MovieChat Forums > Frailty (2002) Discussion > Was anyone else offended by this movie?

Was anyone else offended by this movie?

posted 20 years ago by mommaslittlemonkeyman
372 replies | jump to latest

I'll start off by saying that I thought this was a well shot, well acted film. I thought that it started off well. The backstory was suspensful and made you think "What if?".

The message that I got from the ending was that there really are demons and angels and that Adam and his father could see them. This is evident by the fact that as soon as Adam touched the agent, the agent could not defend himself and had succumbed to the "power of god", the fact that no one could see the faces on the tape, and could not recall Adam's face. Regardless of the fact of whether he and his father had made up the other backgrounds of the "demons", Adam was made to seem correct.

Is the director telling us that there are in fact, demons and angels? If so, this is not only unfulfilling and sanctimonious, but it is a real cheat for the script.

Please someone write whether I just got the wrong take on this movie and maybe I am incorrect, or if this what one was supposed to take this movie as...

[–] SlizzardWasHere 18 years ago

*SIGH*

Somehow, just somehow.. I doubt that the creators of this movie are Christians.. and even if they are.. I highly doubt they condone murder.

God... people can ask the stupidest questions..

It's understood that Hollywood sells Californication...

You dislike salad.

[–] SlizzardWasHere 18 years ago

Anyway, as I'm sure has already been stated (I'm too lazy to read the entire thread), the film is FICTIONAL. Whatever is true in the movie is not necissarily true in real life, nor do the creators believe it to be so.

It's understood that Hollywood sells Californication...

You dislike salad.

[–] Adam1974 18 years ago

Well I think this movie was obviously designed by the devil and is being used as a modern day weapon against the word of God.

This is easily resolved. Let's drown the director, if he sinks to the bottom then he's innocent and if he floats then he's a witch and then we'll burn him at the stake.

Sound cool?

[–] gosundancekid 18 years ago

Adam1974,

why the director only?

Andrea

[–] bustersword45 18 years ago

All of you people argue over nothing. Nothing at all, different people have different beliefs, everybody clashes, clash over something more important than a movie. Damn yes I'm a Christian, and you all are a bunch of whining insecure pussies.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MovieFreak74 18 years ago

I don't get why folks get offended by the premise of this movie but then LOVE movies about aliens, witches, wizards, and superheroes. those are all fictional beings and we think that they are OK to make movies about. So the director says there are angels and demons? It's OK to make HellRaiser but not a movie about killing people who are Pinhead in disguise?

I think this movie touched a nerve in people and they need to figure out why???

Witch-King: "You fool! No man can kill me. Die now!"
Éowyn: "I am no man!"

[–] Jooba 18 years ago

I guess the Da Vinci Code didn't come off well with you either, did it?

[–] vicky_lc2001-1 16 years ago

That book was different though, it was trying to pass itself as pseudofact when it wasn't. But then again, we have Crichton & his Eaters of the Dead, he was trying to pass it off originally based from a historical document when it was just pure fiction.

Whenever I get the urge to exercise, I lie down until it passes.

[–] logan_wolves 17 years ago

I don't see it as them being "actual demons," but rather people who had committed some heinous crimes. Their job was to bring God's punishment upon those. How could this offend anyone?

[–] ReasonlsOutToLunch 17 years ago

If someone killed child murderers in real life and they happened to get away with dozens, but unlike in the movie, they were caught, would it be easy to convict? I for one would have a hard time convicting someone of say killing Jessica Lundsfords killer or the killer of any other child. If a serial killer could actually prove they only killed people that raped and murdered children, I would not only be tempted to give them a medal, I would be tempted to give them free reign so long as they could prove to me they killed those monsters.

[–] dac278 17 years ago

I agree.

This, and Angels in the Outfield, are the 2 most offensive films known to man.

But seriously, it's just a movie dude. The twist ending made the movie.

[–] TheTollTroll 17 years ago

Angels in the Outfield!?!
OMG! Do NOT get me started with Angels in the Outfield!! ...please!

lol

I enjoyed the 'Hell' outta this movie. Only offended that if you know the paradigm shift at the end, it's only good for 2 or 3 viewings.

[–] justinhwatts 17 years ago

I don't think anyone as dumb as the topic creater could of lasted another 2 years alive, not w/ darwinism totally against him. So I say rest in peace topic creater.
R.I.P. @}~~~~

[–] SlayerCommaThe 17 years ago

Wow! This thread's STILL around??

I've seen some things man, and some stuff.

[–] OrionCA 17 years ago

I was expecting the kid narrating to turn out to be the serial killer and also murder the detective but didn't expect the ending. It was a nice twist.

If anything "offended" me throughout this movie it was the depiction of the father as a standard Hollywood caricature: a crazed, dumb-as-dirt, Red State fundamentalist loonie who probably voted for George Bush. At the end it was weird to twist my thinking around to, "OmyGod - he was RIGHT ALL ALONG???"

[–] joeysampson 17 years ago

Post was made over 2 years ago, also an admin or something should put something in the title warning about spoilers.

[–] BlackJoker 17 years ago

I think what offended so many people, and maybe unnerved them, was the ending because for some it led them to question themselves. What I mean is this, we have a person who is committing what seem to be murders, murders that are motivated by some odd code of justice or a voice within his mind. The movie seems to lean heavily on the idea that their father in insane, unstable, a serial killer. What we learn, however, is that his father actually IS working the will of God. For some people this doesn't fit with their view of God, for others they might actually be angry at themselves for not being able to see such a thing or believe it.

My own view is this, I came in about the middle of the movie when I saw it and I admit that I thought the father might have been crazy. But I also wonder now how much of that is from my own prejudice and my own background, and maybe a little part of me considered comparisons to the story of Moses or of Jesus and those who called them insane though they were doing, in truth, the work of God.

If we want to talk offensive...to be quite frank I find the idea of a show like Dexter with the ideal of a virtuous or heroic murderer far more offensive than this, but that's just me.

There are few things more confusing than hearing someone say, "I forgot the midget."

[–] konichiwabiabia 17 years ago

If someone kills someone today because he said God told him to, we asy he is crazy. But in the Bible, God directs several murders. How come he could do that 3000 years ago but not today?

[–] BlackJoker 17 years ago

I think a lot of it has to do with context. Often we hear now that if God is speaking to you then you need to be medicated. The problem is also that the idea seems an anathema, God telling someone to murder someone and dispose of the corpse, it seems more like a form of psychosis than some sort of divine guidance. To be honest I'm not sure how I should feel about it.

There are few things more confusing than hearing someone say, "I forgot the midget."

[–] Tiresias_Reincarnate 17 years ago

The reason people are offended is because of their perceptions about God, myself included. Modern Christian theology puts a great emphasis on repentance through the atonement of Jesus Christ. Not dismembering people who have sinned and claiming that they are demons. I was personally offended by how the movie portrayed god. That being said, feel free to enjoy the movie as you please.

[–] konichiwabiabia 17 years ago

[–] ElaineEstelle-1 17 years ago

Perhaps you meant to say "Did this insult anyone else's intelegence? Either way the answer is no. I agree with everything mommaslittlemomkey said. I do wish that it had ended a little differently. I would have liked it better if they left it up to the individual to decide if it was truely people that could see demons or that of a parnoid schizophrenic father thats delusions had an affect on his youngest son.
Off the main thread, the name "mommaslittlemonkeyman" does sound offensive, but then again it could be my age.

[–] blue-3 17 years ago

ElaineEstelle-1 on Wed Oct 31 2007 21:52:48 writes:

I would have liked it better if they left it up to the individual to decide if it was truely people that could see demons or that of a parnoid schizophrenic father thats delusions had an affect on his youngest son.

The movie ends with Adam's version of what "really happened". Fenton's version could be rather different. You have a lot of options there to whet the decision making aparatus. Maybe Fenton never said anything along the lines of asking Adam to bury him in the rose garden if he destroyed him. All manner of allegories could be made from the various possibilities.