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! :)

[–] umme4uke 12 years ago

Have you ever considerred that it is exactly what makes the film horrific? God is real and vengeful, demons are just people. God is the monster in this film.

[–] Jasper1972 12 years ago

I agree with the OP, but I had an additional issue with the end.

As a viewer, I totally sympathized with Fenton for the majority of the movie, which I'm sure was the intention. What I wound up doing was identifying with this poor kid, who was full of empathy, stuck in a no win situation. I enjoyed the fact that, while Dad was killing people, he was also trying to be patient/compassionate to Fenton. It made Dad not evil, but just thoroughly deluded, and made Fenton's dilemma more poignant (there's still good in Dad, but he's just mentally disturbed). Adam just seems like he's trying to get Dad's approval, and seems bloodthirsty.

Fenton is sensitive, horrified by what's going on, compassionate, empathetic, and clever.

Aaaaaaaand then he becomes a serial killer.

This is when I felt that the movie pushed me away. This was then compounded by the supernatural element.

The emotional journey (for me) was:

Identify with Fenton (poor kid!)
But I'm not Fenton, I'm Adam! (so, you're the bloodthirsty one?)
Fenton is a serial killer! (the sensitive empathic one is a serial killer?!)
And Fenton was a demon! (Seriously?!)
And God was behind it all along! (WTF!?)

I felt like my time had been wasted.

If Fenton was a demon the whole time, then clearly the sympathetic, sensitive young boy we empathized with never existed, and the story was a complete fabrication.

If we start from the premise that Adam and Dad were acting as God's will the whole time, and that God would protect Adam from being caught then why did Adam go through that whole charade? Just walk in, kill the cop, carry him out to the car, and then to the rose garden. As we saw at the end of the movie, God would protect him from being stopped, witnessed, recorded, etc.

I think what annoyed me so much about this movie was two things:

1. Up until the twist, I thought this was really good movie. The pacing, the characterization, the acting. This was really, really good.

2. How it seemed to validate religious fanaticism - hey, if God tells you to kill your neighbor, you're justified (sure, the "courts of man" will say it was a tumor in your head, but you know better).

[–] clashwho 11 years ago

If we start from the premise that Adam and Dad were acting as God's will the whole time, and that God would protect Adam from being caught then why did Adam go through that whole charade? Just walk in, kill the cop, carry him out to the car, and then to the rose garden. As we saw at the end of the movie, God would protect him from being stopped, witnessed, recorded, etc.

Maybe he didn't feel like lugging his body around. Maybe he's been doing this a long time and wants to spice things up. Believe me, the monotony of killing gets old after awhile.

"All this machine does is swim, and eat, and make little sharks." -- Matt Hooper, JAWS

[–] Injinn 9 years ago

Therein lay the brilliance of the film, in my opinion. They convinced viewers to buy into one pov by showing the film through "Fenton's" eyes -- despite the fact that Adam clearly stated that he could see what his dad saw when he touched the "demons."

Most viewers took what Fenton saw as gospel, never once considering the possibility that what Adam stated was more than just childish faith in his own father. We, as viewers, dismiss Adam rather than reconsider our preconceived notions. We're so dead-set on seeing their father as a madman and Adam as blind follower that we completely buy into the idea that it is all insanity.

Like most effective twists, it played on the preconceived notions of the viewer -- and not everyone is as quick to respect a good twist if they're the ones that got bamboozled.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 12 years ago

mulotmick,

Your post is well-thought out, but I think you're missing an important point. This movie takes a detestable psychotic villain (Bill Paxton's character) and turns him into a loving father and faithful hero. The first time I saw this I was repulsed by Paxton's character and the way he tortured his older son and brainwashed the younger son. Upon watching the movie again, I felt terrific empathy for Paxton's character who had to deal with the turmoil of being told to kill his own son, whom he knew to be a demon. In the end, his love as a father was his own downfall. The first time I watched this I felt incredible elation upon seeing Paxton's character take an axe to the chest. When I saw it again, I felt deep sadness at the same scene. How many movies can do that?

As others have pointed out, there are a million movies about psychotic people who kill in the name of the lord. Other than Frailty, I can't think of another movie that makes the religious killer likeable and sympathetic. This movie is different from any movie I've ever seen, and for that reason, I hope everyone can appreciate it.

For the record, I'm an atheist and avidly absorb the works of Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and the like. I don't like the movie because it aligns with my view of God, religion, or sin. I just think it's a great story with a great twist. This remains one of my faves.

[–] Injinn 9 years ago

This is the best post in the thread, for my money.

[–] Rupert__Pupkin 9 years ago

Thanks. I'd be curious to know what the OP thought. I still find it rather ridiculous that as a non-believer, he couldn't enjoy a movie with a supernatural plot. Sounds like a real fun guy.

[–] remembervhs 12 years ago

In my opinion, you have to be somewhat small-minded to dislike a movie because it doesn't line up with your personal beliefs.

There is no ambiguity once the credits roll. God is real, Adam is doing God's will by killing demons, and the FBI agent was a demon.

This is all within the movie, it has nothing to do with the real world or your (or my) personal beliefs.

[–] juliantmc-1 12 years ago

Atheists just love the internet don't they?

[–] koffeenkreame41-1 11 years ago

In my opinion, you have to be somewhat small-minded to dislike a movie because it doesn't line up with your personal beliefs.

There is no ambiguity once the credits roll. God is real, Adam is doing God's will by killing demons, and the FBI agent was a demon.

This is all within the movie, it has nothing to do with the real world or your (or my) personal beliefs.

I agree, I don't know why some people don't like that Paxton's character was actually good. Fenton & Doyle were demons and Dad & Adam were really doing God's Will.

mulotmick,

Your post is well-thought out, but I think you're missing an important point. This movie takes a detestable psychotic villain (Bill Paxton's character) and turns him into a loving father and faithful hero. The first time I saw this I was repulsed by Paxton's character and the way he tortured his older son and brainwashed the younger son. Upon watching the movie again, I felt terrific empathy for Paxton's character who had to deal with the turmoil of being told to kill his own son, whom he knew to be a demon. In the end, his love as a father was his own downfall. The first time I watched this I felt incredible elation upon seeing Paxton's character take an axe to the chest. When I saw it again, I felt deep sadness at the same scene. How many movies can do that?

I agree.

"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna `*beep*` wit me!"- Hudson in Aliens.

[–] klawrencio 12 years ago

Fenton believed in his heart that his father was a murderer. But we, as the audience, are led to believe that when Adam kills Fenton, it's "gods will" since Fenton actually killed a messenger of god who was doing god's work (unbeknownst to Fenton). So really Fenton's true crime was that he didn't believe in god, and therefore, his murder is justifiable.

Bollocks to that.

[–] guardian_owl 11 years ago

I don't have a problem with the first twist of the brother not being who he says he is. Though I am a fan of ambiguity, you can have endless conversations about who is and isn't infected at the end of the movie The Thing, but here it is abruptly and explicitly stated what is and what isn't.

Of interest it is mentioned in the commentary track that the visions shown at the end of the film were shown at the time the father touched each "demon" in the original cut, but test audiences took it as fact, not the possible hallucinations of a crazy person.

[–] gray4791 11 years ago

I liked the ending because it provided closure. I would've hated not knowing because it would have seemed that the deaths were senseless. But now that I know that they were killing pedophiles and murderers, people that I have no compassion for, it makes me feel that it was justified. I
mean, I really liked the movie Doubt except for the doubt that I was left with once the movie went off. I just prefer closure is all I'm saying.

Zina ( The Original Princess)

[–] gray4791 11 years ago

[–] checkerouterofthings 11 years ago

The ending was likely chosen because of its potential to thrill the viewer. Much more so than to merely have Paxon's character be a delusional murderer all along. Unfortunately, once we get over the thrill of it, there are all sorts of problems and confusion to contend with. Couple more examples in addition to others previously mentioned.

For one, they ended up murdering the local sheriff in cold blood because he "knew too much". Good guys don't do things like that in movies.

But my biggest problem is the reality that's now created regarding demons. What are they? Was Fenton switched at birth? Was he somehow possessed by a demon? Or is everyone who commits a horrible crime a "demon"? There's a muddled pile of slop here now that's problematic for those who need things to make a little more sense when they watch a film. I agree it was a very well made movie up to that point, and I still give it a 7/10, but I don't feel like the thrill brought about by the twist at the end was worth the problems it creates.

[–] brucedgo 10 years ago

Excellent post, checkerouterofthings!

You phrased this especially well: ...is everyone who commits a horrible crime a "demon"?

The whole concept of killing "demons" who have done crimes fit very well into a movie about a religious nutcase. But at the end, suddenly he's not a nutcase. Bad.

I'm sure an excellent ending could have been devised that didn't have a twist. Or at least, not an unbelievable twist. That's what good writers do.

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

[–] king_of_bob 10 years ago

For one, they ended up murdering the local sheriff in cold blood because he "knew too much". Good guys don't do things like that in movies.

You must have very limited experience with film. "Good guys" often have to risk the lives of innocents in order to preserve the greater good. It happens on Star Trek and Doctor Who ALL the time.

Not to mention, this movie is meant to feel more "real" than most typical movies. There isn't always a good way out of every situation in life.

But my biggest problem is the reality that's now created regarding demons. What are they?

I thought the movie made it pretty clear that demons aren't like what we have on Supernatural. Rather they're "evil" human souls. That they're born being demons.

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

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 11 years ago

I found the ending to be real unsatisfying too. In part because it removed the ambiguity surrounding the father's "destruction" of "demons". But also because I thought the twist with Fenton didn't make sens Throughout the movie we're shown that Fenton is incredibly disturbed by his father's murder of these people. Then at the end we're told "oh yeah, Fenton became a serial killer too."

Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.

[–] clashwho 11 years ago

I found the ending to be real unsatisfying too. In part because it removed the ambiguity surrounding the father's "destruction" of "demons". But also because I thought the twist with Fenton didn't make sens Throughout the movie we're shown that Fenton is incredibly disturbed by his father's murder of these people. Then at the end we're told "oh yeah, Fenton became a serial killer too."

Perhaps Fenton, being a demon, was incredibly disturbed by his father killing demons.

"All this machine does is swim, and eat, and make little sharks." -- Matt Hooper, JAWS

[–] koffeenkreame41-1 11 years ago

Fenton wanted Adam to kill him, he was drawing Adam out by calling himself "The God's Hand Killer", he was killing people. There is NO ambiguity at the end of the film, Doyle was a demon, so was Fenton. Throughout the film, there are clues that Fenton is a demon the whole time. One of the obvious ones is that he NEVER saw the truth when Dad touched the demons. Most people should listen to the commentary from the writer, Brent Hanley, it's really good, both Hanley & Paxton provide great commentary on the film and the fact about Fenton being a demon. I'm kinda shocked that some said that ruined the film. You're SUPPOSED to think that Dad's crazy and some fanatic but when Fenton disappears into the darkness, he's a full fledged demon at that point. He KNEW that telling anyone would result in them being killed and even still he had NO tears whatsoever, even after killing his dad. Fenton realized after that that he really killed his father when he was really doing God's will, he knew he was a demon. This whole film was about the promise. Adam promised that if Fenton was ever on his list, he'd bury him in the Rose Garden.

As for the poster that didn't understand why the Sheriff killed his mom, he was a demon, all of the people killed were HORRIBLE people that killed and did horrible things, Doyle probably killed his mom after an argument or something, it didn't matter, he killed her and he was evil.

"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna `*beep*` wit me!"- Hudson in Aliens.

[–] jimmysmitsimdb 11 years ago

I think you're missing the point. The flashbacks at the end aren't the father's. Those are Adam's flashbacks. He saw everything his father saw. Fenton didn't see the visions because he was a demon.

There is no "religious fanaticism." None at all. You've hit on the biggest problem I have with most of the people who comment on this movie. No one has a problem with mutants, psychics, unkillable serial murders, the devil, mythology, sci-fi out the wazoo, flying people, and just about every other imaginative event in movies, but when God is introduced, even in just a movie, people take issue. They can believe everything other thing in a movie but somehow people have a huge issue that God could exist even in a movie. It shows a huge prejudice.

Case in point, the "ambiguity" in the film that everyone points to that shows that these were just insane killers and there isn't a God. What was the ambiguity? The obvious shock the victims felt when their crimes were revealed? Every camera just happened to show a static line that followed Adam's face? The FBI agents seeing Adam and not being able to recall what he looked like? The FBI meeting Adam again and not remembering him? Dad & Adam grabbing people in broad daylight and not being caught? That ambiguity?

I didn't think that the "left turn" went against the feel of the movie. I think that 90% of the movie showed that the dad was insane and at the very end it was revealed that he wasn't.

I'm not proselytizing here. It doesn't matter to me what religion you or others have or don't have. But what does bother me is that in this film, God & demons exists and people still have some huge problem about it and try their best to rationalize a reason that God can't exist even in a movie.

[–] shannonsspirit 11 years ago

I don't know that it is that people have a problem with God's existence. Maybe they believe and maybe they don't. I think the problem lies in the manner in which God is depicted. This is a vengeful God that doesn't resonate well with contemporary religious beliefs and practices. Nor does it conform to modern concepts of justice. God seems barbaric and demands a family man to involve his children in the execution of people condemned by God.

And, I think most audiences can accept flying people, mutants and so-forth because they know they aren't real. So, it doesn't matter how they are depicted or in what manner they interact with the rest of us on film. But God? God is very personal even to those who don't believe.

Also, there is this somewhat incredulous way of handling demons. Frankly, whether you believe in God or not, commissioning a man and his two children to dispense with s few demons here and there is not very efficient. Why not just do what he did in his barbaric times and destroy towns and turn people to salt?

So, I wouldn't be too hard on people for rejecting the film makers'idea.

[–] jimmysmitsimdb 11 years ago

That is a common thread about this movie. The God is a "vengeful" God? Why is He vengeful? You're missing the huge point here. The only person killed in the movie was the sheriff. The rest were demons. Not people. Demons.

So God should destroy a town to kill a demon about once a year? Protect the agent to surgically remove the rare demon seems to work pretty well.

[–] shannonsspirit 11 years ago

I didn't miss anthing. I was addressing your post regarding why some people appear to have no problem accepting mutants and such, yet appear to have problems accepting God. I am postulating that it is not God, but the manner and methods of God. BTW, I was harkening back to the good old biblical days with a little sarcasm.

I am not sure that a child molester, wife beater and husband killer constitute the label of a demon, anyway. They seem more like bad people, or people who have done bad things, but not on the level of demons. Hence, the vengeful. The father and son were killing more than once a year, more like once a week when they got a list. I watch a show called Supernatural. So, my view of demons is that they are far more viralent and destructive and it really does take a powerful hunter to dispense with them, because, the demons, themselves, are endowed with great power straight from hell. The people in Frailty did not seem like demons, just flawed, selfish and mean humans, easily dispensed with, and probably better dealt with in a court of law. Hence, the vengeful.

Additionally, if God supposedly knew the one son was a demon before he committed any demon-like actions, why not dispense with him now- personally and immediately-if the father would not do it? Why allow demons to become serial killers, molest chidren, kill a husband and so forth. Inefficient God. So, no, it doesn't work well. Children were molested, a husband was killed, Fenton killed many people. If you want to call them demons rather than people exercising free will it seems inefficient of God to allow such a thing to happen, let alone continue. That applies to the murder of the sherrif, as well.

When you get down to it, it is a very judgmental movie. Don't get me wrong, I loathe child molesters and greedy selfish people who kill their mothers and husbands, etc. But, words like "demon" and "evil" are very extreme terms that discount ideas of justice, redemption and even forgiveness.

So, to sum up. I don't think the people who committed crimes were demons. I don't think it is appropriate to involve children in slaying. I think it is an inefficient way to deal with "demons" and a vengeful way to deal with humans who have committed crimes.

[–] jimmysmitsimdb 11 years ago

I watch a show called Supernatural. So, my view of demons is that they are far more viralent and destructive and it really does take a powerful hunter to dispense with them, because, the demons, themselves, are endowed with great power straight from hell.

That's a completely different show. That's like saying that there can't be witches in "Show A" because you define witches the same way as some author does in "Show B." It doesn't work like that.

Additionally, if God supposedly knew the one son was a demon before he committed any demon-like actions, why not dispense with him now- personally and immediately-if the father would not do it?"

Again, it doesn't work like that. Why not just ask "Why isn't reality a utopia?" "Why are there demon in the Supernatural show?" I'm assuming they hurt people as well.

So, to sum up. I don't think the people who committed crimes were demons.

Demons as you define them and the movie literally proves you wrong.

[–] shannonsspirit 11 years ago

lol if you say so

[–] heynow123 11 years ago

I liked the whole twist at the end. I thought the movie was a bit bland without it.