Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I feel that it is possibly better than Psycho, yet Psycho is considered to be Hitchcocks signature film. But as far as serial killer movies go, I think I find Frenzy to be more effective. How come it didn't surpass Psycho, do you think?
I feel that it is possibly better than Psycho, yet Psycho is considered to be Hitchcocks signature film. But as far as serial killer movies go, I think I find Frenzy to be more effective. How come it didn't surpass Psycho, do you think?
The Norman Bates character seemed to be particuarly unsettling and seems to have struck a cord with the public.
Saying that 'Frenzy' was an interesting and good film, as well as being well shot, it also captures some great views of London at the time.
By 1972 standards, it was quite explicit and dangerous.
I agree that it's a great movie. It's not as good as Psycho, but it's still a great film. One of Hitchcock's best.
I also think it suffered because, following Torn Curtain and Topaz, people assumed Hitchcock was in decline.
But I thought people would have thought that the movie was better than most of Hitchcock's other movies, cause before, the censors kept putting limitations on his stories, or at least I felt. So with this one he was more free. Plus he was back on top with this one after the decline I felt.
For me, “Frenzy” is by far Hitchcock’s best film after “North by Northwest.”
It’s a plenty harrowing and disturbing film, though, which probably hasn’t helped its reputation any. And for those who decided not to explore his late films after suffering through stuff like “Marnie” and “Topaz,” not to mention the badly overrated “Psycho” and “The Birds,” it’s perhaps understandable that fans of this director decided not to explore further.
But I thought the disturbing content would have made more people like it, especially since they liked the more disturbing content for it's time of Psycho.
I think by then, with all of the changes in pop culture etc., Hitchcock wasn't a driving force - not really since The Birds really. I do however, like all of his films after The Birds, even the one after Frency, "Family Plot."
They're probably watching me. Well let them. Let them see what kind of a person I am. I'm not even going to swat that fly. I hope they are watching. They'll see. They'll see and they'll know. And they'll say, why, she wouldn't even harm a fly.
Frenzy was Hitchcock’s second to last film. It’s an indication of what Hitchcock could have done with the rest of his career had he lived longer. This is Hitchcock telling us he still has some tricks up his sleeve. After his underwhelming late 1960s period, Frenzy was a shot of adrenaline for his career. The film earned positive reviews from critics (both at that time and now), received a few Golden Globe nominations, including Best Director, and was a moderate financial success.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
