When a man arrives at an FBI office late one night, he begins telling stories about his father (Bill Paxton) and his recollection of what took place in his troubled past. He finally, after years of keeping the truth bottled up, is admitting that his father was a notorious serial kill in the late 1970’s--the God’s Hand Killer. He begins to tell tales of a religious fanatic that was compelled by God and one of his angels to remove demons from the earth. As the tales continue, truth and lies become intertwined and the reality of what happened becomes more difficult than ever to decipher. Can FBI Agent Wesley Doyle (Powers Boothe) uncover the truth about the mysterious past of the God’s Hand Killer, or will he become wrapped up in these twisted tales?
Bill Paxton is a well-known actor that is full of talent and has the ability to ambody nearly any character. His ability to play a psychotic serial killer is unlike many of the roles that he is known for, and, yet, he perfectly portrayed the incredibly unique character. Jeremy Sumpter (young Adam Meiks) and Matt O’Leary (young Fenton Meiks) were unknown at the time of Frailty’s release in 2001. Between the two young actors, they possessed a resume of only two films; yet, they delivered great performances that compared to Paxton’s. The three created a triangle of talent that was able to reach out, grab their audience and keep them engaged throughout the story that often felt too linear.
The first eighty minutes of the film depicted a story of murder that travelled, uninterrupted, from point A to point B. The story was interesting and compelling, yet, the fact that the story was uncovered so directly and without implications of a twist, it made parts of the story difficult to remain focused on. There was a constant feeling that the audience had been given too much information and that everything would play out exactly the way it was expected. Writer Brent Hanley and director Bill Paxton were able to depict a story that appeared straightforward, allowing for a better appreciation of what came at the end. While this is a testament to their storytelling abilities, leaving audiences in the dark as long as they did had the potential to backfire tremendously. I felt myself becoming too complacent and starting to believe that the story would end just as I imagined, leaving little for me to look forward to. For nearly eighty minutes I questioned the legitimacy of the stories being told, but could not shake this feeling that I was ultimately going to be let down in the end.
The final moments of the film hit hard! Finally, something came of the stories being told, and it, in some ways, made the journey worth it. Very few expected the events that took place at the film’s conclusion, and Paxton and Hanley did just enough to pull the audience back in and appreciate the film as a whole. Things were wrapped up quickly, leaving audiences little time to contemplate what had taken place, but forced them to revisit the dark visions in their heads once the film concluded. The ability of the crew to force a post-viewing conversation proves that their methods panned out as they had hoped. Those final seconds sparked rage and confusion, disbelief and understanding, allowing for mixed reviews from audiences (many of which might not believe that the ending was adequate).
Frailty’s lack of suspense stemming from a too-straightforward story suffocated audiences (and the film) for more than an hour. Again, the end of the film provided a sense of levity and allowed audiences to better appreciate what had taken place throughout the rest of the film. Hanley and Paxton took an incredible risk playing the film out in the fashion that they did, however, their astute ability to fool the audience seemingly paid off in the end.
コメント