Bad Frank (2017)

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Despite my middling grade of C, I was very impressed with "Bad Frank". After all, the film was very quickly made and only cost a paltry $80,000!! It is clearly a great example of getting a lot for very little…something many filmmakers could stand to learn. When the film begins, Frank is a highly stressed but happy guy. He has a very beautiful wife, a job and life is good. However, there also are signs that Frank is on the edge…and he could easily be pushed over it. To make matters worse, he's been prescribed something, presumably for his anger, and the doctor's office is giving him crap about when he can see the doctor. He wants to see the doctor now…the receptionist isn't about to make an exception… even if he's now out of meds. In the midst of this tense situation, Frank and a friend of his witness a brutal multiple murder committed by Frank's old 'buddies'….and soon they make it very clear that unless Frank keeps his mouth shut he's a dead man. And, to make this clear, they kidnap his innocent wife…sending Frank on a binge of ultra-violent behavior.I liked the acting and direction in this picture. For $80,000, it should have been horrible but wasn't. The story was also reminiscent of "Taken" but had enough different about it to make it worth seeing… for some people. This is where the problem is…the film is incredibly violent and features a bit of sexual violence as well… and at times was hard to watch. Plus, unlike what I expected, by the end of the film Frank was pretty much a monster as well and it was hard to root for anyone. It's certainly not a picture to show your kids, your mother or Father O'Malley if he happens to stop by for a visit. But, in spite of this, I cannot help but admire the filmmakers for what they achieved.

With a wild set of mood swings, the character Frank Pierce moves from being a committed recovering alcoholic to a monstrous force of nature in a heartbeat. There is a defining scene early in the film when Frank is hammering in his yard. The pace builds along with Frank's blood pressure and intensity. Suddenly, he inflicts an intentionally hurtful blow of the hammer on his hand. The balance of the film is a tug-of-war between Good Frank and Bad Frank.The plotting of this film was contrived with a potboiler story of how Frank is drawn back in to the world of crime and violence. We slowly learn the history of Bad Frank's rage attacks, which landed him in trouble with the military and necessitated intervention from his father, who was a police chief.But Frank also proved to be a loyal friend to the shady underworld figure, Mickey Duro (Tom Sizemore). Frank refused to rat out Frank and spent time in prison on behalf of his old buddy. As the film begins, Frank has rebuilt his life with a woman whom he met in his recovery group. Curiously, however, Frank does not request a refill of his meds. That is the fateful starting point for his decline.Frank uses poor judgment is agreeing to meet with an old chum named Travis Lugar. The result of the meeting is an ugly drug deal with Mickey Duro killing the two drug suppliers in cold blood. Frank tries to do the right thing by reporting the incident to the authorities. Mickey retaliates by kidnapping Frank's wife. In turn, Frank kidnaps Mickey's daughter. It is with this double hostage situation that the film begins to unravel.MAJOR SPOILER ALERTS: When Frank and Mickey decide to put their differences aside and exchange their loved ones who have been kidnapped, the most shocking moment is when Frank chooses to kill Mickey's daughter in full view of the father. This gratuitous act of violence puts a completely new spin on the depth to which "Good Frank" could become "Bad Frank." Moreover, it was unclear why Frank would not untie the ropes binding his wife Gina as he drove away from the crime scene. Another entirely confusing moment was the scene that occurred in Frank's home when his father was confronted by Niko, a hooligan who was the minion of Mickey. Clearly a struggle between the two men had occurred. But we never see the actual struggle or definitively learn the outcome. For the careful viewer, it is clear that the father was wounded, but was not dead. He was still breathing as he was seated in the chair in Frank's home! What this shoddy filmmaking? Or, was the scene intentionally ambiguous? END SPOILERS.There were too many loose ends and far-fetched scenes in this motion picture. The strength of the film is in the development of the complex personality in Frank Pierce. Kevin Interdonato turned in an excellent performance in this deeply troubled and conflicted character. The supporting cast was also good. If one overlooks the the plot holes and focuses on characters, the film was above average as a character study.

Normally when watching movies on my computer I watch a movie while doing something else at the same time but for this movie I couldn't take my eyes away.I loved it. From the first minutes where he put the hammer onto his hands, you felt that this guy is not right. There are some cheesy things in the movie and some of the dialogue is not the best. But in the end you have two (three? ) psychopaths against each other.I really loved it. Gonna rate it at 8, would have been higher if some of the scripting would have been better. But from acting, story etc it is amazing.Some are comparing it to Taken which is not right, I rather compare it to 'A History of Violence' which is a great movie on it's own albeit this one a bit darker.

What prompted me to track this film down and have a peek was the paradox presented by the mainstream reviews.They were skewed in every possible direction.BAD FRANK was clearly one of those rare films you either loved or hated, but no middle ground.If you loved it, you loved the performances, the quirky dialog, the oddball plot development and direction, and the whole "film noire" mood (even though it was shot in color). And also it was nominated for a whole bunch of awards I had never heard of, even won a couple.However, if you hated it -- and a lot of mainstream reviewers did in fact hate it -- you saw it as a poor knockoff to Taken; you saw it as failing to deliver on its "action" promise; and you saw it as overlong, jumbled, and generally disappointing.In other words, for a reviewer, this was a challenge. I had to find out for myself.And I did.Here is my take on BAD FRANK.1. Critics who saw it as a cheap knockoff of Taken did not understand the film. In spite of the story and the casting, even in spite of the PR package put out by the distributors, this is much more a film that belongs in the class of "artistic horror" than an action story.TAKEN, with Liam Neeson (the first one, not the horrible sequels), was a jewel of writing and direction. Action, reaction. Action, reaction. A straight arc from beginning to end. BAD FRANK benefits from, and yet also suffers from, Tony Germinario's intention -- as both writer and director -- to break as many scriptwriting conventions as he possibly can. And he does it just to show he can. (Like George Carlin's gag -- "why does a dog lick his privates? CAUSE HE CAN!") 2. When judged in its proper class -- as idiosyncratic horror, like LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT -- it is pretty interesting, and stays with you after the credits roll, which is saying something. Which is not to say it is perfect, or even close to perfect, or even that it could get a table close to perfect at a fancy restaurant. It is overlong, some of the dialog is terrible -- and Tony Germinario may possibly have seen one too many Tarantino movies, and it shows.But the acting is astounding. Interdonato never breaks character even for a split second, and Sizemore matches him pound for pound in the race to see who is crazier and deserves to have PLANTERS stamped on his butt.3. The ending (which I will NOT give away) shows, once again, Tony Germinario's obsession with breaking rules. Remember the happy ending in Taken? Well, this ain't Taken. Not even close! Once again, a wackjob ending like this one is the hallmark, the fingerprint, of a horror film, not an action film.Summary: as a first film for a fledgling writer/director correctly niched in its class -- horror -- it is interesting and memorable. As pure entertainment competing for your attention with the other 10,000 movies available in theatres and on the net, it is perhaps less of a sure thing. But still memorable.Recommended? Yes, m'am.