Frenzy (1972)

The greatest movie ever made..!

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

While great pains were endured during the filming of Psycho in 1960 to appease the censors by covering parts of Janet Leigh's body with "flesh colored patches of moleskin", director Hitchcock was finally free in 1972 to expose the naked bodies of his female victims in the way that he always wanted to expose them. What a difference twelve years can make in the movie business.The film opens with the speech of a politician promising to "clean up the Thames for once and for all". The only person in the crowd who is not enthusiastically applauding is the director himself in one of his trademark cameo appearances. The director, of course, knows best. Suddenly, in the middle of the speech, a body (yes, naked!) washes up on the nearby river bank, and the politician is forced to interrupt his speech. The river is far more polluted than he ever imagined.Having seen this film, I've concluded that there are a whole bunch of very talented British actors out there with whom I need to familiarize myself more. I think that this cast did an amazing job with the material, and why other reviewers didn't appreciate the sideshow provided by Chief Inspector Oxford (Alec McCowen) and his very eccentric but very perceptive wife (Vivien Merchant) is beyond me. Their amusing relationship not only demonstrated the human side of Chief Inspectors everywhere but also allowed for much needed relief from the shock and terror of the awful crimes that were occurring at the same time.The theme of an innocent man being mistaken for a criminal (or a spy) is one that appears throughout Mr. Hitchcock's long and impressive career, and he handles it as skillfully as ever in this instance. Jon Finch realistically portrays the unlucky schlemiel who is falsely accused. Throughout the movie, Barry Foster as Rusk very much reminded me of Michael Caine before I learned that Caine had been offered the part but refused it because he found the character to be so reprehensible. The fact that Rusk is dressed so formally at work in a vegetable market, including a suit and a TIE, probably should have been a conspicuous clue from the start.Although this film is very disturbing and graphic at times, Hitchcock's masterful direction, with the help of an excellent cast, kept me engrossed in the action from start to finish as it almost always does.

a seductive film. for the mix of humor and thriller, for characters and the mark of Hitchcock. for the great science of detail and anthological scenes. and for the courage to explore sexuality in a strange manner for its time. the performances are remarkable and Barry Foster does more than a great job but propose a character who seems be the ideal puzzle for define every serial killer. Jon Finch is the pleasant surprise because it performs a character who seems, at the first sigh,very far by him and it is obvious to discover than it is not the most comfortable role for him.but he uses his recipes for be the right Richard Blaney and this could be one of the most important virtues of the film. the two significant "tricks" - the scenes from the fight of Rusk for save , among the potatoes sacks , the proof of his guilty and the French dinner of poor chief inspector Oxford.so, it is a real brilliant idea to see it !

From its sweeping opening shots taken from a helicopter, we are led to expect something rather stylish and certainly made with ultimate craftsmanship – and we do actually get this occasionally, for example in the long tracking shot through bustling Covent Garden with Barry Foster and Anna Massey. But, unfortunately, there's also a sloppy, slapdash quality we don't expect from a master: Miss Leigh-Hunt's too white make-up in the club dinner scene, the obvious substitution of figure models for both Leigh-Hunt and Massey, and the fact that the movie is burdened with far too many expository passages. A movie is a movie. It needs to move, not stand still like a TV drama. And as for the plot itself? Dear me, it's a familiar old chestnut if ever there was one. True, Hitch has attempted to give it a bit of life by dressing it up with a bit of nudity and sexual sadism. But this attempt to be "modern" only emphasizes the dullness of the basic story and the one-dimensional quality of all the characters. The old-style Hitch used to go about dealing with like problems by directing at such a cracker pace that there no was time for anyone in the audience to suspend disbelief – at least not until the movie was over! An ambivalent attitude as to whether Rusk or Blaney is the central character doesn't help. True, Foster is very competent as Rusk and tends to squeeze Finch out – even though Finch enjoys top billing. The support cast is not great either, though Cribbins and Whitelaw do what can, despite their disappointingly small roles. Perhaps with a bit of trimming, the pace would not be so sluggish?

This. This is more like it. After the last few Hitchcock films left me wanting a little, FRENZY returns to the type of film that he did so well. The plot is one that he frequently used: an innocent man wrongly accused, but he didn't just rehash old material. He upped his game and brought his filmmaking style into a more modern sensibility, all while maintaining the suspense and black humor that had become his trademarks. While I've yet to see any of the films from his British period, I am aware that FRENZY hearkens back to his first real success, which was THE LODGER. And in terms of what I've actually seen, I noticed a lot of DNA from earlier efforts like SABOTEUR, REAR WINDOW, and PSYCHO. The film grabs you and sucks you in from the opening notes of its title sequence, a fanfare which triumphantly announces that he's back: back in his native England, and back in top form. And it wastes no time in thrusting you into this familiar, yet slightly changed world. One thing that benefits the film a lot is the screenplay by Anthony Shaffer, which is filled with great dialogue and biting wit. There was also a sinister, Victorian elegance to the score. And, as with all of his other films, there are a few sequences which stand out. The best of these is probably a long, continuous shot which pulls back from the scene of a crime as Hitchcock leaves it (and its aftermath) to the audience's imagination. Still, perhaps in concession to the changing times, this film does contain some nude scenes and somewhat more vicious-minded, if not particularly graphic, violence. It reminds us that the gory details are often best left to the imagination; they're the icing on the cake, and not the cake itself. Another audacious thing Hitchcock does is make the protagonist rather unlikeable and have us sympathize (at least in one protracted scene) with the villain. Overall, I thought that he was in top form here, adeptly mixing suspense and comedy, all while exploring his favorite themes of sex, death, and food. In regards to food, the Chief Inspector's wife has perhaps a couple of the funniest scenes in the whole film. For me, FRENZY was a welcome return to form after the last few misfires, and it's great that Hitch seems to be going out on top.