MovieChat Forums > Frailty (2002) Discussion > My Problem with the Ending

My Problem with the Ending

posted 12 years ago by mulotmick-1
115 replies | jump to latest

Just my thoughts on the film, and particularly the "twist" at the end.

I thought that until the ending, this was an absolutely terrifying, yet very intelligent horror movie. The theme of religious delusion taken to an extreme - and passed on to young children (aka Adam) who can't know any better - is chilling. The fact the Bill Paxton's character thinks he is doing Good, and forces his children to be complicit, while being objectively insane, is what makes this so disturbing.

Now towards the end of the film come two surprises (from my understanding on 1st viewing):

1) the grown brother telling the story is actually Adam, who has continued his father's legacy of killing demons, and is using this as a means to capture the FBI guy, his next victim.

2) And here i where I have a problem - we are SHOWN (for the first time) the vision of the "demon's" evil doings, which are then CONFIRMED by the FBI guy. In other words, we are pretty much being told that the Demons are real, and that father and son are following God's Will.
There is little ambiguity here - we even get flashbacks to the father's "visions" - now apparently only not shown before to preserve the "twist"...

Basically, I found this left turn to be very ineffective in that it goes against the feel of the whole rest of the film. Frailty has been showing us religious fanaticism, and remained grounded in reality - even Paxton's vision of the angel is filmed in a way that strongly suggests it is taking place in his mind. But at the end, the story's narrative swerves into the supernatural, telling us: "TWIST, The Father WAS killing demons all along...". By this logic, not only is this (to an extent) justifying the killings we have witnessed, it is also just a plain ridiculous direction for the film to take: both to me, as a non-believer, from an external perspective, but also by the film's own inner logic, contradicting established tones and themes. In other words, the film shoots itself in the foot a little.

Final thoughts: I'd almost like to think that despite these points at the end, there is still enough ambiguity to think that there was objectively no Hand of God or Demons...however the film just seems to tell us otherwise. Lastly, even with this twist, the ending (Adam just a regular all-American guy just like his dad...) is still disturbing - as if the filmmakers wanted to leave us with the tone they have established for most of the film, if only they hadn't somewhat sabotaged it towards the end...

Thoughts? Please let me know if you think I'm reading something wrong, or disagree, anything! :)

[–] squeemu 12 years ago

I saw this movie in theaters when it came out, and to this day I still think back to it as a great disappointment. This movie does a great job of building tension and horror, and then at the end we're shown there's a twist! They really are killing demons!

Talk about a major let down.

[–] packro 11 years ago

Butthurt much? Quit being a tool.

[–] mhrist 11 years ago

im a christian and am pretty spiritual too. didn't like the ending, and not because it conflicted with my view of god or whatnot. i can actually separate a movie from my beliefs. i mean that god was too pedestrian in that movie... get a bunch of redneck children to kill pedophiles? wtf?

as a side note, prolly fenton really did have a vision to kill his father since he killed the cop thereby making him a demon.

[–] squeemu 10 years ago

Wow, sorry my opinion bothered you so much. I'm sure your taste in cinema is MUCH more refined than mine. What with your use of 7th grade insults and everything...

[–] r_freeman 9 years ago

Haha, there should just be a like/dislike button on the comments. Like.

[–] Fenris_89 12 years ago

Thank you, OP, I agree with you completely. Big letdown at the end, no doubt.

[–] BShepherd24 12 years ago

Someone who can write what you did ORiginal Poster shows you are an intelligent person so it surprises me that you were fooled into thinking he was just killing people for the sake of killing. The first time we saw Paxton put his hand on the lady and he had some kind of seizure or whatever you call it, right then I knew these people really had done evil things. So with that said, the only twist to me was finding out that Adam was telling the story and not Finn.

[–] bravistickle 12 years ago

Although I'm also a non-believer, as far as the movie is concerned, I felt it was God acting through them. Unlike the rest of you, I actually liked the ending. Particularly for the reasons you said you didn't like it, OP. It left me not knowing exactly how to feel about Adam. Whether to like him, hate him, or fall somewhere in the middle.

[–] Defenseman13 12 years ago

I liked it as well, and I'm also a godless heathen.

It wasn't a "twist" so much as it was a horrorish movie with the supernatural thrown in. It was done well enough so that in repeated viewings, many overlooked details come to light.

If it was simply a murder mystery or a sort of "passed on" mental defect, I wouldn't find it nearly as interesting.

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm2339870/

[–] jennifertrathan 9 years ago

I'm an atheist and I liked the ending too. I watched this film again last night after last watching it about 10 years ago and still thoroughly enjoyed it even though I knew what was coming.

[–] brucedgo 12 years ago

killing people for the sake of killing

The OP didn't say or imply that. The movie presented the Paxton character as a wacko, not a killer.

... and the rocks it pummels.
- James Berardinelli

[–] dolores_medina 10 years ago

The OP didn't say or imply that. The movie presented the Paxton character as a wacko, not a killer.

The movie did not present him as a wacko, it presented him as a sincere believer in his spiritual experience.

Just because we might not believe that his experience was real, doesn't negate his sincere belief that it is real. That does not make him a wacko.

That makes him a sincere believer in what he experienced. Now there are 2 possibilities.

1. what he experienced actually happened as he experienced it.
2. It was all in his head.

By the last scene it is clear which of the above was the actual situation.

That means that he wasn't a wacko. But even if you do not Know the " reality" of the situation.... all you see him do, are the actions of a person that believes he is doing the will of God.

Me. Personally I think he was doing the will of God. The Lord works in mysterious ways an all ...

[–] Injinn 9 years ago

We were seeing the film through Fenton's eyes -- therefore, we saw Bill Paxton as insane. Nothing happened when he touched those people. We didn't see it because Fenton didn't see it.

The twist at the end was actually brilliant, because it showed that most people only took into account Fenton's pov without even entertaining the idea that it could be true. Then Adam's pov kicks in and reveals that you should not think of any situation 2-dimensionally.

[–] king_of_bob 10 years ago

No, the movie did not. The story "Fenton" was telling presented that idea. But you need to consider that the story is telling is from the perspective of someone who didn't believe and never saw what Adam and their father did.

This is a classic case of "unreliable narrator." Look it up.

The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/

[–] brucedgo 10 years ago

This is a classic case of "unreliable narrator." Look it up.

Seemed pretty reliable to me.

... and the rocks it pummels. - James Berardinelli

[–] king_of_bob 10 years ago

Yeah, don't look up the term that you clearly don't understand. The fact that Adam pretends to be Fenton while he's telling the story is only one of many lies the narrator tells us throughout the film.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnreliableNarrator

The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/

[–] brucedgo 10 years ago

The fact that Adam pretends to be Fenton while he's telling the story is only one of many lies the narrator tells us throughout the film.

You don't find out about that until the end. Perhaps you could point out something we're supposed to notice?
Basically, I agree completely with the OP.

... and the rocks it pummels. - James Berardinelli

[–] king_of_bob 10 years ago

You don't find out about that until the end. Perhaps you could point out something we're supposed to notice?
Basically, I agree completely with the OP.

Or maybe you should just look up what unreliable narrator means. Which shouldn't be hard, since I posted a link to its definition above. There's really no point in continuing this conversation if you aren't going to even educate yourself as to what the term means.

The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/

[–] brucedgo 10 years ago

I'm bringing up salient points. If you want to claim "unreliable narrator" then you should provide examples.

Actually, I don't care if it was unreliable. The ending sucked.

... and the rocks it pummels. - James Berardinelli

[–] king_of_bob 10 years ago

You've brought up exactly 0 points, because you don't know what an unreliable narrator is. Besides which, I already gave you an example. That Adam is telling the story while he pretends to be another character. Nothing he says while telling the story is from his own perspective, but rather what he believed his brother experienced.

Now, if you want to further take part in this discussion, go look up what an unreliable narrator is. As it is, this conversation is pointless because you refuse to acknowledge the terms being used.

The ending sucked.

That's your opinion, not universal truth. You didn't like the ending, but that doesn't make it bad.

The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/

[–] brucedgo 10 years ago

Does proving that we have an unreliable narrator make it good?

You're right. It's my opinion that it sucks. Apparently it's your opinion that's it's good, though you haven't ever actually said you liked it.

... and the rocks it pummels. - James Berardinelli

[–] king_of_bob 10 years ago

Does proving that we have an unreliable narrator make it good?

It doesn't make it good or bad. Adam simply IS an unreliable narrator, as he's lying throughout the entire telling of his story.

You're right. It's my opinion that it sucks. Apparently it's your opinion that's it's good, though you haven't ever actually said you liked it.

I do like it. But that's neither here nor there. Since our discussion wasn't about whether we liked it or not, but whether Adam was an unreliable narrator or not. This was never about whether either of us liked it, it was about the difference between the movie presenting an idea and an unreliable narrator presenting an idea. They are not the same thing.

If something other than the narrators story implied they were just crazy that would be one thing, but when the narration stops and we start following the objective story, we see that they weren't crazy. The FACTS trump the STORY told by an unreliable narrator, always.

I was explaining to you that the movie in no way implied that they were crazy the whole time. The person who implied that was the unreliable narrator. But in the flashbacks the movie does not present Adam or the father as crazy. All we're really missing is the flashes when father touches the demons. Which are left out because Fenton didn't see them.

The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/

[–] brucedgo 10 years ago

Back to my original claim...

The movie presented the Paxton character as a wacko, not a killer.

You can talk unreliable from now till doomsday. The audience was intended to believe he was a wacko. And we did. The attempt to make the twist pretty much failed for most people.

And by the way, you keep thinking I don't know what an unreliable narrator is. You're so proud of thinking you know all about it. Although it's not surprising you'd think so. I made my statements so that you wouldn't know.

... and the rocks it pummels. - James Berardinelli

[–] Chief22 10 years ago

And by the way, you keep thinking I don't know what an unreliable narrator is. You're so proud of thinking you know all about it. Although it's not surprising you'd think so. I made my statements so that you wouldn't know.

I’m sorry, this is hilarious. You purposely sounded ignorant just to trick the other poster. Riiiight.

Next time you find yourself in this situation, just admit you initially misunderstood what the phrase meant and move on. All this misdirection just to avoid admitting that fact... it’s silly. It’s okay to be wrong sometimes.

[–] brucedgo 10 years ago

Actually, I wasn't trying to sound ignorant, just kind of neutral. But you're welcome to think whatever you want.

... and the rocks it pummels. - James Berardinelli

[–] jrollinsbass 9 years ago

This is definitely NOT an unreliable narrator. it appears that way until the very end when Adam touches the FBI agent rendering him impaired and showing him his own memories of killing his mother. "how did you.... you didn't think anyone knew about that" exchange kills your theory. if the ending was just of Adam killing the FBI agent leaving the ending open without showing they both had the vision I would agree.

[–] Gus-69 11 years ago

Having a hissy fit when touching someone is hardly evidence of seeing a vision or being telepathic. I'm afraid you are a very gullible moviegoer.

----------------------
http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sara-34 10 years ago

Having a seizure when touching someone does not in any way imply they have actually done evil things. In fact, there's a phenomenon in Africa right now where it is believed that people are supernaturally stealing other people's penises. People have been attacked and killed on suspicion of stealing penises. The evidence? When they touched someone, the person being touched felt their manhood tighten up like when they get cold. The fact that the person's penis is plainly still there has not prevented these lynchings and killings to avenge the penis.

In the real world, religious hysteria really does lead to killing innocent people. I felt like the twist at the end cheapened the whole film.

[–] oburns01 12 years ago

I agree to some extent, except these people weren't actually demons, they were people that did bad things. So in that sense they were still committing murder by killing them.

I like to think of this as "Dexter" with a small supernatural twist.

[–] simon_jak 12 years ago

Totally agree with the OP.

We do not get the benefit of the doubt. We're not left to wonder. This movie goes full retard at the end.

Still a mighty fine movie up until the end though.

[–] sami-riitaoja 11 years ago

That ending is great, it flips out movie's genre to thriller to horror very smartly. What to think about ending is also telling damn lot about you. There's some hidden hints of christianity in the movie, like tv-show playing etc to help thinking.

There's something really wrong in your religiousness if it says that almighty god needs you to do his dirty work. As told in that movie, god don't need any favors from you. But if you believe in god you should also believe in Evil too which surely might want to confuse you to make bad things like torturing and slaughtering people. So you are weak in your faith and evil could confuse you to be damned as will happen is you torture and slaughter people whether they have done evil things or not. For sure that was not God's will to slaughter demons, all what this is about is Evil and Evil only as movies' name also indicates.

[–] Dejay 10 years ago

Yeah very nice OP and this post too. With the twist I immediately tried to explain it away that Adam is still just psychotic and the movie just shows what he thinks he sees and even the flashback are just schizophrenic episodes.

But then the movie further contradicts it's logic that the people WHERE people and not demons. They where just humans who did bad things, sinners, not demons.

[–] king_of_bob 10 years ago

If that's the case, explain some things.

How did Bill know these people were guilty of these crimes? Where did he even get the names? How is it possible that an FBI agent who looked directly at Adams face several times cannot remember what he looks like? Why is Adam's face blurred out on the monitors?

They weren't just "bad people" that the father happened to guess were bad people.

The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/

[–] magicbullet1965 12 years ago

well written

the whole thing was ambiguous because it fell under the category of unreliable narrator...much like The Usual Suspects

my own feeling of disappointment was when Fenton was revealed to be Adam I thought it was stupid that he would let himself be handcuffed AND the cop killing his mother...wtf?

IMHO a better angle to have taken would have been to have the same story right up to that point but as Adam reveals himself, Fenton appears and clubs the cop down - this would provide some sort of logic - Adam luring the cop to the rose garden so that Fenton can kill him. Also it would put doubts into the believability of the story balancing the ending which mainly shows/implies they ARE killing "demons"

just my thoughts

[–] novimovieman 11 years ago

I had that Usual Suspects vibe as well.
I believe your Fenton angle contains a flaw since we are told that Fenton is a demon. This would have been a murder. Could Adam allow a 'murder' as opposed to 'killing a demon'? That would invalidate everything Adam stood for, unless Adam was truly insane then where does the plot stand. They are all just nutcases and the horror aspect of the ending is gone.

"The unexamined life is not worth living for man." Socrates/Plato

[–] merqabah 11 years ago

ima hardcore atheist, that said while i agree that the movie would have relished in horror at godless killings, the twist acomplished 2 things in my opinion, first it made morals murky, if you thought he was a crazy killer bill paxton murder was justified, however, with the god twist the sheriff's murder, bill paxton's and fentons death come to a whole new level.

secondly it made the movie somewhat more memorable, i always remember this film when i think of underrated horror films

[–] sworup_shakya 12 years ago

Warning: Super *SPOILER*
I think the movie tries to bank and hide on a coincidence. Adam shaking hands with the officer reveals the justification that ends the movie, but what if Adam is a wacko, as shown until the very end, but he is a clever wacko. He is a police officer and as hinted in the movie a very good one. He has been doing this since he was a kid. He could with his cunning and wit devise a way to hide his crime, then justify the killing as righteous by forgetting that he uncovered the truth, and just think that he got the name on the list.
I think Adam is either a psychic or a clever detective who can uncover the truth. But when he does, he doesn't go by law, he goes by being the God's hand.
I think they both, father and son, are psychopaths. But the people they kill are acually bad guys, but not listed by some angle but listed by themselves after carefully uncovering their crimes.

[–] beisserchen 12 years ago

When reading this, I just had to think of Adam's career: he's turning into "Killer Joe" - sorry. just had to let this one out.

I agree with the OP's opinion. However, I must say that this movie is quite intriguing. Because watching it, is one thing, but it also leaves you guessing and discussing and it keeps a tight grip. I watched this movie ten years ago always meaning to rewatch it. After the first time, I thought: oh well, not too special, but then I started thinking about it and talking about it with other people. And it never let me go. So, finally, I watched it last night again and I must say that it is a bit ambiguous: on the one hand it seems the father and his vision and his subsequent killings are just a psychopath's doing and you feel sorry for the kids being drawn into it. I also admired Fenton's strength to stand up to his father and tell him that he's wrong. I am not sure about what to think of the ending, because all the time one thinks "oh religious psychopath, how stupid some people are", but then in the end, they were right ? Or what ?

[–] king_of_bob 10 years ago

If they're just crazy that opens a lot of plot holes. As I brought up above, how does an FBI agent just forget a guys face who he looked at several times? How was Adam's face hidden on the security footage?

None of the possibilities you mention above are actually possible given the evidence we have.

The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/

[–] starlit-sky 12 years ago

I respectfully disagree with you and with all the other posters who criticize the ending. The twist at the end is the most intelligent and audacious twist I have seen in any supernatural thriller - and I have seen them all.

There are hundreds of movies with religious crazy characters and when we see such a character we would be quick to dismiss him as crazy and delusional. That's the conventional thinking. What makes the twist so intelligent is that it breaks this convention. Yes, it was really God that guided him. The victims were really demons. I find this to be much scarrier than him being crazy.

I also disagree that the twist at the end is contradictory to film's internal logic. There is no contradiction, only misdirected narrative and very intelligent one at that. Because the movie not only utilizes misdirected narrative (Adam - Fenton switch) but it also introduces another twist (victims were really demons).

Overall, I think this movie is simply brilliant. Like I said, there are many movies with crazy religious characters but this movie boldly entertains the idea that God is really working through mysterious, twisted ways, that demons are real, evil people may really be of demonic nature and God really can hand down the duty to destroy them. To me that is scarrier than anything else.

[–] LovecraftLass 11 years ago

I agree. I loved the ending. I really liked the movie up until the end and thought it was really well-written and very well-acted. In fact, in my opinion it's one of Matthew McConaughy and Bill Paxton's best movies but I looked at it like a normal thriller-type movie. I even felt sorry for the "victims". Then the twist changed everything and it went from being a good movie to great for me. I love supernatural horror and I thoughtthis was a great one. Actually, Adam being a cop surprised me more than anything.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=24109349

[–] viewer-1230 11 years ago

I agree with what you have to say here on the ending. The way it ended threw me off balance and it haunted me a bit more than if the ending went the conventional way. The way this movie plays out really left it in my thoughts for a few days! I actually finally saw this film last week after knowing of it for many years and luckily I only knew bits of the story and not how it would end. These days with people discussing older films everywhere many of them can be spoiled so luckily it did not happen with this one.

[–] Naruto-kun79 10 years ago

Excellent ending. One of my favourite endings I might add. Im a non believer but I enjoyed this films vibe.

For all those who believe in destiny and we can't change it, do you look when you cross the street?......

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] king_of_bob 10 years ago

I also disagree that the twist at the end is contradictory to film's internal logic. There is no contradiction, only misdirected narrative and very intelligent one at that. Because the movie not only utilizes misdirected narrative (Adam - Fenton switch) but it also introduces another twist (victims were really demons).

Exactly. The narrator is purposely misleading Agent Doyle and the audience when telling his story. It's only a contradiction if one doesn't understand the concept of the unreliable narrator. As we see with at least one poster above.

The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/

[–] Injinn 9 years ago

I agree completely. The brilliance of the ending was that it showed how vitally important it is to consider all perspectives. We only see the majority of the film through Fenton's eyes, and we dismiss what Adam says as childishly blind faith -- only to realize at the end that WE, the viewers (those of us that didn't see it coming a mile away), were blind. WE didn't even consider the possibility that it was, in fact, truth all along.

That ending was the reason why the film was lauded by critics and other prominent directors and writers of the time. It's the reason why people are still talking about it more than a decade later.

[–] the_holy_ferret-126-91027 12 years ago

I see it differently. Yes, it rules out a non-supernatural reading of the film - which would, otherwise, have been a very enjoyable way to approach it. But even if they are killing in the name of God - they're still taking lives, destroying families, ruining everything. So God is just as evil as Satan. That was my reading of it. The supernatural forces are the establishment oppressing the normal people, whether they be God, Devil, whatever. Just because it's done in the name of God doesn't make it any more right.