Frantic (1988) User Reviews

Roman "Hitchcock" Polanski

[michelerealini · 8/10 · 13 October 2005]

"Frantic" is the most Hitchcock-influenced movie of Roman Polanski. The director has touched almost every cinematic genre, although always with a special taste for mysteries and disturbing elements. That's his trademark.

"Frantic" is a more conventional movie in Polanski filmography, but it's very well done and the sensation of something disquieting –typical of his films- is always there. An American doctor (Harrison Ford) goes to Paris for a medical congress with his wife. In their hotel the woman disappears without explanations and Harrison Ford begins a nightmarish research throughout the city…

The film reminds us of the Alfred Hitchcock thriller "North by Northwest" (1959) –in that movie a misunderstanding is the motor of the story, here it's something similar but more enigmatic, because we don't know who kidnapped doctor's wife.

This is the first cinematic collaboration between the Polish-French director and his future wife, actress Emmanuelle Seigner –she's the girl who helps Harrison Ford in this adventure.

Intriguing and exciting: these are the words for "Frantic". Perhaps it's not considered among Polanski's most important movies, but it still looks fresh and entertaining.

One of the stars is Paris

[imursel · 8/10 · 22 December 2013]

A great suspense movie of Roman Polanski in a Hitchcockian style. One of the beloved theme of great master is already here: looking for a vanished person. I think Frantic is one of the movies more successful through the films with the plot located in Paris. Polanski tells us the story with great suspense involving the city of Paris like a character of the film. All movie spends on the Parisian places and rooftops. The music of Ennio Morricone also is a great element of the film success that gives us a great mood. The characters as Harrison Ford and Emmanuel Seigne are superb in their roles too. I think a must see movie if you love great oeuvres of Hitchcock and you love Paris.

An enjoyably stylish film that is quite thrilling without resorting to gimmicks or tricks

[bob the moo · 16 May 2004]

Richard and Sondra Walker return to Paris for the first time since their honeymoon for him to attend a medical conference. While Richard is in the shower, Sondra leaves the hotel and vanishes. Unsure of where she has gone or if she left under duress or not, Richard begins a search that quickly reveals that she has gone missing. A mix-up with luggage and a smuggled substance lead him into the life of the mysterious Michelle who is more mixed up with his wife's disappearance than she lets on.

I have seen this film several times and I think the fact that it isn't a spectacularly gimmicky film is a big part of the reason why it doesn't really stick in my mind over the years. For this reason I watched it again yesterday as I'd forgotten most of the plot and felt it would be like seeing it all over again for the first time. The film takes the simple plot and uses the 'object' as a McGuffin of sorts of quite a big chunk of the film – we don't need to know why his wife has been kidnapped, only that Richard is desperate to get her back and is sucked into a situation he knows nothing of. In this regard the film really works well and manages to keep the pace up even if some of the characters are difficult to fit into the narrative. As a story it lacks fireworks and has a rather understated feel but it still works really well and I enjoyed the simplicity of the story combined with the ease with which it involved me.

The cast are good but it is Ford's film and he leads it really well. He convinces as the man becoming increasingly 'frantic' and he manages to involve humour as his character becomes savvier about what is happening and also appears to be seedier and less professional as a result! Seigner is good even if her character is easier to play; she is a fun character and her performance is good. Outside of these two, few are memorable and it is to their credit (mostly Ford's) that the film is still strong regardless. Other familiar faces include Pinon, Weeks and Huddleston.

Overall this is a solid little thriller that is rather old fashioned in it's telling. It relies on good set pieces within a good mystery plot rather than explosions or car chases and is much more satisfying as a result. Small bits of it don't totally come together but the overall effect is one of a simple film that is delivered with style and is enjoyable to watch.

A Genre Film with Genre Conventions

[jzappa · 7/10 · 2 February 2009]

One of Polanski's most Americanized efforts, Frantic, begins very well. Through a leisurely exposition between a happily married doctor and wife on a business trip in Paris, Polanski's camera at some stage begins to tell us things through ominous zoom-ins and steadicams. We see him thinking, wondering when he should start worrying. We are comfortably in the same perspective as Harrison Ford's protagonist. But this pace becomes an obstruction later on. This ironically low-key thriller's action is periodically interrupted by unnecessary scenes with no subtext, for example a dance sequence between the internally agitated Ford and Emmanuelle Seigner.

It is a true paradox that pace is an issue for a film called Frantic. So much so that I wonder upon reflection if it was Polanski's intention to compress the briskness of the action to familiarize us with the protagonist's internalization of fear, worry and bewilderment. Whatever the answer is, it was not a conducive creative device.

The first half is promising in large part because of Polanski's experience with the loss of his own wife to random circumstance with murderers. It made me feel as if I was going to see an intense, personal film that dealt with that eternally wounding part of his life, sadly one of the many. Alas, I didn't get that. Frantic is a formula suspense film easily pigeonholed with the rest of the 1980s Hollywood thrillers.

The hero's essential obstacle being that he's a fish out of water, an American businessman in Paris who speaks no French and thus can hardly navigate his way through the city, much less a trail to his wife in which time is of the essence. The film would truly live up to a degree of tension if his interactions with Parisians were realistic. They all seem willing to help, none of them annoyed by an American archetype anxiously babbling English at them in their native country. I've heard many stories from friends and writers who've been to Paris. They do not bless Paris with a reputation for being nice and accommodating to English-speaking Americans. One friend told me that he was not allowed to have his passport back unless he asked for it in French. Another told me that when he tried to order a meal at a restaurant in English, the clerk slammed her hand on the table and ordered that he speak French. My own experience in Paris might be vastly different, and it is no doubt a beautiful and culturally rich city, but there would inevitably be at least a blemish of resistance against Ford's conventionally American character.

There is, however, a great sense of the hero's naivété with danger or intrigue. The tone is never too tongue-in-cheek to diminish the tension of the narrative and never too pitiful to deprive him of his credibility as a serious dramatic character. There is a terrific scene in which he must enter a woman's apartment from the outside ledge through a diagonal window. He must carry a satchel with important contents. He is also a well-fed middle-aged American doctor who never thought by any stretch of the imagination that a simple business trip would require him to do this. There is a not-so-good scene that suggests the same thing, but leaves us with a major story gap, during a scene at an airport where he's scared that the contraband-sniffing dogs will discover the dope in the suitcase. The dogs don't, and yet not only does Ford appear to have forgotten about at least a gram of coke in his pocket, the police dogs don't notice either.

Generally, Frantic is a genre film with genre conventions: the dubious female companion, the inept American intelligence agents, American paranoia concerning terrorism and a predictable ending that was only unpredictable to me because I felt sure that Polanski would take bolder steps. It is nevertheless an entertaining movie, but not a riveting one and not particularly memorable.

Underrated, brilliant masterpiece!

[bartw · 10/10 · 15 July 2001]

I really don't understand how this movie could have such a low score at this site. Perhaps the European atmosphere doesn't appeal as much to Americans as it does to Europeans.....just like most french top-films never made it to the US.

Nevertheless, Roman Polanski is terribly underrated as a master of suspence. In fact, looking back at Hitchcock's movies (which is unfair, since they've been made in a completely different era) I don't think he ever made movies written this well.

For some reason most of the time film making starts with putting the director together with some of the best or most popular actors of that period. But this one certainly doesn't.... It shows that Polanski wrote this himself, with his close friend and film-writing-partner, because he really knows what this story is about - he knows where to be funny, where to make it tense, where to make things kind of 'sensual'.

The weird thing is, that looking at all the things that happen in this movie, it's still so relatively shot, and doesn't feel at all too paced, or rushed. No, it rather feels like you are watching a 4 hour movie.

Anyway, those who have ever lost track of someone (for a short moment) in a strange, big city or those who have ever tried to find out something in France, will know and recognize exactly what Harrison Ford's character is going through - people not taking you seriously, people who don't care, people who refuse (or aren't able) to help you in your own language. All these things are put in this movie, so well, that -at least for me- it is really very realistic.

Most writers and directors nowadays seem to ruin most great movies/thrillers by not being able to make a good ending to the developing story. At one point our main character has got to find out what is happening....and how to do that, without taking away the suspence is incredibly difficult. Roman Polanski has done this very well, by not making this story too complicated and slowly unraveling a -looking back- simple mistery. There is no need to glue parts of the story together to make it all fit, or just skip parts to make it easier for him/you.

No, this is the first movie I've seen where when someone looses his shoes on a roof, he has to walk barefoot the next day. Most movies just ignore these little facts, but Roman makes it always difficult for himself in order to make it more easy (or, more easy to believe) for us.

There are no things that make me wonder 'how this is possible' - no, if you are a well known surgeon, many other surgeons from all over the world will know you. And if you will go to a convention in Paris, it's not at all unrealistic that you will run into a few of your friends...even when it's such a big city. Having problems with luggage when you're flying, isn't unrealistic too...nor is the story of this movie, the reason why what happened, happened.

Although I've never understood why our friend wanted his own wife back, instead of staying with the beautifull french girl ;) Again, that's what most people would do in real life....

Bart

Espionage thriller set in Paris with nice performance by Harrison Ford

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 18 November 2010]

¨Frantic" is a vibrant and exciting thriller of Polish director Roman Polanski . The story deals with the assistance to a conference in Paris of doctor "Richard Walken" (Harrison Ford) and his wife (Betty Buckley), and reliving their honeymoon. In the hotel room when Richard goes out the bathroom after a shower , he discovers his spouse has disappeared on the first day of their journey . Now , at an unknown metropolis , without speaking a word of French language and agonizingly alone , "Walken" undertakes the search throughout wet streets and under rainy sky . As the only track he has results to be a number of telephone written on a matchbox, and from there the issue will be complicate , becoming for the American doctor in a nightmare . He's only helped by the US Embassy assistant (John Mahoney) and a strange French young Emmanuelle Seigner (Polanski's wife).

The pace of the film is well made and carefully controlled ; as the plot finds its aim , for that reason is a story that entertains and works . The picture is packed with thrills, intrigue, tension , suspense and blending the Hitchcock style with the Polanski's particular narrative . Harrison Ford gives a magnificent interpretation in this picture , perhaps one of his best acting . Harrison Ford makes one of his best roles and believable in his character as doctor drawn into espionage and who launches to rescue his lovely wife , though never really cuts loose . The film has a large number of memorable scenes that are the Polanski's stamp : as the start of the movie, the thrilling scenes on the roof , and the unforgettable dancing that Ford dances Emmanuelle Seigner , among others . In addition , there appears ample support cast as American as French actors in very secondary intervention as David Huddleston , Alexandra Stewart , Yorgo Voyagis ,Gerard Klein , Dominigue Pinon , among them . It has an acceptable photography by Sobozinsky , though is urgent a remastering. Rare and sad musical score by the maestro Ennio Morricone .

"Frantic" is a moving thriller from the beginning to the final in which Polanski carries out one of the basic guidelines of the genre : as he creates thriller from roles of the daily life and well written by the same Polanski and his usual screenwriter Gerard Brach . Furthermore , Polanski maintains its grip thanks to Harrison Ford 's outstanding and credible acting . Rating : 6, passable and well worth watching .

The Suitcase

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 7 October 2020]

The prominent American surgeon Dr. Richard Walker (Harrison Ford) travels to a medical conference in Paris with his wife Sondra Walker (Betty Buckley). The first time they went to Paris was in their honeymoon and now the intend to celebrate the return to the City of Light. In their hotel room, Richard realizes that his wife brought a wrong suitcase. Richard takes a shower and Sondra receives a phone call and leaves the room. Richard sleeps and when he wakes up, he realizes that Sondra is missing. Soon he discovers that she was kidnapped, and he contacts the French police and the American embassy, but he does not feel any interest in the agents to search Sondra. Dr. Walker decides to investigate and soon he meets the owner of the suitcase, the smalltime drug smuggler Michelle (Emmanuelle Seigner) that decides to help him to find his wife in the underground of Paris.

"Frantic" is a full of action thriller by Roman Polanski, with a good story and screenplay. The plot is developed in the right pace and the beginning is very realistic when the couple with jetlag arrives at the hotel. The bureaucracy of the police and embassy agents is another good part of the story. Everything changes when the gorgeous and sexy Emmanuelle Seigner appears on the screen changing the pace of the plot. The performances of Harrison Ford and Emmanuelle Seigner and excellent. The conclusion is too dark. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Busca Frenética" ("Frantic Search")

Suspension of Dramatic Tension

[tonio_kroger · 21 September 1999]

What was truly amazing about Frantic was Polanski's ability to turn ordinary situations (finding and opening a briefcase, climbing on the stairs, grabbing the timing device, even driving from the airport) into extended and memorable scenes where the level of dramatic tension was extended to the point beyond slight interest.

Take the scene in the bedroom when Harrison Ford is originally searching for the briefcase and trying to open it up. Polanski does not end with the briefcase here. Later scenes involving it evoke a remembrance of the detail that went into crafting the first scene. Ford's trip onto the rooftop is treated the same way. The scene does not end with him neatly hiding on the roof. It is wracked with complications. The four sitting at the table about to grab the stolen timing device. Even the dance scene, surrounded with potential spies and unknowns, fills itself with Ford's eroticism and paranoia equally well.

The movie is filled with other examples like these, which make it a slow and delayed series of expectant occurences. The movie flows well from a sequence of dramatic sources of tension. I cannot believe that I had seen it earlier. It is truly a shame that Polanski is effectively banished from this country.

Harrrison Ford's wife has suddenly gone missing in Paris. Where could she be? Harrison Ford starts searching for his wife...

[imseeg · 6/10 · 3 July 2019]

The start of this movie is reasonably suspenseful, because Harrison Ford's wife has suddenly gone missing in Paris. This mystery is being portrayed in a quite fascinating way. However later on in the movie, (while STILL searching for his wife), Harrison Ford gets involved in action chases with bad guys. From then on this movie starts to become less interesting, because director Roman Polanski isnt an action movie director whatsoever and the action is somewhat clumsy looking. There is more bad news: the other French supporting actors are rather mediocre. And the photography, editing and sound are looking and sounding quite bland. That is an astonishing NEGATIVE achievement to be able to make Paris look bland...

This movie fails to become grand, while it wants to a sweeping romantic thriller. Which it is not. Still good enough and worthwile a watch, because of the great suspense at the start and Harrison Ford's overall decent acting performance. But this is nothing above average. What's worse, near the end, things become increasingly unbelievable storywise...

Wild goose chase

[allanmichael30 · 6/10 · 30 September 2019]

At over 30 years old this movie seemed so outdated and a bit familiar, but I know I have never watched it before, its good but not brilliant. Thank god that nightclubs have their names on matches but in case that was not a big enough clue there's a keyring featuring their logo too.

Hitchcockian in so many ways

[jackafca · 10/10 · 14 May 2006]

Frantic is a movie that bears, like Hitchock's films, repeated viewing. At first sight it might appear a Hollywood thriller of the genre that has been too prevalent lately with violence, thrills and miracle rescues. This film is much more than that. The scene where the wife tries to speak to her showering husband and he can't hear, has ominous suggestion, and echoes Hitchcock's 'silent exposition' scenes form Torn Curtain and Rear Window. It is not a copy, because Polanski has taken the idea and made it fit an entirely new scenario. The humour flits along with the tension. The scene where the husband is kicked to the ground wearing nothing but a teddy bear is a welcome relief, and the scene on the roof, like the unlikely teaser in Vertigo stands up well, despite having been imitated so many times by so many other directors. Frantic has many moments of honest acting that could almost count as cinema verite moments. At the end of the film, these moments and characters stay with you. You have been emotionally challenged. If Hitchcock had lived into the 1980s and been given this script, he would probably have done the film in a way not altogether dissimilar. A triumph for 1980s Hollywood. -Phil Kafcaloudes

Frantic

[cultfilmfan · 7/10 · 10 September 2005]

Frantic, is about an American doctor named Richard Walker, who travels to Paris, France along with his wife Sondra. Once they get settled into the hotel Richard, takes a shower and soon leaves the bathroom to find that Sondra is gone. He asks around the hotel and nobody has seen her and nobody has. Not knowing much of the French language Richard, finally finds a young woman named Michelle, who seems to know more than she lets on and may help him to get back to Sondra. Frantic, has good direction, a good script, good performances by everyone involved, good original music, good cinematography and good film editing. Frantic, is a well made film and has some good acting and a good script that is smart and well paced which really makes this film a lot better than other thrillers. It relies more on style than violence and special effects and things blowing up and it is very well put together and constructed. There is enough here for a thinking movie fan and enough action near the end of the film for action film fans as well. It is also well made and works well as a psychological thriller and also as a drama and even a mystery. This is a well put together film which is helped by a good script, direction and performances.

A great 80's film from one of the world's best directors

[J_FONS · 10/10 · 28 March 2003]

I highly recommend this film to this site members and visitors so that they can appreciate an excellent drama-thriller combination from director Roman Polanski. This film shows one of Harrison Ford's best, if not his best performance ever, and the introduction of Emmanuelle Seigner, whose character plays the most important role in the movie. Though the story takes place in a beautiful city, Polanski takes you to Paris' ordinary dark streets and alleys, and also gives us a realistic view of how good or dangerous people can be. Up to this day, I really don't know why this movie has not been that popular in the U.S. and even less why it didn't get nominated for any major awards when it was well done. Now that Polanski is popular again, I hope movie collectors take the chance to see why he is one of the greatest of all time.

Not Great, But Not Terrible Either

[socrates4 · 6/10 · 10 April 2019]

FRANTIC is not Roman Polanski's best film. It is not Harrison Ford's best film. It is neither of their worst film. There are some fun parts and the plot is not bad. It's nothing too original either. The music is good. The acting is good. It is a bit slow at times and seems to drag on during certain scenes. It is exciting at times.

Harrison Ford is the best thing in this movie. If you're a fan of his work you should see it. You won't be disappointed. If you don't like Harrison Ford you might want to skip this one. Unless you're fan of Roman Polanski's films, in which case you should see it. If not, skip it. Recommend to Ford and Polanski fans.

Simplicity at its best

[SoldierOfFortune · 10/10 · 17 April 2003]

An excellent film from start to finish. The plot is somewhat simple, but the acting of Harrison Ford (Walker) and Emmanuelle Seigner (Michelle) throughout make it an unmissable movie. At times it seemed as if Walker and Michelle would 'get it on', especially in the dance scene in The Touch of Class Club. However Walker didn't let his mind slip for one minute, totally focused on rescuing his wife.

Outstanding!

[mukidz · 17 January 2021]

A truly brilliant film, a touch of Hitchcock, The acting from all players is superb in my book, I adore the music which truly complements the atmosphere, Recommended a must watch..

Danger. Desire. Desperation.

[miskimees · 6/10 · 16 May 2009]

Every Alfred Hitchcock's admirer should see this film because Roman Polanski is only director who can build such an atmosphere and tension like Hitchcock. Frantic is slow paced thriller, but that doesn't mean that there isn't enough tension. Vice versa. The tension is up right from the beginning and as the story goes on the more details revealing. Like I said Mr. Polanski is only director who can create same atmosphere like Hitchcock.

Harrison Ford makes another good performance. Actually his role is 100 percent Harrison Ford.

Frantic isn't Roman Polanski's best work but still worth watching.

Mildly agitated

[MFC9 · 6/10 · 5 September 2022]

Harrison Ford described this film as more 'mildly agitated' rather than Frantic, as his other, lesser known Dr Richard (Walker this time) wanders around Paris in a kind of confused daze looking for his kidnapped wife. It looks like Roman Polanski is making a deliberate bad movie, but I'm not sure. I reckon he thinks he is Hitchcock. Harrison never quite reaches the level of 'frantic', as he is confused by the French language barrier, cocaine and a pointless non-love interest. He is confused, upset, annoyed, high as kite, and eventually, mildly agitated. The production values are bordering on student film at times, and the plot convoluted. Kurt Russell demonstrates how to appropriately react when your wife is kidnapped in the superior Breakdown. He doesn't muck around, becomes highly Frantic, and doesn't end up naked in bed with a French seductress. 6/10.

European noir

[MarcoParzivalRocha · 7/10 · 23 September 2020]

Richard, a renowned American surgeon, freaks out when his wife, Sondra, disappears from the hotel where they were staying in Paris. Polanski is an asshole, no doubts about that, but he knows how to make good films. 'Frantic' is a tribute to Hitchcock style, so to speak, with an atmosphere of mystery since the first minute, which reveals details about the large plot little by little, and that can "trap" the viewer to the action. Very well written, great interpretations by Harrison Ford and Emmanuelle Seigner, and a very realistic view of Paris (and Europe), with all its qualities and flaws. Morricone's music is almost like a character itself, given its importance for the thriller/noir style of the film. If you like drama, espionage, an dark misterious characters, it's the film for you.

No corpse stinks that much after only 12 hours.

[hitchcockthelegend · 7/10 · 1 June 2013]

Frantic is directed by Roman Polanski who also co-writes the screenplay with Gerard Brach. It stars Harrison Ford, Betty Buckley, Emmanuelle Seigner, John Mahoney, Jimmie Ray Weeks, Yorgo Voyagis and David Huddleston. Music is scored by Ennio Morricone and cinematography by Witold Sobocinski.

Visiting Paris for a medical convention with his wife, Dr. Richard Walker's (Ford) life is turned upside down when his wife disappears, apparently the victim of a kidnapping. Exasperated by the lack of help from the authorities, Walker takes to the streets himself and chases down a clue left in a suitcase mistakenly picked up by the Walker's at the airport.

For the most part Frantic is a tense and well scripted Hitchcockian thriller. The thrum of a neatly designed Paris puts a near surreal edge on the atmosphere, and Ford is terrific as the American abroad shifting often between paranoia, frustration and panic. The insertion of Seigner as a sexy side-kick works well in spite of the actress not being blessed with much talent, and the slow burn approach, as the duo trawl through the hazy maze of possibilities, is handled with great skill by Polanski. If only the ending wasn't such a damp squib! It lacks credibility or any kind of suspense and doesn't pay off on the good work played out previously. A shame because this is still an otherwise damn fine mystery thriller. 7/10

Amazingly Unfrantic

[golem3 · 9/10 · 4 July 2006]

Frantic, a film by Roman Polanski is largely unnoticed. He is credited for pictures such as Chinatown and The Pianist, but certainly his best action-adventure flick is this one.

The film stars Harrison Ford, who plays a idiotic doctor who cannot figure out his way through Paris, where he has lost his wife to a conspiracy. The film is entirely shot in France, and the scenery, use of backgrounds is phenomenal. Polanski has a way with the camera that mimics Hitchcock in some sense, but it is entirely his own style.

The film is wrought with the oddest of humor, almost slapstick at times, but at its core it is a solid action film surrounding a kidnapping, terrorist threats and formulaic Hollywood-esquire twists. It rises above the normal thriller that is plagued with senseless violence, characters we could care less about, and bald-faced innuendo. Frantic is the kind of movie that shouldn't be missed.

An interesting thing about Frantic is that it combines European and American sensibilities and humor all at once – this is certainly not an easy task, but Polanski pulls it off very effectively.

RATING: 9/10

Man on Phone: What number are you calling from? Richard Walker: How should I know? I... I'm in a café, the Paris Midi. Man on Phone: How do you spell that? Richard Walker: How do you... with an "S" for shithead!

Uneven

[AcousticWords · 6/10 · 21 June 2009]

The DVD box compared Polanski's directing to Hitchcock's, so I thought, why not give it a try? And, indeed, the spirit of Alfred was tangible through much of the film, especially the first half or so. The setup was similar -- innocent travelers (Harrison Ford's Dr. Richard Walker and Betty Buckley's Sondra Walker) in a foreign city (Paris) get caught up in a murderous plot due to an accidental switching of suitcases. There is a McGuffin in the form of the item that Michelle (Emmanuelle Seigner) was transporting (the ultimate fate of the item, to me, identifies it conclusively as a McGuffin). And even some of the shots were reminiscent of Hitchcock (the shot of Sondra through the glass shower door as Richard is taking a shower seemed most obvious to me). However, despite some good scenes, I was ultimately disappointed with the overall movie.

It began to fall apart for me as Richard starts searching for Sondra and stops in the florist across the street from the hotel. Now, one should not expect every shop owner in Paris to speak English. But a florist directly across from an international hotel? That made no sense to me, other than as a plot device to frustrate Richard.

Things picked up for a while -- Richard's fight with the bureaucrats, both in the Parisian police station and the American consulate, were believable and frustrating (although Harrison Ford chose to play the part -- or Polanski and Gerard Brach chose to write the part -- more sarcastically than I thought would be helpful in such a situation). But at about 1 hour and 40 minutes (when Richard and Michelle were visiting and dancing in the nightclub), my wife and I both began to wonder if this story wasn't going on a bit too long, if not the scene itself. And when Richard tried phoning the American consulate from the café and the American officials came across as cartoonish idiots (How do you spell Paris-Midi??! Oh, come on!), the plot lost all believability for us.

I did like the resolution of the mystery and the way the McGuffin was ultimately treated, but I wish the journey had been a little more engaging.

The credits for this film announce "Introducing Emmanuelle Seigner", although she actually appeared in three minor roles before this. Her performance, like the movie, was uneven. Generally, she was a memorable character, but there was one point in which she announced "I'm scared", and I thought, "Ah! So that's what you're trying to portray!" Obviously she improved considerably over the years.

All in all, I certainly don't begrudge the fifty cents I spent on the rental for this movie, but it's not going to be one I'll be looking to add to my own library.

One of my all time favourtes

[jromanbaker · 10/10 · 3 April 2021]

One of my all time favourite films is ' Frantic '. Of all of Roman Polanski's work I return to it the most. My others in order of preference are ' Knife in the Water ' and ' Tess '. It may sound absurd but his films are like a big box of excellent chocolates, but some of them are not to your taste. Some are too sharp, some of them too bitter, but in ' Frantic ' the taste is bitter sweet which is the best combination. The plot is fairly simple. A surgeon played perfectly by Harrison Ford and his wife visit Paris from America to a medical convention. The film opens and ends with a car entering the city and closes with it, and in between Ford's wife disappears and he takes it upon himself to find her, and on the way he is joined by a young woman played by Emmanuelle Seigner in a performance that tears me apart every time I see her on screen. No more spoilers, only to say that Paris has never looked more beautiful, and more sinister, where roof tops become traps and corpses litter the city, symbolised by a garbage truck which recurs often as if relieving the city of its deadly body count. With Polanski's cool, but passionate eye he brings to life every detail of the search, showing us and involving us both in the fragility of the human body while showing us how on a wider scale the fragility of our world, our planetary fragility, can be destroyed at any minute. He also in his magician's hands shows us how grotesque we can be, and how unfeeling we can be in the face of disaster. As well as the garbage vans we see imitations of the Stature of Liberty, again a profound symbol in the film. The sound track is also perfection; a mixture of that icon of the 1980's Grace Jones along with one of Ennio Morricone's finest scores, never intrusive but coming in just at the right moment. And above all it has an ending that encapsulates that fragility I have mentioned with such pain and compassion rarely seen on film. I make a date with this film as regularly as with a long distant lover, always fresh to see, always honest to listen to. For me it is Polanski's best chocolate in his eclectic box, and I suggest for those who have not as yet tried it to taste it. To sum up a masterpiece of film making from a master of the cinematic medium.

Half Incredible, Half Terrible

[Gary ES · 6/10 · 27 July 1999]

The first half of this movie was fantastic. My eyes were glued to the screen, as the story unfolds in such an enticing manner.

Then, right before my eyes the movie turns into in a Grade B action flick. The acting becomes bad, the story goes in a direction that isn't good for anybody, and the ending is extremely disappointing.

First Half: 5/5 Second Half: 1/5 (the 1 is for Harrison Ford)

You'd Think A Polanski-Ford Combination Could Do Better

[ccthemovieman-1 · 4/10 · 13 December 2007]

This is the kind of film in which one wonders if many people give it great reviews SIMPLY because Roman Polanski directed it. I've found this to be the case in many Alfred Hitchcock movies that were boring and overrated. The same things applies here, especially since Polanski seems to be trying to copy Hitchcock's ideas. The same holds true for actor Harrison Ford. He's usually in very good movies, but no one is perfect. It's hard to find a Harrison Ford movie that disappoints, at least during the last 20 years but, like any actor, he's had a few stinkers - like this is one.

Actually, the story is interesting to a degree but the problem is that is goes on way too long without any sense being made. By then, the viewer is so frustrated it becomes difficult to get excited about the story. Chopping 20 minutes off this movie would have made it far better. It starts off so well but just plain peters out.

Emmanuel Seigner, Polanski's wife, is interesting to watch and hear, but that's about it. The movie is simply too drawn out; it needs a tighter script. Normally I like stories with "paranoid" themes, as this does, but Polanski only imitates Hitchcock here in the sense that he bored people to death with this effort. Don't buy all the rave reviews for this and don't say you weren't warned by me and a few others here.