MovieChat Forums > Frank (2014) Discussion > I don't feel right calling it a 'bad fil...

I don't feel right calling it a 'bad film', but I sure hated it.


I hated almost every minute of it. I love many indie films, but this represented the dark side of indie films to me. Very little felt organic. It was like it came from an indie movie machine. I absolutely loathed Gyllenhaal in it. Fassbender was good, but not in a way I'll remember. Most of the characters had no reason to be alive. The final few minutes were solid on their own though.

Procrastination fools you into thinking you succeed merely by not failing.

reply

Yeah nothing good about this film at all im still trying to figure out why it was made .Actors were uninteresting story was uninteresting the character were uninteresting i felt like they all were going to commit mass suicide together .Then when it didn't happen became even more disappointed i dont kno who the real guy was but according too these people he was a real square .Ordinary people living ordinary lives on screen is fvcking boring as hell.Watching ordinary people live ordinary lives is no reason to get up and go to the theater.ordinary does not lead to interesting .


Let's face it, people hate art movies. Especially when they are not expecting an art movie"

reply

Watching ordinary people live ordinary lives is no reason to get up and go to the theater.ordinary does not lead to interesting .
. Oh kidjay83....you are the only Fassbender fan (other than Gorilla Hunter) that makes any sense. You like him in some things. But not a blanket approval deal.
Yeah nothing good about this film at all im still trying to figure out why it was made .
I truly believe it's the SAME reason why Fassbender's inexperienced band friend John MacLean is now a full feature film director. Have you read this article?
http://idolmag.co.uk/film/director-watch-john-maclean
Easy taxpayer money which does not rely on experience, skill, a good script, or any other filters.....Just someone willing to FEED off of public funds.

MacLean talks about how he doesn't know how to operate a camera, doesn't feel worthy to work in color film, thinks his script that ended up taking him 2 years to write cause he almost flunked English is easier because it doesn't rely on 1 twist??? Oh dear....and all kinds of creepy things that seems the farthest from a real director. Do you think before all of these FREE taxpayer grants, Fassbender and his buddies could have gotten away with pushing that ISH on the public for its consumption? Oh hell no...

And, I read MacLean is friends with Michael's agent. The question is....do you want to spend your paycheck on a movie made by Michael and his and his agents friend who hasn't even been trained in film but rather needed a new gig after the band thing flopped, or what?

And, the critics are in my opinion mere shills. They get to rub elbows with movie stars so they will push bad films on the public. What do they care? They want to get invited back to the party....not help out faceless peons.

And, the legislatures like to rub elbows too. Just Google Kevin Spacey House of Cards Maryland Legislature tax credit...

I think these guys know a good deal when they see it. Michael can do these continuous indie flicks paid for by the TAXPAYERS and just keep making money off of public funds whether the film does well or not.

Have you noticed there are some films he doesn't even bother to promote or show up to festivals or openings? He's not THAT busy. I believe it's because for most of these actors, they could not care less. It's a way to make easy money (off of taxpayers) without affecting studio profit concerns in between the big movies where they know they better be profitable or they won't get hired anymore.

The taxpayers are left taking the risk and covering losses before there even are any. I think Only Lovers Left Alive was the same deal...Hiddleston, Wasikowska, Swinton...it's pathetic...

Lena


Above intended as free speech opinion written with pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice

reply

I've honestly never seen someone so obsessed with hating a film or an actor. Did Michael Fassbender forget your birthday and kick your dog or something? If you're that unhappy you should make your own film exploring mental illness. I'm sure you would be able to bring some valuable insight to such a project.

reply

Let me know when he sends you one of these for your wonderful digs at me...someone who is not famous and who hasn't taken a shot at you, dingaling...

http://thesweetdesigns.com/images/products/SD-54.jpg
Say, here's something that might be fun...why don't you hold your breath while waiting for his PR team to forward you your special "thank you" cookie bouquet?

It really shouldn't be a problem... there is a line item at the New Mexico Film Commission's budget documents for food for these refundable tax credit/tax grant "pot o money" film projects that the last article of August 21 conveniently forgot to mention as being part of the "financiers" for this movie.... which incidentally has only creeped up to around $517,000 as of September 11, 2014... Floparama...



Lena


Above intended as free speech opinion written with pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice

reply

Ordinary people living ordinary lives on screen is fvcking boring as hell.Watching ordinary people live ordinary lives is no reason to get up and go to the theater.ordinary does not lead to interesting .


agreed, and it's why Boyhood is mostly a failure as well


reply

The only post on here talking any sense.

reply

The video editing was choppy and strange to me, so the pace felt forced at times. Also, I disliked the use of electronic social media on the screen.
When that one guy tried to kill himself by jumping into the river there was no warning that he was in distress and no explanation about it beyond the incident (at least that I saw in the theater when I watched for an hour-- I needed to leave early).



reply

Very little felt organic.

Nothing in "organic" in a scripted film cast with(largely)professional actors? An unheard of event if ever there was one!! Someone get a rep from GBOWR on the line, if such a deed has yet to be completed.


reply

This movie is one of the best I have seen in the past ten years. It's not a comedy, it's not a tragedy, not a road movie and yet it's a lot of all of that. It disappoints expectations that have been molded into the casual viewer's brain. So many movies force us into an emotional reacion that is actually nothing but a mechanic reaction to witty plotpoints and string music.

This is a movie that tries to define genius and how people simply don't get it. All the members of the band are viewed as total freaks - that's what they're famous for, not for their music, which is all they care about. It's about life, about making something beautiful out of it with others. All they do is give. All the audience wants is to consume. It's not about the road to fame and glory, not about succeeding commercially, but personally.

Frank has a disorder that disappoints his family, because he is not like others. To them it's merely a mental illness, not a stroke of genius. Most symptomatic is that not even his own parents understand this and prefer to see his condition as dragging him down. They don't see that without the condition there would only be talent. They don't see how happy he is when he's Frank the musician. Without it, he would be just like the keyboarder, completely consumed by general perceptions of what is desirable and profitable. This is about the truth of making art, the solitude especially when you are among people.

Ultimately, the movie is about love and our ways to express it. Love for the smallest things, but also for something bigger than just ourselves. Recognition for being able to love so much and so deeply. And the sad part is that this love is not answered by an audience. The audience just wants to enjoy a voyeuristic sneak peak into some band of nutters. They don't care and don't respect the journey, they just want to buy the record and laugh about the guy with the silly head.

Now that I think about it - the movie is actually a Tragedy. And a damn good one.

reply

Excellent answer. I had some of these thoughts myself, expressed in a new thread today. I loved this movie, It tied up the knot so nicely in the end, Jon was like a tourist in this odd group, but it took him a while to realise that the dreams he had was selfish ones and nothing like the others', and in the end I think he realised how shallow those dreams really were. Life if not about fame, or being loved by the masses, it's about finding your place and be happy with that, and being loved by the people who sees you for who you really are.

reply

Has it occurred to you that the movie was just a boring story about a bunch of irresponsible people narrated by an oblivious untalented hack who didn't really have anything to offer?

Frank was not interesting at all. He hadn't shown a pinch of genius you're talking about. Yes, personally, I found the bits of songs they were playing to be interesting. The anti-pop attitude, the modulated synths and processed samples sounded good to my ears. But genius? Nope, didn't hear any.

Also, the story itself, while started off very well (showing how silly Jon was when trying to find a good music in him and how he was unaware of the fact of his lack of talent), descent into a very jumbled uninteresting mess. There were no progression at all. Being confined together in a secluded area for almost a year would changed the dynamics of people relationships. Yet, these group of people hadn't changed at all. They still treated each other like they did before. Also, individually they remained the same: Jon was still the same shallow fame-hungry-whore he was before. Musically, he was still a talentless hack (never learn anything from other band members). Clara still hated Jon and remained unreasonable about promoting their music. The french guy and the drummer were still monolithic supporting characters with no effect to the story or real contribution to the music (they're just props).

Moreover, I couldn't fathom how these irresponsible jobless people whose musical career didn't seem to provide them with a lot of money could survive before Jon financially and acquire some high-end gears and recording equipments (the digital and analog synths, the analog tape recorder with the mixer board, AD/DA converters, etc). Probably they came from rich families, who knows?

Regarding the audience, they saw the band as total freaks because it's the only idea they had about the band members (constantly promoted to them by Jon). The audience hadn't heard any of their works. The band hadn't released the album and properly performed their music. I bet there were many who would have been interested in the music if they had heard the album. Also, The most important thing in music is the music itself, so you couldn't possibly blame the audience for seeing the band as some sort of the-freaks-of-the-week if they hadn't heard anything worth listening from the band and the only idea they got from the band was just a bunch of freaks.

Also the movie was not a tragedy. It's a comedy (comedy always ends with marriage or some kind of happiness) or your usual poppy movie where the characters get things they want or need in the end. In this case, Frank was back with his band (people he loved) and finally able to express his feelings toward them. Jon was painted as a hero who had found some sort of revelation or meanings of life/relationship/love (and other kinds of that schmaltzy BS) and drew himself out of the picture.

reply

I enjoyed reading eljefemartin's analysis and positive review. I agree, and really love this film. It's nuanced, layered, and worth multiple viewing. Certainly, I haven't enjoyed a film this much since "The Visitor. In ways, it reminds me of other films such as "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," "Being John Malcovich," and "The Big Lebowski" - all of which tend to stay with the viewer long after watching the film and grow in appreciation. 😃

reply

I had missed your fine argumented comment when you posted it, Elje. I agree on every point. I loved this little movie, for me too it's one of the best I've seen in the last years and it has much more to say than so many big productions; I loved it beyond expectations truly speaking, I was surprised, amused and touched. I laughed and almost cried at the same time in some moments so well balanced the story is. It's a tragedy, yes, it truly is, narrated by a very sensitive and original voice.

reply

You know what! eljefemartin totally gets it. Emart is absolutely correct about his observations and judgments. This film was so great on many levels. It made me laugh so hard I cried at many different events in the movie. So on some level, it was extremely comedic. For me, the integrity of the film was that it didn't pander to mass consumption. I've read some reviewers on these message boards sound so self-righteous about the fact that the movie was so bad it was only seen by a small amount of people. How that is confirmation that a work is bad is beyond me, when I consider all the pop tripe that is spoon fed to the masses, that is "IMHO" really lousy art (term used loosely). I find just the opposite to be true, and yeah, I could be viewed as cynical for saying this, but generally I find that most collectively accepted and loved "art" by the populace is truly mediocre at best and by and large, flat out horrible. I emphasize IMHO, something we're all entitled to. But the fact that not many people saw this because the masses didn't makes me love this film all the more. The music was fantastic! I loved the soundtrack, I heard Radiohead, David Bowie, Queens of the Stone Age, influences in the soundtrack, intentional or not. I felt like the film was wonderful in that it didn't wrap it all up with a nice happy ending, so that the audience would all walk away smiling like idiots. I freaking loved this film and because I did sound work for underground bands in Hollywood for a few years I have experience working with "real" artists. And this film was very true to that experience. Loved it, loved it, FREAKING LOVED IT!!!

reply

This movie is one of the best I have seen in the past ten years
that sucks, for you.

There is no substance in this story. And cue the 'go watch transforers' comments...
If you are going to tell a character driven story then you need interesting characters who have some depth beyond 'hey i'm just quirky because i'm quirky'.

reply

I was expecting it to be funny, clever, and light-hearted, but it was cynical in an ugly way, like a grumpy old man kicking a dog. Nothing in the film to sink your teeth into, it wasn't insightful or topical in any way. The tweeting seemed like a pathetic attempt to create a relatable main character. I just didn't get this film.

reply

I'm with you on this. While I did enjoy the ending "I Love You All" song, I couldn't stand this film.

It felt like it was weird just for the sake of being weird. Like some hipster made it to be "edgy" and so fellow hipsters could be pretentious and talk about how they "get it".

Now, I don't mind a pretentious film (I myself am pretty pretentious when it comes to film), but only if it is clever and has a point. "Frank", to me, felt pointless and weird. I know there was a lesson and an underlying meaning, but it just wasn't enough for me.

We watched a bunch of hipsters and some weirdo inside of giant head fight in a cabin and make weird noises. And for... THAT ENDING???!!??? I wasted my time.

But cheers to those involved! You've made a film and I have not!

reply

I lost interest after an hour. Didn't want to invest time in seeing the rest. Not a bad film, The acting Is fine, but the screenplay is just meh overall.

reply