MovieChat Forums > Frenzy (1972) Discussion > MY REVIEW OF 'FRENZY'!

MY REVIEW OF 'FRENZY'!

posted 15 years ago by Martialhorror
11 replies | jump to latest

Source: http://freewebs.com/mhfrenzy

PLEASE CHECK OUT THE SITE!

FRENZY(1972)
(Directed by Alfred Hitchcock)

Plot: An alcoholic is suspected of being a serial rapist-murderer and tries to avoid the police.

Review:

“Frenzy” is often referred to as Hitchcock’s final masterpiece, which is really a stupid statement when you think about it. After all, he only did one more movie after this. So it wasn’t like he went into a slump or anything. Although I suppose people didn't care for his previous two movies, "Topaz", which I have not seen as well as "Torn Curtain", which I have. I didn't think it was bad at all. Regardless, “Frenzy” is well received by fans, past and present alike. Well, except for me. It’s also considered to be his most grisly film, which I will give him. But based on the films popularity, I find myself a little baffled at how much people tend to admire this. Final masterpiece my ass. More like his final disappointment, and from all the Hitchcock movies that I've seen, it's the only one I really didn't care for.

The movie begins with a pretty cool aerial shot of London, which eventually turns into something that appears to be the POV of a boat. The music is rousing and adventurous, and while it is one of the better aspects of the movie, I couldn’t help but feel it was out of place considering this is supposed to be a rape movie. I also have to give credit to the setting. London looks bleak in “Frenzy”, and the tone is established with a naked woman being found in the water. Apparently there is a serial killer who rapes and strangles women with neckties. We then meet the films first problem, our protagonist Blaney(Finch), who is an alcoholic. He is also very hard to like. Throughout the movie, he just whines and bitches about every little thing, and he only gets worse when he drinks. He also seems more concerned with his own well being instead of the well being of the people around him. Notice that when his loved ones die, he is more worried about how it will tie in to him? Most Hitchcock characters are flawed, but we like them anyway. Even Norman Bates was more sympathetic than this loser. Maybe this was intentional for the sake of irony. Irony it may be, but it also made it hard for me to root for anyone in this movie, causing the suspense to fly out the door and be hit by a garbage truck. Oh I wish Blaney was hit by a garbage truck. Finally, Blaney doesn’t really do a whole lot for a Hitchcock-hero. He just hides out…..and bitches.

Blaney gets fired from his job and goes to visit his more fortunate friend, Rusk(Foster). Rusk offers to help him out, but Blaney refuses help from anybody. He then goes to bitch at his ex-wife, Brenda(Leigh-Hunt), who is a professional matchmaker. They go out to eat, and Blaney continues to whine. She seems to still have some feelings for him, although I’m not sure why. Because he’s broke, she sneaks him some money without him noticing. The next day, Rusk visits Brenda using a false name. Apparently he is looking for a masochist woman, but she says she can’t find anyway. He then tries to rape her, can’t get it up, and strangles her for it. *Gasp*, so Rusk is the killer?! Shocking! Actually, not really. One of Hitchcock’s common motifs is that the killer is on the outside, a really nice guy. Why else would Rusk be here? Because Blaney has her money and he acted like such a jerk the day before, the cops naturally suspect its him. Guess what this means? More bitching!

“Frenzy” should have worked. I really wanted to like it. In fact, I think fans of the maestro made this into the classic they wanted it to be, even though it’s not a very good movie. But what potential this had! The early 1970’s brought in a new wave of horror and thrillers. Wes Craven began his career and Dario Argento had just revived thrillers with “The Bird With Crystal Plumage”. The combination of a vicious thriller with Hitchcock’s ‘innocent man framed of murder’ motif seemed like it couldn’t fail. So how did Hitchcock screw this one up? Read on.

Besides making a character I couldn’t feel sorry for, the film plods with nonstop exposition. What always made his films so fun was how they would move as a crisp pace. Here, we have scenes of side characters discussing the psychology of a sex murderer, characters rambling about things we already know(as if the movie is trying to spell it out for us), and sometimes both. The result is that the plot takes too long to get going, and when things finally seem to pick up it falls back down and plods along for the rest of the way. Then we have contrivances that were even difficult to believe for a Hitchcock movie. I remember when I watched “The Wrong Man” and how the film relied on heavy coincidences. Yet for that movie, he treated the material so sincerely that I could buy all of that happening. Here, we’re not really sure if Rusk was framing him from the beginning or if it was all just a coincidence that Rusk would exploit later on to his benefit. It’s never explained, so you can presume that it all happened by chance. Furthermore, if he was framing him from the beginning, then what’s the point since he’s just going to continue killing? Now, we’re often told that the mind of a psychopath is hard to rationalize, but throughout most of the movie, Rusk acts very rational. He simply has murderous urges. There are also a few plot holes, such as the fact that they would have to tie all the previous murders to Blaney to convict him. Are we supposed to believe that Blaney didn't have a credible alibi for all the other murders?

Hitchcock does have a few good moments. I did like some of the humor, especially with the bad gourmet scenes. Granted, those scenes included that repetitive exposition I keep talking about, but they are kind of amusing. Hitchcock has a few moments of inspired direction. The scene where the camera pulls back as the killer is about to prey on his next victim, and continues to pull back until it’s completely outside and across the street was pretty interesting. It goes to show that you never know what’s going on in the building next to you. There is also one great scene where the killer realizes that one of his victims grabbed a hold of an item that could incriminate him. What follows is an amusing, but intense sequence in a garbage truck. You know you really went wrong somewhere when the most suspenseful scene in your movie has the killer in peril, not the hero. A lot of people compare the first rape/murder scene(of Brenda) to the famous shower sequence in “Psycho”, but I didn’t feel that way. It’s kind of disturbing, but the nudity felt unnecessary and the whole thing just felt….tacky. Foster overacts in this scene when he keeps yelling ‘lovely’, I didn’t get why a strong willed woman wouldn’t just gouge his eyes out, and when she dies they have her stick her tongue out in the cheesiest way possible. In real life, apparently their tongues would stick out, but the way she does it feels more appropriate for a comedy. You shouldn’t laugh after watching a character get molested and murdered.

Jon Finch(Blaney) feels like a stage actor and probably was before he went into acting. He did do a lot of Shakespearean roles. It’s not my preferred style of acting and he probably would’ve gotten away with it if I liked the character. Barry Foster(Rusk) steals the show as the killer. He almost feels like something from Monty Python at times, making him even more amusing. Anna Massey(Babs) and Barbara Leigh-Hunt(Brenda) aren’t the best looking Hitchcock women. Their acting is pretty good though.

I think people want this movie to be a return to form for Hitchcock so badly that they overlook the fact it is not a very good movie. I’m sure many will be disappointed in me, but what can I say? It lags thanks to extensive and repetitive exposition, lacks a hero to root for, and was often directed in poor taste. It’s not really a bad movie. It just feels more like a someone trying to imitate Hitchcock instead of being directed by Hitchcock himself. I will give it this: It is pretty unpredictable at times.

Violence: Rated R. It’s pretty grisly, but not gory.

Nudity: Almost every nude woman in this movie looked pretty unattractive to me. But yes, there are a few boobs and a backside shot.

Overall: I wouldn’t recommend “Frenzy” unless you’ve seen every other Hitchcock movie. It does have its moments, however.

2/4 Stars

my reviews of martial arts and horror films
http://freewebs.com/martialhorror

[–] johne23-1 15 years ago

Stick to your favourites - "Speed Racer" and "Mega Shark versus The Octopus" (whatever that is).

You're out of your depth here.

[–] Martialhorror 15 years ago

lol, now, now, now, if you wish to to contradict me, then post something worth posting.

SR and Mega Shark sucked. Frenzy sucked compared to the rest of Hitchcock's stuff.

my reviews of martial arts and horror films
http://freewebs.com/martialhorror

[–] johne23-1 15 years ago

Well, OK.

Your "style" of writing is juvenile, and using short repetitive sentences doesn't make it easy to follow as you never expand on any topic.

Saying something "sucks" has no place in any decent review.

"The film plods with nonstop exposition" is meaningless tripe, for example.

1) Hitchcock's humour passes you by completely, but that's understandable to an extent as you're not British, but other people on this board (especially ecarle) have seen it for what it is - it's an ironic, singular, humour which is a mixture of pragmatism (barely thirty years earlier the people living in London were being bombed in their homes every day and night - that makes you develop a thick skin and the ability to laugh in adversity), and earthiness:

Solicitor in Pub: We were just talking about the tie murderer, Maisie. You'd better watch out.
Maisie, Barmaid: [salaciously] He *rapes* them first, doesn't he?
Solicitor in Pub: Yes, I believe he does.
Doctor in Pub: Well I suppose it's nice to know that every cloud has a silver lining.

2) Hitchcock's cinematography (the art and science of photographing with a movie camera) is also ignored. The "backing down the stairs and out into the market" shot is one of the most famous in the history of cinema. And with this comes his use of sound, which ebbs and flows in a way you don't seem to appreciate - see the "Got a place to stay?" sequence for example.

3) You completely missed the theme of food which runs throughout the whole film, from Rusk's name to the crushed grapes to the apple Rusk eats to the body in the potato sack to the Chief Inspector's breakfast as well as his dinners to the shepherd's pie in the pub etc.

4) You neglect the brilliant Anthony Shaffer screenplay, the dialogue is always clever and witty (and any review of this film worth its salt would mention the closing line by the Chief Inspector which, again, is one of the most famous in film history).

5) You miss completely the fact that one of the film's strongest underlying themes is that of the empowerment of women, eg - the Chief Inspector's wife solves the mystery of the murders first, Blaney's wife is a successful businesswoman and he's the failure, etc.

6) Frenzy was a homecoming to an old Hitchcock back to the very streets he was brought up in, from the opening helicopter shot upriver to County Hall and the Houses of Parliament to the Covent Garden of his youth. It's a very London film as Vertigo is a San Francisco film and To Catch a Thief is a Riviera film.

5) You keep mentioning other Hitchcock films without using any examples or points of reference - have you actually seen any others...

I could go on but I'm not attacking you personally, I just think you've missed too much of the film, and your review lacks insight, style, semantics, and structure. Never, ever, use capital letters and exclamation marks (MY REVIEW OF FRENZY! is not an introduction to entice a reader into your arguments).

Maybe Hitchcock's not for you, but if you're interested then read the other threads here (especially ecarle's) to get a deeper understanding of the genius of the man.

Good luck...

[–] Martialhorror 15 years ago

1) "Hitchcock's humor passes you by completely, but that's understandable to an extent as you're not British, but other people on this board (especially ecarle) have seen it for what it is - it's an ironic, singular, humour which is a mixture of pragmatism (barely thirty years earlier the people living in London were being bombed in their homes every day and night - that makes you develop a thick skin and the ability to laugh in adversity), and earthiness:"

-Understandable, but it also makes Hitchcock appear mean spirited. Now, is there any way for you to prove that Hitchcock used that kind of humor with the bombing of england in mind? Because from what I hear, Hitchcock himself had a questionable taste in humor.

2) "Hitchcock's cinematography (the art and science of photographing with a movie camera) is also ignored. The "backing down the stairs and out into the market" shot is one of the most famous in the history of cinema. And with this comes his use of sound, which ebbs and flows in a way you don't seem to appreciate - see the "Got a place to stay?" sequence for example."

- I did mention the backing down the stairs bit(although you worded it better).

3) "You completely missed the theme of food which runs throughout the whole film, from Rusk's name to the crushed grapes to the apple Rusk eats to the body in the potato sack to the Chief Inspector's breakfast as well as his dinners to the shepherd's pie in the pub etc."

- I didn't miss the food theme, although granted, I might have if I hadn't heard of this before I watched it. You might find it to be genius, but I saw it as pretentious and irrelevant.

4) "You neglect the brilliant Anthony Shaffer screenplay, the dialogue is always clever and witty (and any review of this film worth its salt would mention the closing line by the Chief Inspector which, again, is one of the most famous in film history)."

-I try to avoid spoilers and I found Shaffers screenplay to be one of the problems. Er, didn't I make a point of this in my entire review?

5)"You miss completely the fact that one of the film's strongest underlying themes is that of the empowerment of women, eg - the Chief Inspector's wife solves the mystery of the murders first, Blaney's wife is a successful businesswoman and he's the failure, etc."

-Interesting point, and I did notice that. But I didn't think the motif was unique or interesting enough to save the movie.

6) "Frenzy was a homecoming to an old Hitchcock back to the very streets he was brought up in, from the opening helicopter shot upriver to County Hall and the Houses of Parliament to the Covent Garden of his youth. It's a very London film as Vertigo is a San Francisco film and To Catch a Thief is a Riviera film."

-Keeping in mind I respect your opinion and admire the fact that you're standing up against mine, this comment is just proving my point. I don't care how personal the movie is for him. I care how good it is. You using this as part of your argument only helps my theory that fans are making "Frenzy" into the Hitchcock classic they want it to be.

7) "You keep mentioning other Hitchcock films without using any examples or points of reference - have you actually seen any others...

I could go on but I'm not attacking you personally, I just think you've missed too much of the film, and your review lacks insight, style, semantics, and structure. Never, ever, use capital letters and exclamation marks (MY REVIEW OF FRENZY! is not an introduction to entice a reader into your arguments).

Maybe Hitchcock's not for you, but if you're interested then read the other threads here (especially ecarle's) to get a deeper understanding of the genius of the man."

- I've seen plenty of them: Psycho, I Confess, Dial M for Murder, North by Northwest, Torn Curtain(which I find to be extremely underrated, btw), and the Man Who Knew Too Much(remake; which I find to be extremely overrated). Oh yeah, "Birds" too. But it's been years since I've seen that one. I think that's it......

I'm going to deny that this review isn't very good. I didn't post it for 2 days in hope of thinking of a way to make it better. But "Frenzy" is an unusual one because besides not being all that great, it also isn't all that bad. I prefer using sarcasm in my reviews but Frenzy just leaves me scratching my head.

However, you made the mistake of presuming too much about me. Saying 'Hitchcock' isn't for me is flawed because I've liked just about everything I've seen. Do you really think I'd say that "Frenzy" feels like an imitation of Hitchcock if I really hadn't seen any? Furthermore, you mention Speed Racer and Mega Shark when I rated those worse than "Frenzy".

I don't consider my ratings to be that objective. Frenzy's 2 star rating is only compared to his other stuff. So if my review of "Frenzy" is weak, then your rebuttal isn't much better.

You also failed to follow up with your criticism of my biggest criticism: The exposition. There were scenes where the Police would learn something we already knew, talk about it for a while, then he'd go home and talk to his wife about the same thing. Hitchcock(or the screen writer) spends too much time spelling everything out for us.

Thanks for responding though!

Edit: Whoops. I also saw "Vertigo"(which I'd probably like more now than I did back then) and "Rear Window", which is my 2nd favorite Hitchcock film.

my reviews of martial arts and horror films
http://freewebs.com/martialhorror

[–] jt-hix2112 14 years ago

"Hitchcock's humour passes you by completely, but that's understandable to an extent as you're not British"

Well I'm an American and I think that I thought the movie was loaded with humor! Don't be so stereotypical!

I just watched this film again for the third time and it has now been put very high up on my favorite Hitchcock films list. The first time I saw it I was dissapointed with it. I think seeing a Hitchcock set in the 70's was just a little bit of a shock too me. Then I watched it again and thought it was ok. And on my third viewing, I know that it's just great and a very well made film.

Nothing bothers some people...not even flying saucers

[–] Gary-161 14 years ago

>>Doctor in Pub: Well I suppose it's nice to know that every cloud has a silver lining.

You make earthiness sound like a singular British virtue. I think it was to illustrate that Barry Foster's attitudes were just an extention of the casual misogyny already out there in Mr Average.

>>The "backing down the stairs and out into the market" shot is one of the most famous in the history of cinema.

So famous I never see or hear it discussed. But maybe Scorsese borrowed it.

>>You neglect the brilliant Anthony Shaffer screenplay, the dialogue is always clever and witty (and any review of this film worth its salt would mention the closing line by the Chief Inspector which, again, is one of the most famous in film history).

That famous word again. Maybe you are over-rating this not terribly well known movie? There are some laughs, but the tone is uncomfortable overall. And the plotting is dire. How can you have an impotent rapist? Finger prints on phone and handbag. A trial and verdict that seems to have taken place the next day, seeing as there was still potato dust on a brush and instant recognition of Foster by a barmaid on a certain date.

>>You miss completely the fact that one of the film's strongest underlying themes is that of the empowerment of women, eg - the Chief Inspector's wife solves the mystery of the murders first,

She expressed doubt based on her own marriage, but was left humiliated and tearful by her husband's comments after she had tried so hard to please him. Hardly empowering.

>>Blaney's wife is a successful businesswoman and he's the failure, etc

And she's punished for her haughtier. The film constantly let's us know whose boss. Only Billie Whitelaw has the whip hand over her husband. But in yet another bit of ridiculous plotting, she stands alone in a room admonishing a multiple murderer as if he is no more dangerous than the average housefly. So I didn't buy that bout of empowerment. Frenzy is a nasty, lazy piece of work overall. Tippi Hedren alleged Hitchcock sexually harrassed her out of the business so I wouldn't get misty eyed over the director anymore than the writer.

>It's a very London film

So what? Very dated filmmaking by 72.

>>to get a deeper understanding of the genius of the man.

I doubt he took the film industry that seriously. He had an amazing career but was an influential craftsman rather than a genius.

[–] c7c7c7r 15 years ago

You're indulging in quite a lot of bitching yourself, even worse than Blaney--who I didn't think was all that bad a character. He really liked Babs, and the people he disliked were a$$holes.
I agree about "The Wrong Man", which I think is Hitchcock's forgotten masterpiece. But his last film, 'Family Plot', was kind of clever, droll, had some origianl touches. He didn't tour lousy like Chaplin did.
So, yeah, Frenzy had some tacky moments, but overall it's held up pretty well.

[–] Mrs_Bundy 15 years ago

At the very least, it incorporates some of Hitch's favorite tropes -- fetishism, voyeurism, and dark humor. At its best, it includes some of the finest shots of Hitch's career, including the early sequence, about 36 minutes in, where the camera follows the murderer up the steps of an apt bldg, backs out, then "waits" outside. That is a study in cinematic aesthetics in and of itself.

[–] jt-hix2112 14 years ago

"You know you really went wrong somewhere when the most suspenseful scene in your movie has the killer in peril, not the hero."

No, no, no. Go watch Psycho, Dial M for Murder, Saboteur, Rope, Strangers on a Train to name a few. They all have instances where you find yourself almost rooting for the bad guy to escape exposure or peril. Hitchcock repeadedly manipulates the viewer into being worried that the bad guy is going to be found out. That is the mark of a good director.

Nothing bothers some people...not even flying saucers

[–] OpaqueOne 14 years ago

To the OP,

Before I begin, Hitchcock is my favorite director, and I enjoy most of his work. My favorite time period of his is 1940-1964, and especially 1951-1960, with Psycho my all time favorite film. I just wanted to second your overall opinion of this film. While I won't get extremely detailed, I used the same line in my immediate reaction to Frenzy:

"It just feels more like someone trying to imitate Hitchcock instead of being directed by Hitchcock himself."

I can't put my finger on it, but something felt off to me. Maybe it was the upbeat score which didn't quite fit the theme of the movie; perhaps it was the lack of a leading lady or any big names, or it could be that the humor seemed to outweigh the darkness of the film. I love Hitch's humor, but here it felt like the main course as opposed to spice or seasoning used sparsely in other films. Anyway, I agree with you. After three viewings, Frenzy just didn't captivate me as much as I'd hoped.

It wasn't a bad film, but not in his top 15 for me.

[–] Martialhorror 14 years ago

No, no, no. Go watch Psycho, Dial M for Murder, Saboteur, Rope, Strangers on a Train to name a few. They all have instances where you find yourself almost rooting for the bad guy to escape exposure or peril. Hitchcock repeadedly manipulates the viewer into being worried that the bad guy is going to be found out. That is the mark of a good director.

I've seen 3 of those movies(Psycho, Strangers and Dial) and the only one that comes close to making me feel for the bad guy was Dial M for Murder.

However, if you felt that way, then good for you. A movies value is how it effects us individually, and I respect that you can at least defend your beliefs.

Opaquene: lol, it's nice to see someone else agree with me on this for once.

FYI, just saw Stage Fright(didnt review it though). It was pretty good, although not one of Hitchcock's best.

my reviews of martial arts and horror films
http://freewebs.com/martialhorror