Frailty

Written by Matt Moore
Published June 16, 2003

I can't believe that I watched a Matthew McConaughey movie on purpose. I really can't believe that Matthew McConaughey was in a serial killer movie (ok, I'd believe it if you told me he'd been in one early in his career. I'm pretty sure he was in a Texas Chainsaw Massacre sequel at some point). But above that, I'm shocked, shocked that it was a good movie.

It wasn't only a good movie, it was a great one. I'm really surprised that this movie didn't do gangbusters at the box-office. I didn't hear anything about it until months after it was out on video, and wasn't convinced to rent it by a comment on this here blog until recently. Why did this movie do so poorly when, say, The Silence of the Lambs did so well?

Ok, there are some minor theme spoilers after this point. I'm not going to give away any plot, but you might watch it differently if you read on.

One explanation: Silence had a couple of really memorable characters, Clarice and (of course) Hannibal Lecter. The other explanation is more simple and maybe more troubling: this movie had God in it. God with a capital G. Strange how that drives so many people away from a movie theater in a country as religious as ours.

Or perhaps it isn't strange. We go to movies, in part, to escape from our normal lives. Maybe I love Hollywood stories that involve religion in part because I'm an atheist and I don't get those stories anywhere else. I suppose it makes sense; if I went to church every Sunday, would I really want to hear more about God on Friday night? Or maybe it's just because this movie had a rather (errr, very) dark view of God. He's revealed to be a rather vengeful, bloodthirsty dude.

Back to the point: actors are always saying, "It was a good project because the director was so character driven." Is that really a good thing? It seems to me that movies that are driven by the characters leave us entertained and amused, but not fufilled. Take Seinfeld, for instance. I can't think of another show that's more dedicated to the characters. That's all there really are, a few really great personalities thrown in awkward situations. Sure, it's fun to watch, but does it really make us think? After all, the theme of the show, as spoken by Larry David, was, "No hugging, no learning."

I'll take a story driven movie any day of the week. Silence of the Lambs is still a great movie, in my book, because it had a story to back up those characters, but Frailty deserved much more than it got.

P.S. - If you are planning to make an apocalyptic movie involving Christianity, could you please learn that the Book of Revelation is singular, no plural? It's right there in the Good Book, bucko. By Jebus, if I ever hear a screenwriter say, "...and we were all flipping to the back of the Bible to read Revalationssss...", again, I'll take the making-of-DVD to a Catholic church and dip it in holy water before returning it. Are we clear?

P.P.S. - Can you believe that McConaughey made that horrible movie after he'd been in Dazed and Confused?

Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
Frailty
Published: June 16, 2003
Type:
Section: Video
Filed Under: Video: Horror, Video: Suspense and Mystery
Writer: Matt Moore
Matt Moore's BC Writer page
Matt Moore's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Matt Moore
Video: Horror
Video: Suspense and Mystery
All Video Articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — June 16, 2003 @ 15:56PM — Doctor Slack

(SPOILERY)

I can offer one possible reason why Frailty hasn't garnered much recognition -- the entire story is based on a surprise plot twist which is visible half a mile off, especially if you've ever read any Stephen King. From well before Bill Paxton's character was killed, I was muttering to myself "a-ha, it's all gonna turn out to be real." I was disappointed to be proved right.

It wasn't a bad movie, but I wouldn't go out of my way to see it again.

#2 — June 16, 2003 @ 16:01PM — Matt Moore [URL]

(MORE SPOILS)

Yea, I kinda agree with you, it was obvious. But I thought that wasn't really a twist ending, it was just something that was there the whole time (and to tell the truth, I found it kinda remarkable for a movie to just allow a religious explanation to be true. A supernatural explanation I'll buy from Hollywood...). I thought the twist ending was when he admitted he was really his brother, and I for one didn't see that coming.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/6217)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments