Review: Frailty

On a stormy night in Texas, Matthew McConaughey (chillingly deadpan) walks into FBI man Powers Boothe’s office claiming to know the identity of a long-sought serial killer known as the ‘God’s Hand Killer’. In fact, he says it’s his brother. He then proceeds to tell the cynical but obliging agent a story that goes back to his childhood in the 70s, as we see young Fenton Meiks (Matt O’Leary), his younger brother Adam (Jeremy Sumpter) and their calm, hard-working and decent, widowed father Bill Paxton living what seems a fairly normal, happy existence in ‘Bible Belt’ country. But one night, everything changes. Dad wakes up the kids to tell them of a vision he just had. He saw God...and God wants him and the kids to kill ‘Demons’ for him. The kids go back to bed, not really knowing what to think, and with young Fenton hoping everything will go back to normal. No such luck, a little while later Dad says he’s got a list of ‘Demons’ that God has given to him, and that they must set about killing them. Adam, the youngest of the Meiks clan, blindly accepts what his father tells him- he’s Dad, after all, and he’s never let them down before. Fenton, however, thinks his father has cracked and wants no part of it. He thinks Dad isn’t killing ‘Demons’, but real people, whilst Dad tries to explain the difference (Demons hide their true identity), as he is convinced that this is what God wants. Has Dad really lost his mind? Is he an evil murderer? Or is this really God’s will, and if so, what the hell kinda vengeful, blood-thirsty freak does that make the almighty, then? Character actor Luke Askew (a veteran of many westerns) plays the local sheriff, in a small part.

It’s a surprise and great shame to me that character actor Bill Paxton (best known for highly entertaining, wonderfully over-the-top performances in “Aliens”, “Weird Science”, “Near Dark”, and “True Lies” as well as more ‘straight’ ones in “Apollo 13”, “A Simple Plan” and “Nightcrawler”) hasn’t directed very many films thus far, nor has he re-visited the horror genre as director. Why is it a surprise and a great shame? Because he hit it out of the park the first time with this 2002 feature-length directorial debut, it’s truly outstanding (even though it wasn’t a box-office hit, which probably explains Paxton’s reluctance to continue directing). As much a Southern Gothic melodrama (not to mention a psychological thriller-drama) as it is a horror film, I actually think it’s one of the best and most underrated horror films of the last 20 years and one of the best directorial debuts of all-time.

Paxton’s direction, working in conjunction with top cinematographer Bill Butler (“One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, “Grease”, “Child’s Play”) is really amazing for a first-timer. The film has a really nice, look to it, as both Paxton and Butler have a nice eye and feel for Southern Gothic imagery. The shot composition and use of light in the film is truly first-rate stuff, and I just love a good foggy, forest/burial ground area. Honestly, back in 2002, I hadn’t seen anything like this film in years (“Heavenly Creatures” meets “Night of the Hunter” is the closest approximation I can come up with). I’m not sure if Paxton or writer Brent Hanley (who sadly hasn’t scripted a feature film since) have read much Stephen King, but with the mixture of coming-of-age tale and horror, the story has echoes of King throughout (“IT” and to some extent “Stand By Me” come to mind). With the somewhat stylised look of the film, Paxton has clearly learnt from the directors he has previously worked with like Sam Raimi (“A Simple Plan”) and Kathryn Bigelow (“Near Dark”), but also manages to make the film his own. Paxton obviously knows the importance of a good music score for such a film and Brian Tyler (“AVP: Requiem”, “Law Abiding Citizen”, “The Expendables”) definitely delivers with a damn good music score. So ominous and evocative you’d swear it was the inimitable Danny Elfman (“Batman”, “Beetlejuice”, “Planet of the Apes”) doing the gig.

However, for me it is the characters and Paxton’s absolutely first-rate lead performance that are the strongest aspects of this film. His ‘Dad’ (never given a real name) is one of the scariest villains of the last 20 years, mostly because of how atypical he is for a villain. 99.99% of the character is a loving, decent, hard-working dad who cares and provides for his kids. It’s just that extra tiny fraction of a percentage that is completely and totally messed-up...or is he? He seems pretty normal, and quite credible, even when talking about seemingly batshit insane stuff. Fenton and Adam’s childhood had apparently been totally normal until that dreaded night, so there’s nothing in Dad’s behaviour beforehand to suggest anything other than an honest, loving and decent man who is of rational thought and state of mind. And that makes him all the scarier, because this is a seemingly good man who is doing some very, very bad things, and roping his kids into the misdeeds as well. I love Bill Paxton in most of those films I listed at the outset, but in addition to his directorial skills, he gives one of his all-time best performances here, and should’ve been Oscar-nominated in my view. He could easily have tapped into the intense, nervy and neurotic schtick he used so wonderfully well in “Aliens”, but instead he plays this role as chillingly realistic and down-to-earth as possible. The scene where he matter-of-factly explains to Sumpter the difference between killing people (wrong) and killing demons (God’s will), is chilling in Paxton’s seeming sincerity and rationality whilst also seeming batshit insane via his words. A tricky thing to do and Paxton succeeds. It’s a pitch-perfect performance (backed up by the rest of the cast, especially the two youngsters in very complex roles), and the right approach to adopt, as the most normal and identifiable is sometimes the most frightening. You don’t think there are Bible-bashers out there with a few screws loose and murder on their mind? It happens. Charlie Manson may be crazier than a loon, but he’s not half as frightening as dear ‘ol Dad, who at worst, is possessed by something he cannot control (Or would it be worse if he were actually telling the truth? Think about that). Ordinarily, I’d argue in favour of the Jack Nicholson in “The Shining” approach to acting crazy. I’ll argue to my dying day that his performance was crucial because it’s hard to believe a nice, normal guy slowly going mad. When it’s someone who already seems predisposed to unlikeable or unstable behaviour, it’s much more believable to me. This film is the exception, because it’s absolutely crucial for Dad to appear predominantly normal in order for the film’s ambiguity to come off and keep you guessing the whole way whether he’s nuts or truly a righteous man seeing holy visions. In few other respects than the murders is Paxton’s dad a bad or evil man. Sure, his punishment of hole digging for rebellious O’Leary seems a bit harsh, but I reckon it’s only a slightly more extreme form of discipline than what many others from that part of the US (if not in every country) have endured in their own disciplinarian upbringings (Not to mention that O’Leary kinda makes it harder on himself). But when you add in the murders, and a later form of punishment Paxton administers on O’Leary (also ordered by God, apparently), it’s very hard to see that loving, caring, ‘normal’ dad in there. And it’s the ‘normality’ in Paxton’s filmmaking that is really the key too, because the film plays with normality versus stylised atmosphere to brilliant effect. Once the murders begin, we’re steeped in Southern Gothic, stylised visuals, which are awesome. But it would be nothing without the reality of the setting, the characters, and so forth. Combined they keep us guessing for the most part (if not the whole way) as to whether Paxton is evil, delusional, or truly doing God’s work. There’s certainly some very strong suggestion by the end about this, but it’s still somewhat left to interpretation (Just because we’re seeing what we’re seeing doesn’t mean it’s an accurate representation of what is really going on. If you’ve seen the film, you know what I mean), and that proves to be a wise choice. Hey, you don’t wanna piss those Christians off by painting them as outright loony murderers, or you’ll lose some box-office and garner some bad press! Besides, it makes for fun post-film discussion. The visuals and atmosphere suggest a kind of bad dream, even. Some people guessed the ending on first viewing. I didn’t, but I can see how they did now, though it isn’t a problem. In fact, knowing what I know now puts everyone and everything in a new light, given the source of the information we’re getting. It certainly plays fair, as you’ll realise in subsequent viewings. I will admit that the twist ending goes on maybe one scene too long (and makes at least one minor character look like a moron, though you could find rationale for his behaviour depending on how literally you interpret the ending), but that is honestly the only (slight) flaw I can find with this otherwise really impressive film.

In a genre that has seen too many hacks in the last twenty years, here’s a real filmmaker, and amazingly, it’s Chet from “Weird Science”. Who woulda thunk it? Absolutely, positively recommended if you haven’t already caught this one.

Rating: B+