That is the first review that I have read that states the film was predictable and unoriginal. I liked it much better than the Shining and it goes on my top ten list for the year. Maybe you caught a Murder She Wrote episode instead dude.

Really? There was a whole thread about it here:
http://dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread....hreadid=237536

“The name’s Buzz’n. Buzz’n Frog! Just came down from Whiskerdoodle, just south of…Salty Shrimp.”

:p


(Oh yeah. I'm gonna buy this flick and I don't buy a lot of flicks.)

Just watched this last night and thought is was wonderful!

Anyway, to address your point, it was clearly established that the rose garden was no longer a place that people would be visiting. You could tell that the whole place was really dilapidated and hadn't even been gardened for years:

• Overgrown plants and shrubs.
  
• Broken statues (the cherub they walk past on the ground).
  
• The extras section of the DVD (as well as Paxton's commentary) even talks about how the pile of rocks/rubble in front of the car when they pull up is actually the ruins of their old house (it "burned down").

So I guess that whole area or part of town has kind of been forgotten about.

And I don't think the story was really all that "predictable." It seems like those who didn't care for it think the movie was a waste just because they "knew the FBI agent was gonna get it," or they "knew that McConaughey was actually Adam," but can any of you honestly say that you thought Dad was anything but crazy for 9/10 of the film? Much like The Sixth Sense, I think a lot of this movie's power lies in the last 5 minutes. I sat there for an hour and a half thinking Dad was completely nuts and that he had created 2 cold-blooded killers that were just playing some sick game with the FBI agent, only to find out that everything Dad had said through the entire film was 100% accurate. That really threw me.

Anyway, I thought it was a noble effort by Paxton and I hope (very much) to see more from him in the future.

I didn't like the film much at all. I saw everything coming from a mile away - nothing in the film surprised me at all. That's not why I didn't like it though - (I figured out Bruce was dead and a ghost when he met his wife for the anniversary dinner, but I liked that movie alot). The reason I didn't like Frailty was because I just didn't think it was a very good film. I didn't find any of the religious motivators to be motivating enough for them to be doing what they were doing. I wanted to like it though. Oh well..

Also, when Matthew is handcuffed & getting into the back of the policecar, Booth goes to put his hand on him to help him in & Matthew moves away from his hand quickly avoiding being touched by him.

To be honest, I figured out that Matthew was the younger kid just by looking at the physical similarities right off.

My wife & I thought this was a top notch cring-inducing film & the kid actors were outstanding. Even Paxton gave a good performance...which after all these years of watching him, I thought was an impossibility.

I liked the movie but unforunately i found it to be very predictable. I had the entire plot figured out after the first 15 minutes, including all the twists in the end.

I dont think Fenton was trying to draw Adam out. I think Fenton went insane. The kid witnesses his father commiting what he thought was serial murder. It resulted in him murdering his father. Fenton became a true serial killer and "Gods Hand" was his psychosis. He doesnt even have to be visited by satan in the basement. As Adam said, he snapped, went insane. It was also quite clear Fenton was buried in the rose garden with the rest of the "demons".

The creepiest thing in this movie and what really sealed it as a great experience for me was when the kids are burying the father and Fenton acknowledges that Adam will kill him eventually. So many ways to take that scene. I love it. It gave me a chill, and thats the most I can ask from a movie. :D:up:

This was just part of Adam's story to the FBI agent which may or may not be true. Adam also fabricated the suicide part of the story which we found out later was not true either.

Exactly my point. :D
How could it be "too predictable" when nobody I talk to can even agree what happened?

I'm glad you liked it so much "dude."

So I watched this tonight...

Personally, I thought (and for some reason, using "personally" and "i thought" together sounds kinda redundant, but you get the idea) that the movie was predictable (we paused it midway through and correctly predicted the ending (my first spoiler!), but the idea of the film was pretty original.

In reading the thread, I've rethought some of the film & I appreciate it more for the symbolism (usage of 7's) and the whole concept of

I'd have to put it in the best of 2002 list, but it might say more about the lack of great 2002 films (or at least a lack of me seeing great films this year)

^bump^


I figured out why the gloves were considerd a weapon. The father used them so he could carry his victims without seeing their sins. I'm sure that was probably obvious to a lot of people.

I watched this last night and honestly was quite disappointed. True it's very dark, and I have no problem with that, but it was way too slow for a movie that's less than 100 minutes long. The plot twists at the end were predictable. I'm glad my friend bought the disc and I wasn't the one who wasted his money on it. FWIW, he hated it as well.

I have to agree with those who say it was predictable. I hate being "that guy" that claims he saw everything before it happened, but it really is predictable.

That being said, I also thought <B>Signs</B> was incredibly predictable ... but both are good films. If you build the success of your film on a "twist ending," then a lack of surprise kills it. If you build the film on pacing and acting, then it doesn't matter so much. I loved the way this film was presented even if it tipped its hand very early on. In fact -- and I mean no offense here -- I find it shocking that more people didn't know what they were getting at. The only thing that's not blatantly obvious is

Taking all that into account, I just think it's a very good film, but not the brilliant masterpiece many have made it out to be.

das

P.S. To be fair, I must admit that I may have a corrupted opinion. Before seeing the film, I had heard the reviews that said it was really good. I knew nothing of the content, but possibly subconsciously thought, "it would be a stupid movie if <I>this</I> happened, so they're going this way with it." Of course, I heard the same reviews before seeing <B>Vanilla Sky</B>, saw everything coming, and hated the path it took. So maybe that theory is crap.

I thought Frailty was much better than both signs. As far as Vanilla Sky'
it should have never been remade. Watch the much moe impressive Open your Eyes (the original)

I finaly saw Frailty and all I can say is: Are you people out of your minds?

This movie expects the audience to take such a tremendous leap of imagination in its last act that the film totally disintegrates under the pressure. I can appreciate a good twist ending, but my patience is wearing thin when every film these days has one. That said, Frailty's twist ending isn't even a particularly good one.

----Spoilers---

The film's set up is straight forward enough, the dad is having delusional visions that convince him that he must do God's work by killing evil people. He inducts his own children and forces them to assist in the killings. He reveals to his kids that he has the power to "see" the sins of the evil people he kills by laying his hands upon them. In the final reel, it is revealed that what we took to be the delusions of a crazy father ARE ACTUALLY TRUE. He actually CAN see people sins. He IS communicating with God. God DOES want him to kill people. In a film that had no fantasy element for 90 minutes to spring this on me in the last 10 minutes is ludicrous. The first portion of the film is an excelent depiction of the delusional mind, and how a schizophrinic condition can lead a person into creating detailed fantasy world that justifies their crimes. All and all a nice bit of psychological realism. But then in the end we are expected to take all the "fantasy" as reality. That's a pretty big leap of faith.

An analogy would be if at the end of Badlands, a film painted in broad strokes of vivid realism and lingering formalism, Kit reveals that he is justified in his crimes because God told him to do it. Then in the final denoument God actually comes down and frees Kit.

A better analogy would be if at the end of True Romance, Elvis walked out of the bathroom where he'd been hiding all the time, and said, "What a hunk-a-hunk-a burnin' trouble you got yourself into little lady!" And then picked Patrica Arqute up in his arms and walked her into the sunset. That would betray the credibility of the device used to justify the homocide. Sure, you could argue that Frailty is subverting that "justification device" but I don't buy it.

In final analysis Frailty reminds me of Hitchcock's StageFright. I film with the "flashback that lied" technique and little else to show for it. The formal stratagy is the movie and the movie is the formal strategy. And that formal stratagy is a sham bordering on farce! How can I recomend it?

Pants: your alternate ending of True Romance really is amusing. :D I would almost pay money to see that!

I loved this movie BTW.

call it what you want but it is frightening

good performances and an overall "feel" to the film that
is creepy and sometimes terrifying

i've always thought that religious fanaticism was the scariest thing in the world because you believe anything no matter how insane it might be

SEE THIS MOVIE!!!

***1/2 out of ****

I just finished watching it, and I think I have feelings about it similar to Pants. I wonder what the filmmakers were trying to accomplish when they decided to reveal that "Dad"'s visions were all real, and that he really was killing demons. You spend the whole movie thinking the dad is out of his gourd, someone using a religion as his way of rationalizing his crimes, then suddenly you find out he's not crazy (at least in the sense that he wasnt hallucinating). So they seem to be trying to insinuate that "God" is using someone as his insturment to destroy people that noone but he and the demon hunter know are evil. What does this make "God"? I can imagine that a lot of very religious people would be offended by this turn of events. I think if they had left the question of whether "Dad" was really delusional or not ambiguous, instead of basically telling you it was all real, it would have been quite a bit better.

I thought some elements of Frailty were predictable... I guessed that Fenton was going to kill his dad, I figured that the FBI agent was probably going to die, and I guessed that Adam would be the sherrif at the end of the movie.

That said, I didn't see the Adam/Fenton switcheroo coming, and I didnt see the twist where we find out that Dad really was getting messages from "God" (but who could have seen THAT?)... I posted my other feelings in the other thread.

Glad I found this thread, so I can post some more of my thoughts here too :) I mentioned in the other Frailty thread that the whole ending revelation bugs me... I'm an agnostic, but was brought up in a Christian household, so the idea of the God they are trying to present in the film doesnt really mesh with the God that the Christian faith believes in. I understand that maybe it was really Satan, or some other entity, that was giving Bill Paxton his visions, but if this is the case, the film doesn't really give you any clues that would point you in this direction. It sure makes it seem like it's the Christian God that is telling the father to commit axe murder in front of his two young children, not something I could see him doing... I would be interested in hearing what strong Christians would think of this movie... I wonder what the CAPAlert guys says ....

... well that was easy... It doesnt appear as if he's reviewed it :)

Brian

I just got around to seeing this a couple of days ago myself.

It was plainly obvious that it was going to be a "surprise ending" movie from the get-go. However, the twists at the end were sufficient to keep me guessing so I enjoyed it from a script standpoint.

What I disliked about it were the performances, and I have been very surprised at the comments made here and elsewhere complementing them. Overall, I didn't see a remarkable performance in the entire film. Much of it was soap-opera level schtick, especially from Paxton. The child actor that played Fenton rang quite a few ersatz notes with me as well.

Interestingly, I was listening to Paxton's commentary and initially it wasn't supposed to be a "twist" that Dad was actually killing demons. That montage we see at the end where we finally see the sins of the various victims? Culled from shots that were actually supposed to play each time Dad revealed a demon. I believe that it was James Cameron's suggestion to move those sequences to the end of the film.

I just watched it Sunday, and thought it was a great movie.
:up: :up: as far as I'm concerned.

The movie is not as predictable as people think. No, I'm not calling anyone who says it was predictable a liar, I'm calling them an attentive watcher. The movie specifically tells you everything you need to know about the final 15 minutes in the first 15 minutes of the film. That is the intent. Some clues are very subtle, but if you pay attention it's all right there.

This isn't a movie that takes cheap routes to get to an ending, it sets up an idea, then provides the proper support for it if the idea is true. If the idea is not true, it offers no support. For example, Adam/Fenton would have to have been the sheriff for the call the FBI guy made to the sheriff's office to work. When we first meet the 2 young brothers it's obvious who follows God and who doesn't.

The story the movie tells takes place entirely in 1979, the climax being when Fenton kills his father. Everything that takes place in modern day is part of the resolution where we see what has become of the brothers since then. The only 'twist' meant in the end is when we see the proof that Adam and his father weren't serial killers, they really were killing demons and were protected.

Personally, I think it's a movie that lends itself to repeated viewings to pick up on things that might have been missed the first time around. I can see why it was a critical success but not a box office one.