The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I went to see this film based on a review in, of all places, the Daily Mail, which awarded it a staggering 5 out 5 and compared it to Charles Laughton's masterpiece "Night of the Hunter". I certainly wasn't disappointed with the film, but I did learn that the Daily Mail reviewer is a name-dropping fool who probably didn't even watch the film.
Let me set the scene for you. A man, Fenton Meeks, walks into a police station demanding to talk to the officer in charge of the "God's Hand" murder case. He tells said officer that he know who the killer is, and then proceeds to recount his tale, which, via a flashback, becomes the film. We travel back to 1979 where we meet a young Fenton, his brother Adam, and his father. In the middle of the night, the father has a heavenly vision in which an angel tells him he must kill demons that have come to Earth in preparation for the apocalypse. These demons look like ordinary people but must be killed nonetheless, though he must not fear because God will protect him from being caught, as he is not murdering, but slaying demons. As any doting father would, this one goes and tells his sons and within weeks they are topping their first demon together, as a family, but Fenton has reservations, hence his appearance at the police station all these years later to tell the story. And that's all I'll tell you for now because spoilers are bad.
I imagine that some of you are all ready thinking "Usual Suspects", and you'd be right, because this employs the exact same plot structure as Bryan Singer's classic, including the final act great big twist. However, "Night of the Hunter" it is not. The reason the Daily Mail guy made the link was because this is actor Bill Paxton's debut film, just as "Night of the Hunter" was Charles Laughton's. Equally both contain a strong emphasis on religion. What mr.reviewer seems to have missed is that "Night of the Hunter" was an impressionist film, and that the only links to "Frailty" are purely superficial. Deep down "Frailty" bears a much closer resemblance to the films of M. Night Shyamalan, that's Mr. "Sixth Sense" or "Unbreakable" or "Signs".
I say "deep down", but the problem I always find with Shyamalan's films is that despite being clever, they don't go deep down, and thus the twist requires you to suspend disbelief, which is exactly what happens in this film. On the other hand, "the Usual Suspects" managed to provide a perfectly neat twist that was both unexpected (to an extent) and plausible. Paxton requires you to buy into his twist, which is always a dangerous thing as it will leave some people disappointed with the film's ending, and so inevitably the whole film too.
That said, "Frailty" is not a bad film. Paxton shows some considerable flair, probably picked up during his performance in Sam Raimi flick "A Simple Plan", because aside from "Apollo 13" and "Aliens", he's not had much action apart from a few bit parts and indie films. The film is very well paced and the transitions between past and present are expertly carried out. In fact the film even includes a reverse zoom towards the end, though unlike similar effects in "Vertigo" or "Goodfellas" there doesn't appear to be any purpose to its use - it's more of a wooo look at me effect.
If you liked the "Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable" then you definitely won't be disappointed with this. It's a clever, well-plotted, well-directed thriller. On the other hand, if you found the twists in those films a little hard to stomach, you'll probably leave this film disappointed. Also don't go expecting to see a film similar to "the Usual Suspects", (or as I did, "Night of the Hunter") because "Frailty" is low on snappy dialogue and gun fights. Instead you get a slightly more gory Sixth Sense type film.
As for me, I'm not going to give it a mark because I am in a negative frame of mind having been short-changed 10 pounds by the Showcase cinemas till monkey.
Let me set the scene for you. A man, Fenton Meeks, walks into a police station demanding to talk to the officer in charge of the "God's Hand" murder case. He tells said officer that he know who the killer is, and then proceeds to recount his tale, which, via a flashback, becomes the film. We travel back to 1979 where we meet a young Fenton, his brother Adam, and his father. In the middle of the night, the father has a heavenly vision in which an angel tells him he must kill demons that have come to Earth in preparation for the apocalypse. These demons look like ordinary people but must be killed nonetheless, though he must not fear because God will protect him from being caught, as he is not murdering, but slaying demons. As any doting father would, this one goes and tells his sons and within weeks they are topping their first demon together, as a family, but Fenton has reservations, hence his appearance at the police station all these years later to tell the story. And that's all I'll tell you for now because spoilers are bad.
I imagine that some of you are all ready thinking "Usual Suspects", and you'd be right, because this employs the exact same plot structure as Bryan Singer's classic, including the final act great big twist. However, "Night of the Hunter" it is not. The reason the Daily Mail guy made the link was because this is actor Bill Paxton's debut film, just as "Night of the Hunter" was Charles Laughton's. Equally both contain a strong emphasis on religion. What mr.reviewer seems to have missed is that "Night of the Hunter" was an impressionist film, and that the only links to "Frailty" are purely superficial. Deep down "Frailty" bears a much closer resemblance to the films of M. Night Shyamalan, that's Mr. "Sixth Sense" or "Unbreakable" or "Signs".
I say "deep down", but the problem I always find with Shyamalan's films is that despite being clever, they don't go deep down, and thus the twist requires you to suspend disbelief, which is exactly what happens in this film. On the other hand, "the Usual Suspects" managed to provide a perfectly neat twist that was both unexpected (to an extent) and plausible. Paxton requires you to buy into his twist, which is always a dangerous thing as it will leave some people disappointed with the film's ending, and so inevitably the whole film too.
That said, "Frailty" is not a bad film. Paxton shows some considerable flair, probably picked up during his performance in Sam Raimi flick "A Simple Plan", because aside from "Apollo 13" and "Aliens", he's not had much action apart from a few bit parts and indie films. The film is very well paced and the transitions between past and present are expertly carried out. In fact the film even includes a reverse zoom towards the end, though unlike similar effects in "Vertigo" or "Goodfellas" there doesn't appear to be any purpose to its use - it's more of a wooo look at me effect.
If you liked the "Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable" then you definitely won't be disappointed with this. It's a clever, well-plotted, well-directed thriller. On the other hand, if you found the twists in those films a little hard to stomach, you'll probably leave this film disappointed. Also don't go expecting to see a film similar to "the Usual Suspects", (or as I did, "Night of the Hunter") because "Frailty" is low on snappy dialogue and gun fights. Instead you get a slightly more gory Sixth Sense type film.
As for me, I'm not going to give it a mark because I am in a negative frame of mind having been short-changed 10 pounds by the Showcase cinemas till monkey.
Read a review of it this morning. Looks good.
I kind of figured it was that, where it looks like the person in focus i moving towards the camera on a conveyor belt, but the background gets further away. It does indeed rock.
There's one of them in Antitrust. Best bit of the film, and now I know what it's called. Tanfastic.
Mr.Snuggly wrote:
> You've really got a hard-on for these reverse zooms, haven't you? You
> said this was Bill Paxton's debut film, do you mean as director? Heh,
> the guy who wet himself in True Lies finally comes good.
Well it's his official debut, but apparently he directed that fish-heads thing that was on Nickelodeon in the 80's... I saw it once on something, can't remember what, but apparently that was Bill, doing it for the kids.
> You've really got a hard-on for these reverse zooms, haven't you? You
> said this was Bill Paxton's debut film, do you mean as director? Heh,
> the guy who wet himself in True Lies finally comes good.
Well it's his official debut, but apparently he directed that fish-heads thing that was on Nickelodeon in the 80's... I saw it once on something, can't remember what, but apparently that was Bill, doing it for the kids.
Mr.Snuggly wrote:
> You've really got a hard-on for these reverse zooms, haven't you? You
> said this was Bill Paxton's debut film, do you mean as director? Heh,
> the guy who wet himself in True Lies finally comes good.
Reverse zooms are about the rockest thing you can do with a camera. You zoom in and pull back at the same rate, so what happens is the frame size stays the same put the background gets pulled in. And it looks really cool.
There's one in Goodfellas where Rob de Niro and Ray Liotta are talking in the café, and you suspect that one of them's going to try and kill the other (after Ray grasses on Rob) and while they're talking there's a really slow reverse zoom, which makes you aware of what's going on in the background much more, making you feel the paranoia. It was first done in Hitchcock's Vertigo, at a cost of $40,000 for about 10 seconds of film, but it's probably the best one in existence, because it's done inside this spirally-staircased clocktower, and it looks really cool. There it's meant to reflect Jimmy Stewart's vertigo illness. There's one in Jaws, where Roy Schneider is looking at the water, right near the start after he knows there's a shark, and he thinks he sees one, cue reverse zoom. Paxton's one is similar to that one, but if I got the right end of the stick with the plot, it didn't really serve any purpose. Um, there's also one in La Haine when the three central characters move from the Parisian 'burbs to the centre, as Mattieu Kassovitz only uses wideangle photograpy in the suburbs (French suburbs are more like ghettos, not like nice English suburbs) to emphasise the bigness of the buildings against humans, and because wideangle allows you to get closer and move about with the camera - ie the guys are in their element in the suburbs. Then there's the reverse zoom, which leaves the camera in telephoto mode and then most stuff has to be shot with a static camera from distance, showing their out-of-placeness in central Paris. And because you see less of the background, the image also looks a lot flatter, again making it seem less lively. It's a neat trick because he also uses stereo sound in the suburbs and mono sound in Paris, so again you get the involved atmosphere turning into a claustrophobic dullness. And the reverse zoom is like the pivot about which all this takes place.
I just thought I'd justify my infatuation with the reverse zoom. You can do okay-ish ones on a handheld if you give it a few goes.
> You've really got a hard-on for these reverse zooms, haven't you? You
> said this was Bill Paxton's debut film, do you mean as director? Heh,
> the guy who wet himself in True Lies finally comes good.
Reverse zooms are about the rockest thing you can do with a camera. You zoom in and pull back at the same rate, so what happens is the frame size stays the same put the background gets pulled in. And it looks really cool.
There's one in Goodfellas where Rob de Niro and Ray Liotta are talking in the café, and you suspect that one of them's going to try and kill the other (after Ray grasses on Rob) and while they're talking there's a really slow reverse zoom, which makes you aware of what's going on in the background much more, making you feel the paranoia. It was first done in Hitchcock's Vertigo, at a cost of $40,000 for about 10 seconds of film, but it's probably the best one in existence, because it's done inside this spirally-staircased clocktower, and it looks really cool. There it's meant to reflect Jimmy Stewart's vertigo illness. There's one in Jaws, where Roy Schneider is looking at the water, right near the start after he knows there's a shark, and he thinks he sees one, cue reverse zoom. Paxton's one is similar to that one, but if I got the right end of the stick with the plot, it didn't really serve any purpose. Um, there's also one in La Haine when the three central characters move from the Parisian 'burbs to the centre, as Mattieu Kassovitz only uses wideangle photograpy in the suburbs (French suburbs are more like ghettos, not like nice English suburbs) to emphasise the bigness of the buildings against humans, and because wideangle allows you to get closer and move about with the camera - ie the guys are in their element in the suburbs. Then there's the reverse zoom, which leaves the camera in telephoto mode and then most stuff has to be shot with a static camera from distance, showing their out-of-placeness in central Paris. And because you see less of the background, the image also looks a lot flatter, again making it seem less lively. It's a neat trick because he also uses stereo sound in the suburbs and mono sound in Paris, so again you get the involved atmosphere turning into a claustrophobic dullness. And the reverse zoom is like the pivot about which all this takes place.
I just thought I'd justify my infatuation with the reverse zoom. You can do okay-ish ones on a handheld if you give it a few goes.
You've really got a hard-on for these reverse zooms, haven't you? You said this was Bill Paxton's debut film, do you mean as director? Heh, the guy who wet himself in True Lies finally comes good.
But the Bourne Identity has a Mini :)
I went to see this film based on a review in, of all places, the Daily Mail, which awarded it a staggering 5 out 5 and compared it to Charles Laughton's masterpiece "Night of the Hunter". I certainly wasn't disappointed with the film, but I did learn that the Daily Mail reviewer is a name-dropping fool who probably didn't even watch the film.
Let me set the scene for you. A man, Fenton Meeks, walks into a police station demanding to talk to the officer in charge of the "God's Hand" murder case. He tells said officer that he know who the killer is, and then proceeds to recount his tale, which, via a flashback, becomes the film. We travel back to 1979 where we meet a young Fenton, his brother Adam, and his father. In the middle of the night, the father has a heavenly vision in which an angel tells him he must kill demons that have come to Earth in preparation for the apocalypse. These demons look like ordinary people but must be killed nonetheless, though he must not fear because God will protect him from being caught, as he is not murdering, but slaying demons. As any doting father would, this one goes and tells his sons and within weeks they are topping their first demon together, as a family, but Fenton has reservations, hence his appearance at the police station all these years later to tell the story. And that's all I'll tell you for now because spoilers are bad.
I imagine that some of you are all ready thinking "Usual Suspects", and you'd be right, because this employs the exact same plot structure as Bryan Singer's classic, including the final act great big twist. However, "Night of the Hunter" it is not. The reason the Daily Mail guy made the link was because this is actor Bill Paxton's debut film, just as "Night of the Hunter" was Charles Laughton's. Equally both contain a strong emphasis on religion. What mr.reviewer seems to have missed is that "Night of the Hunter" was an impressionist film, and that the only links to "Frailty" are purely superficial. Deep down "Frailty" bears a much closer resemblance to the films of M. Night Shyamalan, that's Mr. "Sixth Sense" or "Unbreakable" or "Signs".
I say "deep down", but the problem I always find with Shyamalan's films is that despite being clever, they don't go deep down, and thus the twist requires you to suspend disbelief, which is exactly what happens in this film. On the other hand, "the Usual Suspects" managed to provide a perfectly neat twist that was both unexpected (to an extent) and plausible. Paxton requires you to buy into his twist, which is always a dangerous thing as it will leave some people disappointed with the film's ending, and so inevitably the whole film too.
That said, "Frailty" is not a bad film. Paxton shows some considerable flair, probably picked up during his performance in Sam Raimi flick "A Simple Plan", because aside from "Apollo 13" and "Aliens", he's not had much action apart from a few bit parts and indie films. The film is very well paced and the transitions between past and present are expertly carried out. In fact the film even includes a reverse zoom towards the end, though unlike similar effects in "Vertigo" or "Goodfellas" there doesn't appear to be any purpose to its use - it's more of a wooo look at me effect.
If you liked the "Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable" then you definitely won't be disappointed with this. It's a clever, well-plotted, well-directed thriller. On the other hand, if you found the twists in those films a little hard to stomach, you'll probably leave this film disappointed. Also don't go expecting to see a film similar to "the Usual Suspects", (or as I did, "Night of the Hunter") because "Frailty" is low on snappy dialogue and gun fights. Instead you get a slightly more gory Sixth Sense type film.
As for me, I'm not going to give it a mark because I am in a negative frame of mind having been short-changed 10 pounds by the Showcase cinemas till monkey.
Let me set the scene for you. A man, Fenton Meeks, walks into a police station demanding to talk to the officer in charge of the "God's Hand" murder case. He tells said officer that he know who the killer is, and then proceeds to recount his tale, which, via a flashback, becomes the film. We travel back to 1979 where we meet a young Fenton, his brother Adam, and his father. In the middle of the night, the father has a heavenly vision in which an angel tells him he must kill demons that have come to Earth in preparation for the apocalypse. These demons look like ordinary people but must be killed nonetheless, though he must not fear because God will protect him from being caught, as he is not murdering, but slaying demons. As any doting father would, this one goes and tells his sons and within weeks they are topping their first demon together, as a family, but Fenton has reservations, hence his appearance at the police station all these years later to tell the story. And that's all I'll tell you for now because spoilers are bad.
I imagine that some of you are all ready thinking "Usual Suspects", and you'd be right, because this employs the exact same plot structure as Bryan Singer's classic, including the final act great big twist. However, "Night of the Hunter" it is not. The reason the Daily Mail guy made the link was because this is actor Bill Paxton's debut film, just as "Night of the Hunter" was Charles Laughton's. Equally both contain a strong emphasis on religion. What mr.reviewer seems to have missed is that "Night of the Hunter" was an impressionist film, and that the only links to "Frailty" are purely superficial. Deep down "Frailty" bears a much closer resemblance to the films of M. Night Shyamalan, that's Mr. "Sixth Sense" or "Unbreakable" or "Signs".
I say "deep down", but the problem I always find with Shyamalan's films is that despite being clever, they don't go deep down, and thus the twist requires you to suspend disbelief, which is exactly what happens in this film. On the other hand, "the Usual Suspects" managed to provide a perfectly neat twist that was both unexpected (to an extent) and plausible. Paxton requires you to buy into his twist, which is always a dangerous thing as it will leave some people disappointed with the film's ending, and so inevitably the whole film too.
That said, "Frailty" is not a bad film. Paxton shows some considerable flair, probably picked up during his performance in Sam Raimi flick "A Simple Plan", because aside from "Apollo 13" and "Aliens", he's not had much action apart from a few bit parts and indie films. The film is very well paced and the transitions between past and present are expertly carried out. In fact the film even includes a reverse zoom towards the end, though unlike similar effects in "Vertigo" or "Goodfellas" there doesn't appear to be any purpose to its use - it's more of a wooo look at me effect.
If you liked the "Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable" then you definitely won't be disappointed with this. It's a clever, well-plotted, well-directed thriller. On the other hand, if you found the twists in those films a little hard to stomach, you'll probably leave this film disappointed. Also don't go expecting to see a film similar to "the Usual Suspects", (or as I did, "Night of the Hunter") because "Frailty" is low on snappy dialogue and gun fights. Instead you get a slightly more gory Sixth Sense type film.
As for me, I'm not going to give it a mark because I am in a negative frame of mind having been short-changed 10 pounds by the Showcase cinemas till monkey.