Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

HairyLime Blog

  • Hitchcock's Darker Side

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Frenzy  (1972)

    A bit out of character of the usual Hitchcock output in some ways, but in other ways reminiscent of some of his earlier themes and work. Some masterful sequences, like the rape and murder sequence of the hero's ex-wife in her office (which is almost too unnerving to watch), the tracking shot of the 2nd murder (once his pattern has been established), where we overhear the killer's 'opening line', and then the camera slowly backs away from the apartment door, backs down the stairs and then out the front door to the street to view the apartment building from outside, indistinguishable from its neighbors (quite chilling), and then the desperate killer trying to retrieve a bit of incriminating evidence from the back of a potato truck recalls a similar sequence in 'Psycho' where the audience is unwillingly put on the killer's side for a brief spell, rooting for him to succeed in his grisly task despite our natural contempt for the character.<br><br>A bit strange seeing nudity and the occassional foul language in a Hitchcock film, but it is the 70s after all. But the strangest thing about this film is the absense of the 'Hitchcock' blonde heroine (Tippi Hendron, Grace Kelly, Kim Novak, Eva Marie Saint, etc - even the ditzy blonde Barbara Harris from the later 'Family Plot' might even qualify), and beyond that, all the women in this film are treated and viewed with a certain malevolent contempt, the women are either frigid suspecting bitches (Jean Marsh) hysterical shrewish housewives, ditzy hotel desk clerks, successful ex-wives who rub your nose in your misfortune,  or foolish homebodies with too much time on their hands making god-awful meals for their poor husbands (Vivien Merchant) - and the one decent woman in the picture, gets killed and stuffed in a potato sack. None of the women are particularly attractive in this film, and the nudity is treated with a certain amount of voyeuristic glee and shot in the most unflattering manner. You wonder what Hitch would be up to had he survived another 10-20 years and was allowed even more leeway on the sex and violence. (but I suppose we have Cronenberg and DePalma continuing in his footsteps)

  • Rations and Rationalizations

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    I noticed the other day that our 'on demand' cable movies have a number of old Woody Allen flicks listed this month, and I revisited this one the other evening. I was once a big fan of his films, and a lot of my friends use the excuse of his messy personal improprieties to explain his films falling out of their favor in recent years, or the fact that he has a bad habit of pairing himself with younger and younger leading ladies leaving a bad taste in their mouth.

    My falling away has more to do with his insular vision, the way he sets his stories in the same comfortable environs of priviledge and class, and the few times he ventures outside of it, the tone comes across as condescending, or as if he's 'slumming'. You may say that he makes films about 'what he knows', and that's fair I suppose, and you gotta applaud the guy for regularly churning out halfway decent material without spending a gazillion dollars a picture, and still attracting talented actors to work with him picture after picture.

    I saw this one only once many years ago in the theater, and I remember it quite vividly, because it was the night before my son's birth. Two interweaving storylines, of which the Martin Landau one is definitely the more interesting, because it seems to step outside that usual 'Woody Allen Comfort Zone', and could be one of the only movies in which a cold blooded murder, where the body and blood is displayed and lingered over.(I know, there were murders in 'Manhatten Murder Mystery', and 'Radio Days', etc, and his jokes frequently drop names like Leopold and Loeb, or Charlie Starkweather etc - but even with the serious undertones they were mainly played for laughs - ) Martin Landau gives a terrific performance as a man wracked by guilt, but ultimately having to live with the punishment of his own culpability rather than the tidy retribution of the authorities. The Woody Allen storyline concerning his shallow but successful brother-in-law and an extramarital unrequited romance with his producer (Mia Farrow of course) is much less interesting, but even so, manages a suitable payoff at the wedding scene. The movie tries for some heavy philosophizing while it wrestles with moral dillemas, regarding some subplots about an elderly life affirming jewish philospher who is the subject of Allen's struggling documentary and some heavy handed but effective symbolism regarding the blind Rabbi (Sam Waterston, another Allen regular) dancing with his daughter at his wedding to "I'll be Seeing You". Overall, not a laugh riot like many of his films, but there are some laugh out loud moments (Woody's reaction to his sister's 'dating experience' is one memorable example), and plenty of gristle on the philosophical bone to chew on long after the movie's done.


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<May 2007>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
293012345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
3456789


Categories
 


Advertisement