Frenzy

Rating:
Summary: Fantastic!
Review: Hitchcock knows how to build a sense of unnerving suspense aand with Frenzy all his prior knowledge makes this film one hell of a ride! A necktie murderer is having his way with the women of London and over the course of his deadly deeds more humor and inventive flashbacks are used to give the viewer an overwhelming sense of morbid pleasure! The film is shockingly violent but the story is so well crafted that you not only fall into its spell but at key moments realize you're in a nightmare! (...) Dark and dank corners and inter changing plot twists will leave your mouth open! The last 15 minutes have been copied to death but here is the original and the best. As it stands Hitchcock has made his most raw and violent film along the same vein as Shakespare's Titus!

Rating:
Summary: Good Hitchcock Fun!
Review: Hitchcock returned to one of his favorite themes in his movies,and also one of the most enjoyable to watch. That of the innocent man trying to prove his innonence. Barry Foster and Jon Finch are simply wonderful to watch in the master's second to last film. Hitchcock really made in a sense a "come back" with this film. Proving that he still had what it took to scare the living daylights out of us. But,of course this does not compare to Hitchcock's earlier masterpieces like "Shadow Of A Doubt","Lifeboat",and "Foreign Correspondent". A good movie to start off with Hitchcock films though and a good one to watch on a lonely Friday night with some friends. A very witty and suspenseful Hitchcock gem.

Rating:
Summary: Not the Hitchcock of old...but brilliant nonetheless
Review: Hitchcock's second last film is a tightly-written, well-acted suspense thriller featuring a luckless and underachieving hero being framed for murder, a cunning and psychotic villain whose murderous itinerary is detailed, a gritty and realistic directorial style from Hitch, a story set in a working-class milieu that is far apart from the glamorous and exotic settings of his earlier films, and one horrific murder scene in which the depiction of brutality and evil reached a new height for the director. This film is quite a world apart from the elegant, smooth, urbane suspense pictures he made in the 40s and 50s. But with the increasingly jaded audiences in the 70s, the change was probably inevitable. Still, Hitchcock's craftsmanship made FRENZY as exciting and memorable as his more traditional thrillers.

This DVD from MGM/UA presents the film in a new, widescreen video transfer and a Dolby Digital monophonic sound track. The picture looks a bit dark for my liking; unfortunately there is no "color bars" on the disc for me to test the display. Colors are bright and realistic, however. The audio is bright and sharp.

There is an original 45-minute 'Making-Of' documentary that features new interviews of actors Jon Finch, Barry Foster, and Anna Massey, a theatrical trailer (showing Hitchcock floating on the Thames), 100 or so B&W production photos, and the usual "production notes" and "cast biographies".

Rating:
Summary: what the hec happened to nudity free movies Mr. Hichcoch
Review: I didn't even see the hole movie man.Ok I was at home sick right .Then I want to rent this movie because I love Alfred HIchcoch movies because there so scary , but clean .So I start to watch it and 30 min. into the movie then all of a sec there was nudity.I turned it off right then and there .I was very disapoited .I give this movie 0 stars.
-f

Rating:
Summary: not so good
Review: I do like Hitchcock and I have seen many of his films. Though most of them are brilliant and, more impotantly, origonal, I did not find Frenzy to be either of these. No, it wasn't horrible but it was not origonal at all. There is a murderer/rapest and, sure, we are all entertained buy that. The wrong person is of couse blamed, the bad guy is of course found out, and all in between that are scenes that seemed like Hitchcock had to force to make the film long enough. Hitchcock is wonderful but this is the worst movie of his I've ever seen. I'm sorry.

Rating:
Summary: Very Excellent!
Review: I must say that this was one of Alfred Hitchcock's best films....like all the rest! LOL. I think though that becuase of the gruesome, desterbing scenes in this film it kind of messes up his ussual films. When I first saw this film (four days ago) I was not expecting it to be that.....I don't know...gruesome, desturbing parts. The one scene in which it's a rap-murder scene really set me off. It was SO detailed, so desturbing, so...terriable but true to it's affect I had to fast forward parts. The thing that bothers me is that he showed many naked scenes and it was as if the whole 'Psycho' affect ruined his formula. Still, I would have to say it's probably his last 'GREAT' film. Bravo Hitchcock!

Rating:
Summary: Hitchcock not at his best.....
Review: I recieved a shock at the graphical shots of the murder scene in this film as i'm used to Hitchcock's implied violence and underlining sexual tension, whereas this film is up front which doesn't give the usual hitchock suspense. Still it has a great fimilar storyline that will keep viewers entertained as they watch the movie unfold to reveal the real killer.

Rating:
Summary: Disturbing Hitchcock Thriller
Review: I was very surprised by Frenzy. It has nudity in it and the death scenes are very disturbing. I liked it how it was shot in location in London, England though and the scenes between the chief of police and his wife are very funny. This movie was pretty good and suspenseful. I didn't like how they revealed the killer too quickly though. Even though this movie is very disturbing, I still liked Frenzy.

Rating:
Summary: "Don't squeeze the goods 'till they're yours."
Review: In 1972, Alfred Hitchcock returned to his native London to make his second to last film; "Frenzy". After making 1963's "The Birds", Hitchcock did not have another critical or commercial success for almost a decade. Here, Hitchcock returned to fine form turning out one of his greatest films.

Set in London, the story concerns a serial killer known only as "the necktie murderer" who has been raping and strangling women across London. Jon Finch stars as Richard Blaney, a hot tempered ex-RAF officer. Blaney has just been fired from his job as a bartender after his boss accuses him of stealing drinks. Unemployed and in a foul mood, Blaney responds to his problems by blowing his remaining money on alcohol and whining about his problems to his ex-wife.

Little does Blaney know that his day is about to get a lot worse. When his ex-wife is found strangled, another victim of the necktie murderer, Blaney is himself accused and must elude the law while trying to clear his name.

"Frenzy" is different in some ways from Hitchcock's earlier films. For one thing, the violence is a lot stronger. There is early on a brutal rape and strangulation sequence. If you thought that the shower scene in "Psycho" was strong be warned, it is nothing compared to this scene in "Frenzy". This was the first Hitchcock film to get an "R" rating. I guess that Hitchcock was just keeping up with the times.

Another notable difference is the way the main character is portrayed. While Hitchcock's protagonists have often been a bit disturbed, Richard Blaney has got to be the least likable protagonist ever to appear in a Hitchcock film. A chronically angry man always wearing a scowl on his face, Blaney certainly seems capable of the crimes of which he is accused, especially after we learn about his disturbing history of behavior. By the end of the film, he looks as dangerous the killer himself. On the other hand, the real killer looks almost like Blaney's complete opposite. He is a well dressed, good natured, charming man who is nice to everybody. Unfortunately, he is also unnaturally fond of fruit. In case you're wondering, I'm not talking about the stuff he sells at his stand.

Much like in "Strangers on a Train", the killer acts out the aggressions of the hero.

Yet another divergence from Hitchcock's earlier films is in the feel for locations. Hitchcock used to like working in the studio where he could control the sound and light. Here however, Hitchcock did a lot of shooting in the streets of London giving this film a more authentic flavor. Thus this film feels more modern than most of Hitchcock's films.

Nevertheless, some distinct Hitchcock elements are still there. The "innocent man on the run" element had been portrayed many time in previous Hithcocks, but rarely so well. There is also Hitchcock's distinct humor. While hunting the necktie murderer, the chief inspector must also contend with his eccentric wife's hideous meals. She has been making what passes for continental cuisine and the inspector must find ways to dispose of her awful meals without her noticing. All the poor man wants is a steak and a baked potato.

The ending is terrific. In the last ten minutes you find yourself on the edge of your seat wondering how everything is going to work out. While I won't tell you how it ends, I will say that it is very satisfying, leaving you smiling yet just a bit unnerved.

Rating:
Summary: Frenzy is great, but...
Review: In all of Hitchcock's film, the thing he has been most noted for is his almost Sparton approach to film making. He had a reputation for using just the right scenes and just the right camera angles to tell a story, with very little film being wasted on non-essential story lines. Now by the time of Frenzy (1972) Hitchcock had a first experience. Three of his films had been released in a row to less than enthuisiastic reviews--Marnie, Torn Curtain, and Topaz, and now at age 73 Hitchcock must have realized that his best film making days were behind him. It is my opnion that he wanted to make sure Frenzy was a success and so to help sell the picture, for the first time he used nudity. He said that audiences were ready to accept nudity, but was he implying that he would have used nudity in the 1940s had audiences been ready for it? I think the real reason he used it was simply to help sell the picture. For decades he prided himself on dictating to the audience what they would see and how they would see it, but there is a scene in Frenzy where a woman sits up in bed, and for several minutes we see her naked. But the question is never answered as to why she was sitting up in bed. Was she going to go the bathroom? If so, then why didn't she just go instead of sitting there? Was she going to get dressed and leave? Then why didn't she start to put on her clothes? There is no reason for this extended scene to be there, except to show the front and back of a naked female body. It adds nothing to the plot, and for Hitchcock this is a rare thing. It seems for the first time, he is being dictated to by the audience. Its a sign that after nearly fifty years of film making Hitchcock seems to have lost control over the elements that helped secure his reputation. All this aside, there are classic elements of Hitchcock in this movie: black humor, the wrong man being accused and on the run, and other murders being implied but not spelled out. Its these elements that makes Frenzy stand out from his previous three films, but its the unneccessary nude scenes that distract from the pure Hitchcock film style. This has nothing to do with nudity in general, but for Hitchcock with his Spartan style of film making, leaving unnecessary scenes of any kind in a film is uncharacteristic of him, and for this reason, while Frenzy is a great film, technically it shows signs of Hitchcock losing his touch. But then, at 73 years of age, and living with a pacemaker, you can't expect him to be on top of his game as he was during the late 1950s.