The movie FRAILTY concerns a father has a vision one night, sent to him by an angel, that he and his young sons have been chosen to kill demons who are hiding as humans. The movie opens with one of the sons, who states his name is Fenton, telling the F.B.I. agent who is handling the "God's Hands Killer" case that he knows who the murderer is. He is not believed initially, but by the end of the movie is able to prove to the agent that he does indeed know who is responsible. The film is generally done in a flashback style with most of the movie concerning Fenton's version of the family's history, how the killings began and continued and what happened when the father realized that Fenton wasn't buying into what his father and brother Adam were saying and doing. He is forced to minimally participate, but refuses to be involved in the actual killings and is subsequently punished by his father. Only when Fenton states he has received a vision as well is he considered to be safe by his father. He has come forward now because he doesn't want to carry around what he knows anymore. Other people have written about the last 1/4 of the film, so I won't spoil it here. Suffice it to say that the plot takes a lot of twists and turns towards the end and rather than taking place in flashback, is done in present day.Overall, I thought the movie was really well done with convincing performances by most of the cast. I do have to say I'm not a fan of Powers Boothe so it would be tough for me to write a fair review of how he did in the film - that being said, I liked the way he played his character the least.This film is not a horror movie in the true sense of the word. It is more of a crime thriller/drama as indicated in IMDb. It is suspenseful, however, and really works well in that regard. There are things that are very easy to miss at first watching. Keep your eyes and ears peeled. I don't want to mention them specifically, but in watching parts of the film a second time things become less muddy leading up to the movie's finish.The only thing I didn't like about FRAILTY was the very end - I had a lot of difficulty with what I felt the message of the movie was and what it appears to support. I won't say anything further than that other than the fact that I found it very disturbing, maybe as it was meant to be.Bottom line is that it is a good crime thriller and would be a good choice for fans of crime and suspense, however, be aware that the ending might be a little hard to swallow for some.

Wasn't sure If I was going to enjoy the movie based on the slowness of how the story progressed but I'm very glad I stuck through it. The ending of the movie was my favorite part. Have to love when a twisty ending sneaks up on you. Anyway, I'd recommend it. If for nothing else then to see how serious and foreboding Matthew McConaughey looks when he's about to swing an axe.

This was a good film until it was ruined by a twist ending, and not even an honest twist ending, but a cheating one. It took a great film and used a hackneyed device and ruined it. I don't know why they couldn't just trust they plot to play itself out. I also thought the form of the father's madness was a bit too predictable and not terribly realistic. The lead character's performance was very good. RIP Bill Paxton and Powers Boothe.

Frailty (2001)A psychological morie about a murderer that is so filled with clichés and idiocit plot contrivances (and terrible editing and direction), it's hard to watch. Bill Paxton is the lead psycho, and he's a cardboard idea of a psychotic killer. Stereotypes of evil and the craziness of religious extremists abound.Matthew McConaughey is young here, and good in a serious kind of way, though his part is restricted as a kind of troubled child who is now an adult with a story to tell. The detective he is "confessing" to is Powers Boothe, a bit over his head in the part, which demands that detective kind of tenacity and cleverness that gets under the skin of the killer. It doesn't quite click.Women do not appear in the movie, to speak of. There are men and there are boys, in two time periods (the 70s and around 2000, I think). I found it all simplistic and sometimes badly put together.Who's to blame? Ah, back to Bill Paxton, the director, who directed just two movies, and this is his first. It feels like a first try—he's no Orson Welles—and if some see the awkwardness as a kind of campy style, it strikes me more as bordering on stupid. It depends on overdone sound effects that rush on you in a shock, and that have the two sons (as boys) watching the mayhem with a kind of dumbed down confusion.I wish it would build on the psychological layers it presents. I wish the acting was convincing rather than exaggerated in a "style" that wears thin fast. I wish the plot was more than just the killings of a father and the misgivings of two different sons. The falseness throughout reminds me of other movies that have no intention at "invisibility" (in movie-making terms). An odd comparison (in terms of style and production) is "A Christmas Story," which of course has nothing else in common except the rising up of style over content. In this case it's dead serious, and as such, there's little wiggle room.I'm not a bit religious, but I found the dumbing down of some religious conservative view of the world almost insulting, as well. The sad thing is that the movie has the bones of being good. The idea of a son seeing a bad dad has to have resonance with many, and then taking revenge in an appropriate twist is justified, too. It could have been about God and parenting and being young in a confusing world, but it's so filled with reductions and exaggerations I couldn't for a minute buy in. A pushy movie that borders on bad, no matter what its reputation and rating. One small proof—watch Paxton in his final moment. Isn't that a definition of bad acting?