Bad Frank

Frank (Kevin Interdonato) isn't a bad guy. We don't really know much about him until well into the movie, but we know he has a history of violence, and turned over a new page. But his life is about to spiral out of control again.

When his friend Travis asks Frank to accompany him to a job, it is revealed to be a drug deal. Drug lord Mickey (Tom Sizemore) and Frank have a history, and when the drug deal goes horribly wrong, Frank knows Mickey will come after him and Travis.

Frank is on medication to keep his temper under control, but when he runs out of meds and his wife Gina is kidnapped, Frank is unstoppable. He abducts Mickey's daughter Crystal, setting in motion a cat and mouse game that is bound to have you on the edge of your seat.

'Bad Frank' is a much better quality film than expected, with a few twists as well. I thought Kevin Interdonato was actually quite good as Frank. (Oh, and that manly, muscular, hairy body they so love showing off!!) The film is unpredictable with some good action sequences - and I did not expect that ending! I really enjoyed this movie.

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.

It's obvious this is not a big budget Hollywood production, but what it has going for it are an excellent script and superior acting. I enjoy watching movies where the actors talk like people do in real life, which many times is completely lost on Hollywood, and in this case I believed all the actors. The lead in this was appealing and carried the movie. Tom Sizemore was also surprisingly good in this. There wasn't much to the story, nothing going on here you most likely haven't seen before, but this is one to watch for the performances. Kevin Interdonato is reason enough to give this a watch. Maybe not a keeper, but worth a one time watch.

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.

Saw this and loved the poster. Synopsis seemed cool so gave it a look.

Started off good.

Missing medication. Anger starting to return.

Estranged from his family and loved ones. Violent past. All felt as if falling into place to be an explosion.

But it took far too long to get anywhere. I enjoy slow burns if there is a pay off but this left me wanting.

The acting is very good. Especially the scenes between father and son.

Even Tom Sozemore was ok. Although he did ham it up a little in the interrogation scene.

There's scenes that were in the trailer that doneven appear in the film!? Talking to his therapist!? Never happened. Puzzling as to why?

The poster gives impression of a much darker and more violent film than we end up getting.

I expected an explosion of anger and retribution but just got a fizzle.

Shame as it had potential.