i suspect polanski has seen the odd hitchcock film and in the first half of frantic runs roughshod over logic in ture alfred fashion while luring us in.
but then he seems to need to start explaining things (something hitchcoch never thought more important than the mood of the piece ) and it became a different (lesser?) film.
i wonder why he lost his nerve?
You see, in the end, our truest opinions are not the ones we have never changed...
[deleted]
WOAH-OH!!!
Hold on there... this is a good film, but it's no Hitchcock, buddy.
It's better... and has more Hitchcock elements in it than most of Hitchcock's own films. The pace is much better than in North By Northwest for example, where you end up really bored at times. The film is much sexier, much more implicated politically than any of Hitchcock's. It's more gruesome, makes no concessions. Etc. Let's not debate this, it's just having different tastes after all... With the years, even though I'm a huge fan, Hitchcock's films looks stiffer and stiffer to me, no coke, no wh**res, etc.
share