Frenzy (1972)

Sometimes, a movie is made that focuses on the wrong things for its type. "Frenzy" is exactly that type of movie.For a basic plot summary, "Frenzy" is set in England where a mysterious "Necktie Murderer" continues to claim victim after victim (strangling them with a necktie). Minor Spoiler: Very quickly into the movie, we learn that one man is truly the vicious murderer, while another is being wrongly pursued for the killings. This sets up the drama as the rest of the movie unfolds.The trouble with "Frenzy" is that it seems like the film was Hitch's way of entering "the modern era" of filmmaking. After being criticized for his mostly boring Cold War "thrillers" like "Topaz" & "Torn Curtain", Hitch sets "Frenzy" in "today" and ups the ante in the violence department (this is also the only Hitchcock film in which nudity is present).Sadly, while making that jarring transition, Hitch seemed to have left behind some of the terrific suspense and storytelling in his earlier film. For "Frenzy" to work, it needed to be a taut, tense, psychological treatise on the mind of a serial killer. Instead, Hitch turns it into a rather procedural piece that sometimes even borders on predictability. The only real character insights given are done so in Hitch's trademark comedic tongue-in-cheek way.Thus, while decent enough to hold one's interest, "Frenzy" falls under the "disappointment" category for this viewer. Worth a watch from Hitch nuts, but otherwise can easily be skipped in favor of other fare.

A man finds himself on the run from police when his ex-wife is found dead and his ex-wife's employee spots her husband leaving the crime scene. Her husband isn't responsible for the crime and must fight to prove his innocence.For the most part, Frenzy is quite a darkly plotted crime film and is notably more risqué than many of his previous films; we witness a rape and an actresses bare breasts exposed which were not the sort of things that you'd normally see in a Hitchcock film. These things undoubtedly make Frenzy a memorable film, but possibly not entirely for the right reasons....Frenzy is quite slow-paced, but I feel that it may be deliberately slow (it kind of establishes Blaney as something of a lovable rogue which perhaps helps to get the audience on his side). The film does suffer from being a bit soapy at times (many of the scenes involving Blaney, Babs and Forsythe felt a little unnecessary and for me kind of got in the way of moving things along).Another thing that I found slightly disappointing about this film is that it isn't played out as a mystery film and is one that is more about a wrongly accused man fighting to prove his innocence. The way that the story is played out was effective enough to hold my interest (in the sense that I wanted to see how Blaney would finally expose Rusk). But personally, I would have preferred it if the killer's identity had been kept a secret and the audience then had to figure out who the killer was (this to me would have made it far more exciting). However, Hitchcock and screenwriter Anthony Schaffer were working from a novel so I can't really criticise either of them for the story that was presented to me.Frenzy is also probably one of the most tonally inconsistent films that I've seen from Hitchcock; the basic plot is quite dark and yes it contains that one brutal scene, but then he also seems to try some comedic touches to the film; the scene with the Inspector and his wife and her rather odd choices of cuisine or the scene where Rusk is in the potato truck with the corpse. It's possible that Hitchcock was trying to counter-balance a lot of the grim plot mechanics with some light-hearted relief. Although this seems a bit odd when watching the film, the two conflicting tones do serve each other fairly well.Hitchcock's camera work is flawless as always and observant viewers will spot Hitchcock's cameo role in this film (he's actually featured in more than one scene in this film). Frenzy has enough strengths to make it worth watching, but this is not classic Hitchcock in my book.

Hitchcock's penultimate film is just what you would expect from the master: a gripping, nail-biting thriller which manages to break a few taboos along the way. Once again Hitchcock effortlessly hooks the audience with his relatively complex storyline involving a strangler/rapist terrorising London and the man who is mistakenly believed to be the culprit. Eliciting excellent performances from his cast, Hitchcock here makes a one-off, unique film which offers a seedy, dirty view of London which is rarely seen.You get the impression that the city is a claustrophobic place, and that the streets are caked with filth. Behind closed doors there lurks hidden depravity. It's not a particularly uplifting film because of this but it's a damn good one. The photography is crisp making the film nice to look at, and there are plenty of stylistic touches (especially a tracking shot leading from a room where a murder is taking place back out onto the bustling streets where nobody is aware of what's going on only a few feet away).Jon Finch (MACBETH) heads the cast and is very good as the hunted man who becomes increasingly stressed and manic as time goes on but always retains his cool underneath. Alec McCowen makes for an amusing, pleasant policeman and the continuous comic relief regarding his wife's food is actually funny. It's easy to see that Hitchcock feels at home in his country and he rounds off the film with a cast of fine supporting actors, including Anna Massey, Billie Whitelaw, Gerald Sim, Clive Swift, and Bernard Cribbins (in a surprisingly straight role).Critics are unkind to this film because it's not up there with Hitchcock's best - it may have a few flaws, but it's still a damn good thriller. Watch out for the macabre scene where the killer struggles to receive something from his victim's hand and is forced to break her fingers due to the fact that rigor-mortis has set in. The violence and sexual aspects of the film are surprisingly explicit, and there's lots of female nudity in there too which led to accusations of misogyny. One particular moment where a woman is raped and then strangled is shown graphically and is very disturbing. Hitchcock lingers on the grotesque faces of the strangulation victim, complete with extruding tongues and bulging eyes. This is true horror and the most horrific thing he ever filmed. FRENZY isn't quite a masterpiece, but it's a well above-average thriller for movie buffs and one of my particular favourites.

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.