Highly Overrated But Still Good

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

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?

(Movie quote) - "Now, do I look like that sort of a bloke??" OK. Here's my slant on things - For starters - "Frenzy" was certainly no "Psycho". Nope - Not even by a long-shot.And, speaking about "Psycho" - Character Bob Rusk (the fruit & veggies guy in "Frenzy") was certainly no cross-dressing momma's boy like Norman Bates, neither. Nope - He sure wasn't."Frenzy" was released 12 years after the classic, twisted, shocker "Psycho" - And, if you ask me - It was clearly one monstrous step down the ladder when it came to direction by Alfred Hitchcock. This was especially so if the viewer was expecting to see an "in-depth" character study of a deranged serial killer. (I mean - Hello!!?? - There was no character study of this killer here, at all!) And, finally - I can't believe that Hitchcock actually had the low-down gall to substitute the sharp blade of a knife (slice. slice), as the killer's weapon, for (of all things) a frickin' necktie. (choke. choke) Anyway - Because of these 4 serious strikes against "Frenzy", I had no choice but to reduce my rating of it to just 3 measly stars.

What a disappointment Frenzy turned out to be. I always wondered why nobody talks about this Hitchcock film, and now I know why. It is entirely devoid of the style and nuance and subtle humor of the master's classics. Crime and violence are needless to say the focus of this director's oeuvre, but usually he manages to approach those themes in very artistic and creative ways. Not here.Frenzy basically offers the viewer insight into actual rapes and murders. Very unpleasant to watch and not mitigated by any aesthetic agenda--at least as far as I could see. But I won't be watching it again to find out whether I was just somehow obtuse. This was a unidimensional work which might titillate viewers who share the culprit's tastes, but for anyone else? Just plain gross. Way too graphic, and gratuitously so. Unlike Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange (equally disturbing), this film does not redeem itself in either message or form. There really is no message or investigation going on here. Perverted sadistic murderers have untamed desires and are to be avoided at all costs? Please. Tell us something that we don't already know.