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.

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.

A frequent error people (me included) make in regard to biographic films is to take things too literally. We should keep in mind that a film is (or at least should be) a work of art by itself, therefore having its own message, views and means of expression.Everybody is raging against this fine TV film because of its inaccuracies and one-sided take on a great director. But it's not all about him, as in 'Amadeus' it's not just about the real Mozart. During a second viewing of 'The Girl' it occurred to me that we need to see things under the surface: it's a parable about love, refusal, inner torments and mixed feelings, well, that kind of things. And that makes this film human, because a great artist is no saint and a beautiful woman is not always a perfect mother and/or performer ('professional').Was everything in his motivation only about his ego, his unrequited love or sexual desire, or about his 'not aging gracefully' (if I may put it like that and not in Freudian terms)? And of course they didn't insist much on her own motivation: if he has been so abusive as a consequence of their love-hate relationship, why did she still continue to work with him? Just for the fame perspectives, for the money, or to prove him something? We don't really know it from the movie and this is just fine! Life is a mystery (so sings Madonna on my TV in 'Like A Prayer' exactly as I was starting to write it!). Talk about serendipity...Being a Romanian, it was easy for me to recognize in this film, among the other aspects, a similarity with the Romanian myth of Manole the Craftsman, who had to sacrifice his beloved wife within the walls of the church he was building in order to make them stand. It's a well known East-European symbol of the need for sacrifice in art and I think it's not too far fetched a key for interpreting this film (which visually and acting-wise looks very good to me, by the way).

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.