MovieChat Forums > jasonbourne > Replies
jasonbourne's Replies
The big deal was a young boy drowned while he was in a canoe or some small boat by himself because the camp counselors were having sex and not watching over him. That's horrifying for the parents, in this case, Mrs. Voorhees (played by Betsy Palmer), who lost her only son.
Then we get one of the unexpected forms of violence in the film. Well, not just one haha. Was it a meat cleaver to the head in Part I? Or something else? I still remember some of those bloody scenes vividly, especially the machete through the stomach from underneath the bed. What a way to get killed so sudden and unexpected while having sex.
Maybe it was the film makers taking advantage of the ratings system to bring us viewers more bloody carnage on the screen that he couldn't take. What a wimp, Siskel!
I don't know if it was cut or not, but usually there is some kind of justice even if poetic justice in movies. I think a homosexual beating to death that wasn't punished was in Brokeback Mountain. Thus, I'm not sure if the movie code still makes it that way.
ETA: I looked it up and the scene is okay to leave in as in because of the R-rating. Progress.
Yep, it made IT 2 cornier, but it still made money so there should be an IT 3. People need to be more discreet with their money and watching movies at the box office. I'm watching it on HBO, but watching it for free.
>>While I'm on SOAT, I'll note something almost funny about it: Bruno's idea of "swapping murders" so that Guy's wife can be killed without Guy getting blamed, only works right IF Guy has an airtight alibi. But Guy does NOT have such an alibi, and comes under immediate suspicion. Its almost as if Bruno planned THAT.
Meanwhile, the "Strangers on a Train swapped murder plan" came back in the movie "Throw Momma From the Train" and a few TV crime show episodes(where people WATCHED Strangers on a Train and got the idea.)<<
I admit I like the charm of traveling from DC to NY by train and the time it takes, but it's from a bygone era. It was the way for most people to do it in the 40s and 50s. I mean I like the comfort of being able to meet a stranger and then be able to discuss things in private while I don't think they could do that on early airplane travel even in first class. They would be overheard by the attendants and others and there would probably be too many interruptions. We even have the danger of train derailments vs an air crash. Even so, we can accept the setting of the era and get involved with what happens in SOAT. I guess that's the other thing. One can get away with murder on a train more readily than on an airplane or jet today. There's a certain charm to that :).
>>No. And it is as if Hitchcock in "Frenzy" is bound and determined to keep it that way -- to keep the audience from EVER warming up to Blaney beyond feeling bad for his plight.<<
It's not just that, but Blaney didn't borrow the money from Babs for a reason. At least in my mind. He wanted to keep it more as a sleeping friendship. Brenda was more his type.
As for the rest, I suppose it could've been a larger movie but a British film would have more limited distribution. Maybe Frenzy did as well as it could. I think you're attracted to the British charm. Even with the big scenes by Rusk, it's not going to be comparable with NXNW. Rusk couldn't pull it off.
By then Hitch had made his mark and career and it was fitting he ended it with a movie based on his return to his roots and Family Plot which shows his crafty sense of humor and was something fun for him to make. Was it another film that critics liked? Sure and it gave them more chance to effuse about Hitchcock.
>>You mean the actual plotting so the husband "could get away" with the murder of the ex?<<
Whether there is no plot in Frenzy or a plot (somewhat) in SOAT doesn't matter. The husband never is cleared exactly unless an air tight alibi or they catch the guilty party. I mean that's the way I would operate if investigating a murder like in Frenzy.
>>For those who think that Psycho "explains too much"(the psychiatrist scene), it can be noted that Frenzy "explains too little" -- which seems to make that movie a bit too glib and superficial.<<
No, it wasn't that; It's Blaney. He's too angry and complaining. He should've been more gentler and innocent like Guy type instead of a ladies man. It's too one sided of a battle because Rusk finds a victim to set up (?) when he goes for Brenda. Later, he does the same to Babs. You know he lets Babs know when it's happening and she screams the same. Not enough tit for tat between the two. I didn't notice the pattern change, but it's only so Rusk could destroy Blaney. I didn't get Blaney was destroyed exactly. He's just pissed even more. I still think the inspector would've been a better foil for Rusk and I agree Rusk is no Bruno.
Finally, did Rusk choose Blaney's women for death? Wasn't it a coincidence he went to his ex's matchmaking service and became a pest. He went there for personal services and nothing to do with Blaney. Blaney went there to borrow money b/c he wouldn't borrow from Babs. Otherwise, no coincidences.
Usually, when bad things happen there are no coincidences, but in this case it was. Their lives just happen to overlap and Rusk too advantage once he knew. Then there were no coincidences.
>>As I've noted before, while both SOAT and Frenzy are about how the villain kills the hero's ex/estranged wife and the hero is blamed for it...the KEY difference is that Guy knows from the start that Bruno is the killer, and Blaney doesn't know til very near the end. Creates entirely different type of suspense -- MORE suspenseful with Blaney(we go nuts -- we WANT him to know), but complex with Bruno(he points out that he can't really go to the police...not yet...the frame is too tight.)<<
Well, the suspect as the husband of the wife's killer (in Frenzy, the ex-husband) has always been hard to eliminate because he has the best motive. Probably it will have to be a good alibi. I knew of a SOAT story where Bruno the husband wants his wife killed, so he hires a unsuspecting stranger bad guy to put a poisonous snake in her mail box and gives him the key. He watches him do it and afterward tells him where he can pick up his $2000 and return the key. The other man does not know who the husband is as they never meet. Later, the husband goes to the neighborhood bar where he is seen by his pals there and the bartender who knows him. He knows his wife gets the mail around the time he is there and she is bitten by the poisonous snake. She is in shock and pain and tries to call 911, but they arrive too late to be able to save her. The husband is the main suspect despite his alibi because the police have no one else. They're about to clear the man, but the head detective says the snake couldn't have crawled into the box by itself. The couple's mailbox is higher up and not on the bottom row. Anyway, the husband gets away with it because he has an alibi and there are no other suspects. The hiring of a stranger to do the deed is a strong one. What happened in Frenzy with the circumstantial evidence is more due to luck with the wrong person being accused. That happens a lot. I'll pick SOAT over Frenzy haha.
Not by itself, but MLB players spit and spray liquid droplets all over. It's part of their ritual. I don't know if catchers will have to wear a face shield. If they do have a season, we should track if catchers get it more and whether MLB players get it more than players of other major sports leagues because of the [i]spraying[/i].
>>I suppose a problem with Frenzy is that it is mainly BLANEY'S story -- the wrong man story -- and though suspenseful enough, it is rather a boring story , too.<<
This could be it. Blaney isn't a likeable nor interesting character. If it was the chief inspector who got more screen time in putting together what happened as well as the comedic scenes, then it may have been better. Rusk is oblivious to the inspector until the end. Instead, it's Rusk setting up Blaney as the fall guy and it's no contest. Rusk vs the inspector would make Rusk think more and would put the protagonist and the antagonist on more even ground. One of things scary about EARONS is he was so good at being a hot prowl burglar and regular burglar, committing rape in the victim's house with the husband there, and killing people including shooting a couple in broad daylight and getting away with it.
>>One wag wrote of Frenzy: "Jon Finch does alright matching up to Farley Granger, but Barry Foster can't match Robert Walker" and I say: yes, that's probably true. Unlike Rusk(or Norman), Bruno Anthony gets a lot of screen time in SOAT, and he's there from the very first scene, and he projects a certain "madness among us" that allows more "colors" to his performance than Barry Foster gets to project.<<
That's right, but Bruno has an out and is the one who came up with it. Rusk found an out and took it with Blaney, but we do not see what his out will be when he commits another rape/murder. The final time his plan seems to be hiding his victim presumably where it can't be found for some time, but he doesn't know Blaney escaped nor the chief inspector is after him. Yet, you're right. Rusk doesn't think of an out before or at the time of the rape/murder. I think his facade allows him to get away with his crimes. People do not think he's such a sadist and murderer.
The hot blonde told it better and she had great tits.
>>Can you figure out how they caught him? (Again, this isn't Ramirez (the 2nd Night Stalker (?)) but a copy cat who popped up after him where he used to live.)
--
I have no idea, but my guess is that all serial rapists or killers aren't alike. Some likely bumble the task in some way and get caught.<<
Once the police were able to narrow down their suspects to five, then they followed each of them until the real one committed the crime. That's how they caught him in the act.
Things do not go this smoothly, but it goes to show that the building of the profile is helpful. However, the problem is you usually get too many suspects. With DNA or fingerprints, you can get a direct hit if you can find a match. I suppose facial recognition would be another way today. One of the difficulties of getting GSK/EARONS is he's off the grid. He's smart and knowledgeable about police techniques and is able to live alone. He's capable enough to kill people who recognize him right away.
Yes, I know he's been caught but before that I figure that's how he lived.
ETA: Wow. How wrong I was haha -- https://www.reddit.com/r/EARONS/comments/8g62pj/joseph_james_deangelo_golden_state_killer/ Guy had three kids and a wife.
>>I'll note that in the summer of 1972, we had not only the R-rated Frenzy, but the R-rated Deliverance. Rape in both movies; of a woman in one, of a man(by a man) in the other. The whole CONCEPT of "the summer movie" ("for teens and kids; superheroes") had nothing to do with the adult concerns of Frenzy and Deliverance. Also scattered around in the summer of 1972 were "smallish" movies like Hannie Caulder; and superstars Steve McQueen and Clint Eastwood in very small scale movies (Junior Bonner and Joe Kidd, respectively.) The sequels were cheapjack, too: Shaft's Big Score and Ben(after Willard.)
The whiz kids who would re-invent Hollywood weren't quite ready to show yet, when they DID show up -- the special effects and teen-friendly movies hit big and hard and permanently.<<
We had no thrill ride experience in movies yet unless we count Psycho. Aside from that, I think there were shockers based on theme or scene in the movies which you mentioned. It was getting close though. The films were reflecting the sexual revolution and it pushed the bounds of sex as well as it's flip side -- violence. I think Deliverance was more popular than Frenzy, but dunno. I now see why Frenzy would've shattered people's mores of what they see on the screen, but thought Deliverance was the bigger shocker.After starting to watch IBGITD, I can see why you tied it to Frenzy as it captures the more factual details of rapists and murderers. They are two sides of the same coin which we don't always associate together. Is it the serial types who can go off like this with justifcation? GSK/EARONS seems to take more command and chances than Rusk would take. I thought Rusk would be moving on, but he found his friend to take the fall for him. That said, I thought it was one of the weaker parts of the movie as we see what the wrong man does (being in the wrong place at the wrong time) while we do not see what Rusk does. His movements and thoughts are off camera until the end.
>>Meanwhile, Neville Heath was more of a "ladies man" killer and looked much like Barry Foster(or first choice Michael Caine.) In a weird crossover to Frenzy, Heath held himself out falsely as a "squadron leader." Sound familiar?<<
I'm two episodes in now and what hit me was the rapists group the woman psychiatrist ran at Vacaville prison during the 70s. I've been inside doing a tour with a few women during the 80s and they were told how to act and behave and not to believe what the male prisoners said to them. The guys in our group weren't told much. The one thing I got from the episode was they would not hesitate to kill in a heartbeat. That they were looking for justification to kill. Also, the GSK/EAR victims of that time thought he had full control of the situation. He had them afraid for their lives and willing to comply with his requests. GSW/EAR was well versed with putting fear in his victims with his words and actions. He may have had to tie his victims up very tightly while he didn't have any pants on and had an erection. It would look silly, but Norman looked a bit silly dressed up as Mother. We did get that in the brutal rape scene of Frenzy with Rusk.
Do you mean his guilt through DNA? That is powerful evidence in court, but there must be other things before that would lead investigators to make an arrest. Especially, if the rapist or killer is of the serial kind. This brings publicity and public interest and I agree too much [i]evidence[/i] makes it more difficult to narrow down the list of suspects.
Ah, I see. There was renewed interest in the case in 2016 and the FBI must've had new DNA evidence to link the cold cases.
What I was referring to was building a profile of the suspect in order to get a list of suspects. Law enforcement may find the actual suspect in their list, but it's too broad. If one can narrow it down to say, five for example, then they can do something. This takes work and some smarts.
I think this is what the police tried to do with EARONS (prior it was EAR and ONS were separate lol), but he was too smart for them with his canvassing the neighborhood and setting up a whole area and multiple houses for his crimes. Just watched the first episode last night. It's compelling for me now because I live in the area since the late 90s and may have talked with the man. I dunno. He looks familiar. Well, his older photos and sketches. Spokeo shows the cities where Joseph DeAngelo actually lived.
Do they discuss his psychological makeup since he's been caught, tried, and put into prison?
As for work, there is "underground" construction work industry here where I think you're paid cash for working at odd hours of the night. My neighbor does it. So, the guy could have been in construction based on what wikipedia has on him today. EARONS could've done it for many years and have no record.
>>The real "John Christie" at first so got away with his murders that a wrong man was HANGED for them -- Britain ended the death penalty after that happened.<<
I have to reply to this, too. It's really strange that there can be a wrong man, but these things just happen. With the Night Stalker, Richard Ramirez, there was another copy cat serial/rapist in the LA area of West Covina and not as well known as Ramirez or EARONS that you discussed. BTW, I'll have to watch that HBO special now, too.
Anyway, the police have a database of all these interest, motives, or evidence that they have gathered on various suspects. Some of the interests of these killers strangely overlap. It could be something that only a handful of people would have interest in. Yet, the police will end up with quite a few suspects matching them. Thus, it's a matter of whittling down the number of suspects. With the copy cat Night Stalker, they were able to narrow down the number to around five from 25 - 30. Can you figure out how they caught him? (Again, this isn't Ramirez (the 2nd Night Stalker (?)) but a copy cat who popped up after him where he used to live.)
>>Unlike the frustrating "Zodiac" with several "false lead killers," Frenzy at least "comforts us" with clear knowledge who the Right Man is, from 30 minutes in(after suggesting Blaney to be the killer.) You might call Rusk's story "a week in the life of a psychopathic killer" as we watch him lure his victims, kill his victims, and dispose of the bodies of his victims(less Brenda, whom he rather perversely leaves "sitting" dead in a chair.)<<
Hm... Okay, I'm trying to figure out why I'm not as satisfied with Frenzy as I was with Psycho. You can see based on the number of re-watches. With Zodiac, we never do find out who the real killer is although dead. You have to do more detective work to find out or make your own conclusions. Is the movie right? That one is re-watchable, right?
Se7en is the same as we end up in Det. David Mills shoes. It's another critic fueled movie and this one is fiction, but we enjoy the dark style, brutality, and seven sins motive vs the brutal and wrong man/suspense/classic Hitchcock style/comediy Maybe this is where we diverge and you're enticed and attracted to the sadism. Do you think Rusk can keep getting away with it? Or does he want to be caught eventually as his guilt gets the best of him? Obviously, he thinks he can continue. That part seems wrong to me. Hitch seems to overplay his hand by having him kill again in that situation. Rusk has imprisoned the wrong man, but doesn't seem to get any glee or satisfaction from doing it. We don't really see any more complexity from Rusk. Instead, we see him continue his ways of eating an apple and then become sadistic and brutal with his tie, during the sex act. Maybe one has to harbor some darker feeling for the way Rusk does the sex act to be titillating watching it. I thought it could be aural. Anyway, at the end he seems to think that he could just carry on as before and it won't undo having the wrong man put away or the police getting closer.
I didn't know Frenzy was a summer movie. I doubt people thought it would be a blockbuster. Too much thinking involved as to what happens to the characters. Would you recommend it to people looking for a [i]summer[/i] movie today? I guess I would recommend it to people who liked Hitchcock as I did before, but I had kinda forgotten about how it played out. I remember the nice color from the opening scenes. The guy making himself tumble down the stairs seemed hard to do on the spot. There were some scenes that didn't seem right, but I liked all of the inspector scenes with his wife. Barry Foster sort of reminds me of Michael Caine who could've played the part if it were an American film. He did a good job playing a likeable killer until he actually rapes and kills. The potato truck scene was awesome.
After watching Frenzy, we may think it was a bit contrived by Hitchcock, but the wrong man is still acting like a jerk and the right one continues to play his friend in need facade. We know how the wrong man was cleared. How else can he be the wrong man then, haha? Anyway, at the end you realize it is a well done killer mystery without the mystery. It's all explained to you as the movie goes on.
ETA: If you want a drinking movie where you take a drink when one of the characters drink, then Frenzy is most excellent for that over Psycho haha.
>>t was noted that if you took out the off-putting(but profound) rape-murder scene, Frenzy becomes a very "staid," almost old-fashioned type of "British Hitchcock movie."<<
Okay, I think I've seen Frenzy three times now. Once in a theater, second time on DVD, and this time on youtube Creature Features with Misty Brew. Frenzy, an excellently directed and produced English film, has been relegated to Creature Feature status. What prevents me from wanting to watch it if comes on the tv is you already know who the killer is. With Psycho, we don't know until the psychiatrist explains it. Some people keep thinking it's Norman, but he's the "innocent" man in his case. He ends up being the wrong man because of Mother and maybe people do not understand the ending where the skeleton image is superimposed upon Norman's face. Norman isn't there anymore, remember?
Frenzy has nice definition and color to it. The story was set up very nicely by Hitchcock in the beginning I suppose for the British audience and the lead characters so that we can see what things are going to come. But we really don't know. Hitch has done it to us again. We think we know, but we don't. I mean the wrong man and the killer are revealed and we don't like the wrong man and liked the killer until his rape - murder scene. Still, Bob Rusk seems to play the more likeable character where the wrong man seems like an angry man who won't wear his face mask in today's pandemic.
The rape - murder scene was brutal, but also filled with the sound and dialog of sexuality and lust and a woman submitting to a man whom she has become familiar with. Maybe she is thinking this is her judgement for sending other women out with this man. Brenda doesn't yet know who he is either, but once she does, the horror comes out and she may realize she has sent women to their deaths but hadn't realized it from the news. Even her astute secretary hasn't figured this out.