creative use of make-up. (Does anyone, for example, really think that Lindsay Lohan looks much like Liz Taylor?) Sienna Miller may not be an exact Tippi Hedren look-alike, but at least there is sufficient resemblance to make her casting plausible, and Miller is able to capture the grace and elegance which was such an important part of Hedren's on- screen presence. Toby Jones captures Hitchcock's distinctive voice and mannerisms, and, with the assistance of prosthetic makeup and a fatsuit, manages to look reasonably like him, although suffers from the disadvantage that he is around twenty years younger than Hitch would have been at this period in his life. We are always aware that we are looking at a younger man made up as an older one.

The treatment of Hitchcock in the film has been a controversial one. Some reviewers on this board have taken exception to its portrayal of him as a sexual predator, and some figures from the film industry who knew him and worked with him have come forward to defend him. These include Kim Novak, the star of his "Vertigo", even though her own working relationship with him was said to be a difficult one. (She never made another film with him, even though she fitted the "Hitchcock blonde" template perfectly). Certainly, some of the details shown in the film do not quite ring true. Would Hitchcock, for example, really have tried to include a clause in Hedren's contract that she must make herself sexually available to him whenever he demands? He would have known full well that such a clause would have been legally null and void, and any attempt to put such a demand in writing would only have increased the risk of his being exposed in a public scandal.

Moreover, Hitchcock's refusal to release Hedren from her contract does not seem to have damaged her career quite as much as she alleges. Her third film, "Run for Your Life", was made only a year after "Marnie", and since then she has gone on to appear in over forty films and TV movies. Admittedly, some of these have been rather obscure, but I doubt if she would have had more success had she continued working for Hitchcock. (His next film after "Marnie" was the dull spy thriller "Torn Curtain", which didn't do much for its leading lady Julie Andrews).

And yet Tippi Hedren is in a better position than anyone else to know what happened between Hitchcock and herself, so I would not dismiss the film on the grounds that the events it describes never took place. Because the truth or otherwise of Hedren's allegations can never definitively be established- and I can see no reason why she might be lying- trying to judge it on the basis of its supposed historical accuracy, or lack of accuracy seems pointless. It needs to be judged not as a historical record of fact, but as a work of speculative fiction, albeit one which takes real individuals for its leading characters.

Seen in that light, "The Girl" is quite a good film. The story told here is essentially that of every leering employer who cannot keep his hands off the girls in the typing pool and has no qualms about abusing his power over them for his sexual gratification. Regardless of whether the events shown are, or are not, literally true, it contains a good deal of emotional and psychological truth in its portrait of a flawed genius obsessively pursuing a much younger woman, and of a frightened young woman determined to uphold her honour and her dignity when she realises that her dreams of stardom have made her the target of a elderly sex pest. 7/10

As Total Film magazine said of this one-off drama, "it amounts to nothing less than a wholesale character assassination". They were right – it makes Albert Goldman's biography of John Lennon appear hagiographic.

While it looks great and Sienna Miller is fine as Hedren and Jones captures Hitch's voice well, The Girl is a narrow and nasty portrayal of the world's greatest film director. In its attempt to construct a drama it forgets some important points: people often have to suffer for their art; Alfred Hitchcock was a film director who knew his audience better than anyone, his understanding of the human condition was deep, and he realised that the thing that mattered most was the experience that the audience would derive from his work. If it meant discomfort and long hours on the set, that was a price worth paying – there's no room for fluffy dressing gowns and tea and biscuit breaks when you're trying to create a masterpiece, something that might last for centuries.

To suggest that Hitch unexpectedly sent a model bird crashing through a telephone box window just to terrify and "punish" Hedren, as opposed to being a desire to frighten the wits out of the audience, is absurd. The shoot of The Birds had been meticulously planned for – literally – years, and in any case, why would Hitch risk harming his leading lady's features? The greatest of people are endowed with light and shade, and possess the ability to view human existence from deep and differing positions. Hitchcock was one of these people. This greatness is something to be lauded – not bemoaned and belittled, as was the case with The Girl.

As most film buffs are aware, Alfred Hitchcock was a known voyeur and that kink was evident in most of his films and the Director was able to channel that obsession for creative and successful movies. The art form itself is genuinely, by nature, produced to satisfy the voyeuristic tendencies of the audience. No one knew that better than Hitch.

It is also known that he liked blonds with a cool demeanor. But to just what extent he used his leverage over these actresses was not very clear. According to Tippi Hedren, if we are to believe her accounts, this made for HBO Movie is truth told to power (posthumously).

This is an old Hollywood story that used to be referred to as "the casting couch". Here we have an impotent Hitch groping and demanding obedience "available to me in all i desire", a determined, sad old man, that uses his on set Direction to "torture" her with repeated, dangerous and humiliating takes of a scene in The Birds (1963).

But she is a strong and resilient woman who would make another movie, Marnie (1964) with Alfie and then fade to black. The movie makes its points in a straightforward, blemishes and all, account that is well acted by all and, surprisingly, without any flourishes that made Hitchcock a legendary film maker.

It is a sympathetic portrayal of a beautiful woman and a flawed, fat and ugly, powerful man. A Beauty and the Beast story. Not a pleasant situation about an unpleasant, but talented man.

Wow! Is that really what happened? In many biographies about Alfred Hitchcock, the most Tippi Hedren ever said about the incident when Alfred Hitchcock supposedly propositioned her was, "Demands were made of me that I could not acquiesce to." But in "The Girl", Toby Jones' Hitchcock puts it right out there when he says to Sienna Miller's Tippi Hedren, "From now on, I want you to make yourself sexually available to me at all times. Whatever I want you to do, whenever I want you to do it."

Possibly it happened that way, Tippi Hedren seems to have been consulted by the filmmakers. My feeling is that where there was that much smoke there had to be fire, but just how fair is "The Girl"?

The movie is nothing less than interesting. Toby Jones is amazing, and Sienna Miller more than holds her own, but opinion over the film is divided. On one side are those outraged that Hitchcock's reputation has been besmirched without a chance to defend himself, while on the other are those outraged at what Hitchcock appears to have done to Tippi Hedren.

"The Girl" relates how Alfred Hitchcock groomed the inexperienced Hedren to star in "The Birds" and "Marnie". During the process, Hitchcock changed from mentor to monster becoming totally obsessed with her. Eventually he made an overt sexual advance. She refused and that was the end of the relationship.

One scene in "The Girl" does undermine it. It's the somewhat salacious screen test where Hitchcock asks Hedren to give Martin Balsam a long lingering kiss. Unfortunately for the makers of "The Girl", the actual test clip is fairly well known from documentaries and YouTube, and is a lot less threatening than the recreation. In reality, Balsam and Hedren actually seem quite comfortable with each other. It was silly to overdo a scene that is so accessible; it leaves you wondering how much over-egging went on with the rest of the custard.

The difference between Hedren and Hitchcock's other leading ladies was that they were better able to handle him. Most were established stars, surrounded by husbands, boyfriends and agents, but Hedren didn't have all that; she was just starting out and was far more vulnerable.

According to some sources, it was about this time that Hitchcock's judgement also seemed to be slipping. The suppressed voyeuristic tendencies and fantasies that helped inform his great films were taking on a harder edge. He now wanted to be explicit in what he showed.

Up until then, the Motion Picture Production Code kept him in check. Would films like "Rear Window", "Vertigo" or even "Psycho" be the enduring classics they are today if Hitchcock had been allowed to go all the way? The censor made him innovative and subtle. However, by the late 60's the Code was gone. No one ever ranks 1972's "Frenzy" among his greatest movies; plenty of rape and nudity on display there. Fortunately he never made "Kaleidoscope"; with what he had planned, it could have been a real legend killer.

As far as "The Girl" is concerned, maybe it's best to just enjoy the show. Toby Jones' Hitchcock is even better than his Truman Capote, genius really, the voice is perfect, and Sienna Miller is so beautiful that you can believe that a fat, old auteur could harbour a fantasy or two about her. But maybe the last words on the subject could be the classic line Hitchcock once directed at an actor who was getting a bit too worked up about things, "Don't worry, it's only a movie".

I stumbled across this one day while scanning through the channels. I saw "Hitchcock" in the description, so I decided to have a look. Now I'll admit, I don't know all that much about Hitchcock. I know he's a great director, but I know next to nothing about his personal life or any controversy that may have lead to this movie. Instead I focused on the movie itself. After watching, I decided to look it up, where I came across the rather large controversy that this film has created. So here's my humble take on the film.

"The Girl" is a brilliant film from a mechanical standpoint. The acting is brilliant. Toby Jones sounds almost IDENTICAL to Hitchcock. It was really quite eerie to listen to the two. He seemed to capture the mannerisms from the director quite well. Sienna Miller was okay, but was a bit dry in some parts. Otherwise it was a fine group of actors. Likewise, directing, cinematography and editing were all exceptional, so why does this film fail?

A question I have instead of all the "is this a true story?" is, if you have all of the makings of a great film-a great cast, a great director, great camera-work-why base the story on such a controversial and doubtful series of events? Why not use the tools you have to make a biopic of sorts? This is what baffles me. If this film had followed a different story, it would probably have a much better rating. Everything points to a successful film EXCEPT the story, so why do it?

I suppose this is the problem with film these days. People are more concerned about the shock factor than an actual quality film. It's a shame too, because this could have been much, much better and free from controversy.

Because a vote of 1 means 'awful' in IMDb terms, and because I find this movie actually 'awful', I cannot but give it a vote of 1.

Which is a shame, really, because if this movie had been purely fictional, it would have been a decent film with an interesting, albeit somewhat weird plot, and a screenplay that left something to desire. I might have given it a '5' then.

But the fact is that the makers of, and contributors to this movie knew full well, as does their audience, that the premise of this movie is decidedly NOT fictional, but envisions to portray 'real life events'. Here starts the 'awful' feeling for me.

At the end of the day, there is not a shred of proof that the events as displayed in this movie actually happened. And the makers know that. It is not just a case of 'personal opinion', like it is not a case of 'personal opinion' whether Kennedy was murdered, or that Harvey Weinstein attempted to take advantage of young actresses.

By portraying Alfred Hitchcock in this sensationalist light, and making bucks out of it, the makers deliberately hurt the memory of a man who is not around to protest anymore. The makers should have asked themselves: would we dare to make this movie, in this way, had the man been still alive? Would the evidence weigh up to the doubt and the protest? And they would have concluded that it wouldn't. The fact that they dared make this movie now Hitch is dead, shows a cowardly attitude behind it.

Why then, you ask me, is it unlikely that the events portrayed in the movie ever happened? For starters: because the many, many people who were around at the time vehemently deny any misbehavior ever happened, and just as vehemently assert that these events were *very* unlikely to happen with the Hitchcock they knew. The other actors, the other set personnel, the people close to Hitch, Mrs. Hedren's assistants, no one ever came to the fore with anything substantial that corroborates Hedren's story; instead they deny it, or at least deem it unlikely it happened without them noticing it.

Second, Hedren kept her mouth shut for many decades. That would be somewhat credible if during that time, she hadn't given such praise and devoted such warm words to her experience with Hitchcock in the mean time - which she did. It was only at the end of her career, which was not particularly successful, and only after Hitchcock was dead & gone, and only after Donald Spoto interviewed her for his Hichcock biography, that she told this narrative of an 'abusive' Hitchcock. As if she needed a reason why her career post-Hitchcock never took off - a reason outside of herself.

Thirdly, because there is ample material evidence that refute important elements in Hedren's narrative. There is a trainload of contemporary documentation (business correspondence, personal letters, media publications) that prove Hedren's memory wrong. You can get a good taste of that on the website SaveHitchcock.com, which attempts to provide objective information about the actual events. Here is a good place to start: a rebuttal to Hedren's recently published Memoirs: https://savehitchcock.com/2016/10/19/tippi-a-memoir/

In sum, this movie is a cowardly attempt to discredit and vilify a great director and a great personality, who is vulnerable because he cannot defend himself from accusations of sexual predatorism, which are based on hearsay from exactly one source.

I don't find it troubling that a single disappointed actor (Hedren) at a certain point in her life chose to follow this path; she is the only one to know her reasons for it, and whether they are honest or not. Yet I do find it disappointing that a large group of professionals in the movie industry chose to make money from trampling on someone's corpse by making this very one-sided movie. And most of all I find it troubling that the American audience seems to love it, falls for this manipulation of history, and appears to embrace this sensationalist story with a vengeance.

I am glad that Hitch is not around anymore to live through this totally undeserved character assassination.

The Girl (2012)

** (out of 4)

HBO movie about the working relationship between Alfred Hitchcock (Toby Jones) and Tippi Hedren (Sienna Miller) while making THE BIRDS and MARNIE. The film focuses in on Hitchcock's mental and sexual abuse of the actress who blames the director for her career never taking off. THE GIRL has hit with all sorts of controversy with people attacking it for trying to ruin Hitchcock's legacy and others attacking Hedren for coming up with this stories after years of talking about how great the director was. I guess we'll never really know what happened between the two but it's pretty clear by watching this movie that it didn't make for any entertainment. THE GIRL could have made for an interesting psychological thriller but what we get is pretty much a gossip film that has nothing going for it. It seems like the only thing this film tried to do was show Hitchcock as an ugly man both physically and in the way that he treated women. Watching this film you learn absolutely nothing about Hitchcock or this so-called obsession with Hendren. Did Hitch do this to other actresses? Why was Hitch so obsessed with Hedren? These are two important things that are never mentioned here and the only thing we are told is that this happened. THE GIRL is so short on any sort of information that the entire thing just comes across as an attempt to show a legend as a pervert. Again, if this really happened then I have no problem with a movie being made about it. The problem is that director Julian Jarrold has delivered a lifeless, boring mess that just doesn't add up to anything. Both Jones and Miller do what they can with decent performances but neither can overcome the screenplay. The best thing going in the film is the make-up job done to Jones. THE GIRL might lure people in wanting to see what all the controversy is about but I can't see too many sticking around to the end.

This film, stars British actor Toby Jones (Captain America: The First Avenger, Snow White and the Huntsman) as Hitchcock. He hires actress Tippi Hedren (Sienna Miller) for his follow-up to Psycho, The Birds.

The film about Psycho came out just one month later with Anthony Hopkins as Hitchcock.

So, the question naturally arise: with two Hitchcocks in a month, one in theaters and one on HBO, who is the better Hitchcock?

One thing is certain. I have lost all respect for the real Alfred Hitchcock. He is an asshole.

Hopkins made the better character. Mirren was certainly the better Alma. Miller was fantastic and deserved her BAFTA.

Hedren never achieved her stardom.

I watched this many years after it aired (found it at the library). I'd say the acting is pretty good...I think it really is a "behind the scenes" story...literally. Most of the movie shows what happened between takes and in the dressing rooms. I'm writing this in 2020, but obviously this was before the "me too" movement. I think many actresses just knew about the casting couch and the big shot movie directors were going to hit on them. I remember Tippi Hendren talking in an interview (when she was older) about how she was sabotaged by Hitchcock. Hitchcock seemed like an emotionally unstable creative genius with lots of obsessions and idiosyncracies. I felt very sorry for his wife...but I'm sure there were many wives in the movie industries that were tossed aside for starlets.

This movie is in the vein of Mommie Dearest, but without the high camp hilarity and cat fights in the sunken lounge. The entire lumbering disaster should have been called The Fractured Fairy tales of T. Hedren, and it's clear from the start she is a victim. Tippi Hedren is a victim of her beauty, kindness, generosity of spirit and of course her sheer naïveté. Of course, it's nonsense...but not even unintentionally funny nonsense. It takes itself so seriously (like Hedren herself) although for what reason, I have no idea. Toby Jones and Imelda Staunton are good, but they are the only bright lights in a movie that is so underacted and underwhelming that it's painful to watch. Staunton is reduced to a mere cliché but works hard to give her character and the memory of Alma Hitchcock some gravitas.

Now to Sienna Miller, who has all the acting skills of lumber and runs the gamut of emotions from A to B. She is closest dramatically to Hedren herself who seems to blame Hitchcock for her premature career death. What is Miller's excuse for her inexorable and agonizing inability to act? She cannot blame Hitchcock...so I wonder who she does blame. Granted, she has a slim script and so many close ups of her face which is intended for her to emote. However her face is so botoxed, she has no emotion and instead just looks weepy and slack-jawed. It's funny really....Sienna Miller has virtually no acting skills but at least she could be relied on to use her face to give some meaning to her roles. Take that away...and she is a moving speaking coat hanger for replica fashions and an overworked wardrobe department.

The script is clunky, slow and overwrought. The scenes of bad acting are strung together with no apparent connection or rationale and the long lingering camera shots of Sienna with her blank face and shabby accent make the film even less watchable. The final scene where Hitchcock asks Hedren to make herself "sexually available" to him is one of the most unintentionally crass and sloppy scenes in the film, and leads to the claim that Hedren has made repeatedly that it was Hitchcock who ruined her career.

After watching this clunker with Miller as Hedren, it's clear the reason Hedren failed was because she just couldn't act. There is a line, where according to Hedren, Hitch took a "..living breathing woman and turned her into a statue." Perhaps this is the most honest line in the entire film. Both Hedren and Miller have all the acting skills of a statue without the benefits of a statue's silence.

Alfred Hitchcock (Toby Jones) is looking for a blonde to play his next victim in 'The Birds'. His wife Alma (Imelda Staunton) sees Tippi Hedren (Sienna Miller) on a TV commercial. Tippi is a little known model when Hitchcock thrust her into super stardom. Hitchcock is a drunk and obsessed with the blonde Tippi. He sexually pursues her and abuses her in the infamous 5-day attic shoot using live birds to attack her. He continues to stalk her, and forces her to strip in one of the scenes in his next movie 'Marnie'.

Toby Jones is proving a master mimic once again. He is convincing as Hitchcock. Sienna Miller is a little too sexual for the more virginal idealized character of Tippi Hedren. Tippi indicates that she had fought off plenty of leaches during her modeling days. It would be nice to have that scene in the beginning. Generally, the subject matter may have been intense, but it didn't translate onto the screen. They needed to build the tension up. Instead Hitchcock was creepy from the start. It'd be better to start from a happier place. As for the truth behind the story, I'm unwilling to judge on that matter unlike many other reviewers here. Tippi seems to like it although the climax is really hard to swallow.

Well-enough produced cable-film, adapted from Donald Spoto's book "Spellbound by Beauty: Alfred Hitchcock and his Leading Ladies", seems to have been made simply to show off the sadistic antics of filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock, something most film-buffs are already aware of from books--better ones than Spoto's--and from Hollywood folklore. Hitchcock's wife and confidant, Alma (Imelda Staunton) is the first to spot model Tippi Hedren on television and recommends her to Hitch for the lead in his next thriller, "The Birds"; smitten with the Swedish blonde, he grooms her, trains her, seduces her (clumsily, it appears) and amuses himself by shocking her. Just because Sienna Miller has been given the correct shade of blonde hair to play Hedren does not mean she is well-cast; sparkling, girlishly innocuous and effusive, Sienna's Tippi begins the film-within-the-film as an eager newcomer ("I'm putty in your hands!" she flirtatiously tells Hitchcock) but is soon staring numbly out car windows or complaining about her working hours...and it doesn't wash. So much care has been given to the production design that apparently no one thought to craft a convincing character here--or to cast an ideal actress in the role. The real Tippi Hedren was a mannered ice-queen who spoke with a haughty cadence; Miller sashays inside of strides, and smiles from ear to ear when paid a compliment. And if she's miscast, than Toby Jones is her unfortunate equal as Hitchcock. Jones looks like Hitch from the back, but his facial features are too small and he speaks far too rapidly. Much of the blame can be placed upon Julian Jarrold's uncommitted direction. Jarrold probably did his homework--and probably took delight in the performances his actors were giving--but he's all style. He knows the song by heart but he's sadly out of tune.

While Jim could hug and console Tippi, she treated Hitch as if he was a much older and overweight slug -- right on two counts. But, Hitch was no slug. She could not even say that she loved him in return to his saying that to her, something that is not uncommon among any group of people. She should have said, "I love you too, Hitch," just as he said by himself after she ran out of the room. But, no. She treated him as if she was filming the Creature from the Black Lagoon.

As a retired CEO of a company, I have had many women tell me that they love me, and I respond in kind, and truthfully. This has never led to anything untoward, and was not the intent in any case. In fact, it helped us to be like a second family, which is very important in the optoelectronics and software field.

I suspect that Tippi Hedren has had many regrets if this was, in fact, the way that she acted. The final, overboard, absurd request for sex on demand was either fiction or his way of running her off using exasperation, in not only my opinion, but the opinion of the people in my company, both male and female. Hitch knew that he would run her off with that kind of request if what is shown in the movie is accurate.