Búsqueda frenética

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.

"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 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.

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

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")