Reviews

Good movie. Suggests that the assignation of the arch duke was a conspiracy of Austria and Germany not Serbia. The arch duke was a problem to the the Austrian elite and military as he was against a war against a war with Serbia and that he was going to upend the power control of the elite in Austro-Hungaria when Emperor (e.g. his wife would be empress and his children would inherit the throne). This also included that Empire would become a constitutional monarchy like Britain and that all nationalities would have equal power in the empire. He also didn't want war with Serbia as he believed that his military was needed to maintain control and repress civil war in the empire, not war with a neighbor country .

The Austrian Military and power elite wanted otherwise and in a conspiracy with Germany plotted to murder him which they could then blame on Serbia and a pretense to start a war.

My Mother loved this movie and so do a lot of older baby boom women I know. However as a baby boomer man when I finally it saw recently I was struck by the fact that to me Harold was obliviously gay and not interested in women except for Maude in a very weird non sexual grandmother way. True they sleep together but I suspect that was just some non erotic hugging and keeping each other warm. Harold is like Sheldon in the Big Bang Theory a man child that doesn't know he is gay or even what that is about just that he is not interested in women in a hetero way.

The movie however is fun and quirky, but please keep the romance out of the way this is really about friendship at any age not love/lust way. It is worth seeing as an adventure of 2 people who need and like each other- nothing more

This is a great movie but I suspect it has been forgotten and not recognized because of the child pedophilia and wife beating in it's plot which were very, very uncomfortable subjects to discuss until recently. Acknowledging how good this movie is also mean having to deal with this subjects.

I only saw this movie once before as a young teenager in the late 60's on TV and didn't get it. (I did like the "bastardo" remark to Archie by the young Mexican however). Younger viewers will not understand a time when homosexuality,and pedophilia was underground and could only be hinted at in the movies which is why it is not obvious or said in this movie. Seeing the movie again as a 60 year old with the understanding of these modern time but knowledge of the 60's made it clear that Richard Chamberlain's character David was a gay pedophile and that his father Richard played by Joseph Cotten knew it. Whether Petulia knew this before she married him is unclear but it is obvious that she knew it when David wants to drive the young boy back to their home in San Francisco (at least a day's drive from the San Diego Border). Her latter rescue of the boy after the unsuccessful (or successful?) seduction of him by David is the key as why she would try to hook up with George Scott's character Archie.

Christie's character is also bizarre. As the child and sister of prostitutes she obliviously has some real issues of her own which are part of her "kookiness" (makes me feel old to see how "kook" has disappeared from everyday usage). My guess is that the realization that her dream marriage is a sham and that her husband prefers young boys has left her even more unstable. Christie probably grew up without a father around and so her attraction to Scott is part physical and that of wanting a father figure, and his kindness. The accident and situation with the young Mexican have left her quite crazy. Her desire to both seduce Archie and then deny him are understandable in her unstable mind to both still want to be married but also not at the same time.

Scott's Character is that of a middle age man in manopause, unhappy but not sure what he wants. This explain his divorce, dating other women and dealing with Petulia's character. Note that his fellow doctor is in a similar place but doesn't have the gut to do anything about it.

Watching the special features on the DVD I found out according to Chamberlain that neither he or Christie, or Scott knew what the movie was about when making it (Director Lester wouldn't tell them). I believe Joesph Cotten on the other hand must of know what was going on as an explanation of his brilliant performance. His Character as a member of the very elite and small San Francisco upper class is desperate to hide that his son's marriage is on the rocks and even worse his son has beaten her nearly to death and is a gay pedophile. He has to bring her back into the family fold to keep those secrets and his performance shows that masterfully. His lines about how how his his son is busy with his "boys" preparing for a voyage says so much.

Chamberlain's character in addition to being a gay pedophile also has severe physical anger problems as shown when he hits Christie when she want the young Mexican to leave after crossing the border. His anger and beating of Christie nearly to death by embarrassing him when staying with Scott is also an issue which Hollywood and Movie Reviewer have a hard time dealing with and another reason to forget this film.

The final moments of the film are interesting to speculate. Is Scott the real father of Christie's child as perhaps Chamberlain's character is impotent with women? Is that why Petulia calls out to Archie at the end of the film. Does Archie suspect this and tries to move her out of the situation only to realize it would come to no good end and decides to let everything stay as it is? I don't blame him for realizing how crazy it would be to move her and that it would best for all do nothing at the time.

In general I found the film to be slow and dull, with some interesting things(versus the excellent "Hitchcock" with Anthony Hopkins).

I found the acting and directing in this film to be wooden and not convincing. While Toby Jones's Hitch voice and accent is better than sir Anthony's version, the acting is much inferior. While Hopkins brings Hitch back to life, Jones just stands there as a hollow imitation, without any depth of real character. Same for the other actors.

What saves the movie is the story, which while intriguing, moves like a glacier. When I watch movie DVD's at home I usually run them at 1.4 to 2 times the original speed which is just fine for most Hollywood drivel. "The Girl" could have gone at least twice or 2.5 times without a problem.

OK, I hated the movie but liked the story. While it slammed poor old Hitch as a pathetic, old, impotent, angry, workaholic sex freak it also exposed some serious issues. These got my attention both good and bad.

The real story of the movie is a middle age man going through a profound male menopause period, and dealing very badly with it. This is something that just hasn't been dealt with in movies for good reason,the middle age men who still control Hollywood just don't want to talk about it--at all, it strikes too close to home. This is what saves the movie for me

While in the movie itself, Hitch is very bad and weird, the implications are that he was much worse in person. In the movie he doesn't try to rape Tippi, just violently kiss her against her will, he tells her dirty limericks, wants her to "touch him", and finally in a scene where I think he is really just trying to hurt her emotionally, he tells her that she has to "be available to him". But remember everyone he admits that he is impotent and cant do anything.

In the days before health awareness and Viagra, Hitch was freaked out and angry over losing his masculinity and in a vain attempt to get his mojo back focused on Tippi. That is why the other earlier and later starlets never saw it. Hitch was in a life crisis and just nuts. Of course that doesn't excuse his awful behavior, but maybe helps to explain it.

I mean other men of his time went out and bought fast cars, or huge yacht, and ran after younger women. Hitch however was ugly, obese,and a couch potato, and these things just didn't work for him. All he had was his work and the abuse he could dish out on poor tippi

So in its own strange way "The Girl" is a valuable movie, I just wish it was better made.

This is a very nicely done bio-pic, on par with Argo, smart, funny, and well paced. Some problems with historical accuracy, for example Hitch did not mortgage his house to make Psycho, and he did not take up the slashing part in the shower on the set. Overall an excellent movie that should of had more nominations at the Oscars.

Anthony Hopkins is superb and gets Hitchcock's dry sense of humor and odd behaviors just right. While Toby Jones in "The Girl" (another 2012 Hitch bio pic) gets his voice and accent better, there is no contest with Sir Anthony's more convincing and entertaining portrayal of the director.

Helen Mirren is also great, but without knowledge of who Alma, Hitch's wife really was and how she behaves it hard to get a read on how close to the mark her performance is.

For older generations who remember Hitch and for younger ones who don't this film is a pleasant way to look back at the late 50's and early 60's Hollywood.