उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

This is a very difficult film to review.

First of all, if you are not a gay man then you might as well not bother with this film. Even if you are a gay man, it is still important to note that it is *supposed* to be a revolting and disgusting film. I read the book first, and let me tell you -- it messes with your mind.

What disturbs the s**t out of you when seeing the movie is also what is so "awful" about the book: if you stop to think about what the central character's thought process is, then you see certain basic pieces of it that actually make some sense. THAT is what stayed with me and actually gave me a nightmare.

Unfortunately, this is where the film is lacking. In the book, we get into the head of the central character, and we hear his thoughts. In the film, Dennis's thought process is implied but not stated sufficiently. The result is a muddled film that just gets more and more violent as it goes on.

The men in this film are VERY attractive, and this of course makes it all the more disturbing -- everyone wants to see killers be like Charles Manson -- it's scarier when they look like the boy next door, and they get off on disemboweling other boys next door.

I would say that the high point of the film is probably Parker Posey. Lordy lordy, that woman... Tales of the City to Scream 3, with a stop in the middle in Frisk. She brought her usual perkiness to a role that is, well, murderous.

To sum up: definitely made for a queer male audience. Far too disturbing for the average sensitive gayboy. Hard to follow if you haven't read the book. A few moments of brilliance, but overall it's muddled. Worth seeing if you have nothing else to do and have a strong constitution and a sick mind. Otherwise, don't bother.

I make it a general rule to dismiss any comment by someone using "trangressive" somewhere in the review.

Folks I braced myself for a horrible, bloody, unredeeming movie and came away underwhelmed. Frankly, there is no gore and there is less blood in the entire movie than one sees in the first 3 minutes of any slasher film.

The only reason to rate this movie low is because it is a B-movie with cheap production values and some wooden acting. Other than that, it managed to keep my interest throughout the entire film.

I cannot believe people would boo this film. That is absurd. If the characters were straight, no one would have a problem. But the main characters are gay and all of a sudden, we now have "social commentary" instead of just mindless entertainment.

Except for some male frontal nudity, this movie could be shown on network TV, although late-night.

For those that believe all gay movies should be affirming, this movie is not for you. For those that are looking for yet another gay romantic comedy with lots of eye candy and bad acting, well there is some eye candy and bad acting, but not much romance or humor.

It's not the greatest movie, it has flaws, but I didn't come away feeling as if I totally wasted my time watching it.

Ignore the prudes. See the movie. Make up your own mind. You will be shocked at how mild this movie is given the strange plot and subject matter.

This is another of those art films that goes nowhere but gets there in style. This film is gritty and fascinating in a sick, can't help but look at the car wreck on the highway sort of way. It's not bad enough to turn off so you keep watching hoping that sanity will be restored. It won't be but you watch nonetheless.

Frisk is one of a number of films by new film-makers (such as Todd Solondz, Tom Kalin, John Hewitt) who are for no-one. I love this disturbing new genre. Neither guided by morality nor restricted by the reality/fantasy divide, these films don't seek a wide audience. Instead, these films explore the underground, less explored territories of desire in its darker manifestations. This film isn't simply about sex and power, it concerns being gay in the era of AIDS and the insistency of desire. Frisk plays into the gay=death equation but this is only natural when being gay still remains for some blind people a lifestyle choice if not an aberration. Its a film about killing lovers, put blankly, and about experiencing the forbidden reaches of passion and obsession. Its a cold film and relentlessly reminiscent of De Sade's writing. Transgression and shock rule here but there's no easy comfort zones. A film of lust, decadence, cruelty and annihilation. Be warned.

I really don't see how anyone that hasn't read the book could possibly really understand what this film is supposed to be about. The character development was pretty weak, making me constantly wonder *why* the characters were doing what they were doing... and never getting an answer. And the acting really didn't help either. It was just... well, bad. It made the characters look cheap and one dimensional. Dialogue was spoken as if it was the actors' first times going over the script. You know, porn-like. I really don't get why people act like this was such a disturbing movie... I was bored throughout mostly the entire thing. If the characters had been straight, it may very well have been just another late night HBO erotic thriller.

If I had to guess, I'd say this film was made solely to shock, not to actually tell a really quite interesting story written by a brilliant author.

I actually saw this movie in the theater. More than three-quarters of the people walked out before the end. I've never walked out of a movie, but I was tempted to with this one. The reason I stayed was that I kept waiting for some sort of payoff to give meaning to the nonsensical violence, but that payoff never came. As a result, all it really amounted to was a wannabe snuff film.

Perhaps it's not entirely fair for me to review this movie since I walked out in disgust about halfway through and came back only for the last ten minutes. But I agree with Dennis Cooper: The literal interpretation of his book makes the film an entirely predictable exploitation flick - in terms of narrative and in the amateurish way it's all presented - instead of a compelling and artful auto-interrogation of f*cked-up desire. The most damage done is by director Todd Verow's inability to transpose the colloquial first-person of the book into something that makes sense for a movie. At this point in his career, he doesn't have the skills to pull it off, which results in a decision to make the serial killing explicitly real. I suppose Verow thinks that makes his movie more transgressive than Cooper's book which only tells me he didn't understand the book in the first place. Verow can be a creative and entertaining filmmaker - his Once and Future Queen is a scream; and Anonymous showed promise - but Frisk is dull and obvious, and only a half-star away from being complete garbage.

Incomprehensible. It's something about a gay guy who may (or may not) be a serial killer. The film jumps all over the place--there are flash backs, flash forwards, dream sequences all mashed together. Supposedly if you read the book you'll understand the movie. Well--I haven't read the book and I don't think I should have to read it to make heads or tails out of the movie. A movie should stand on its own and this one certainly doesn't.

It looks grimy (but I heard that was on purpose); the acting is truly abominable (some of the guys are cute but that's about it); the same actors play multiple roles (which is confusing), and the dialogue read during the killings is just so matter of fact I didn't know HOW to take it! And I didn't find it disturbing or confusing--just dull and irritating.

The only saving grace is Parker Posey--she manages to take a nothing role and actually make something of it. She has lousy dialogue too but she makes it work.

So--aside from Posey and some cute guys there's nothing to recommend this. I give it a 1.

The flip side to optimistic, hopelessly naive, queer-positive films like "Beautiful Thing", in fact this movie could be called "ugly thing". This movie shows the dark side of human sexuality in all people, not just gay ones. With a great book as source material, an awesome cast, and a terrific score by Coil (the greatest), this movie has everything going for it, even if those uptight queens at the SF gay and lesbian film festival booed it off the screen. Anyway, this isn't a movie for mainstream audiences, whether they be homophobic heteros or gay yuppies. There is a plot to this movie but it doesn't seem to be that important, taking a back seat to the striking visuals and twisted eroticism on the screen. Snuff films, bondage, violent sexual mutilation, and brother-to-brother incest are just a few of the trangressive delights in this film. Performances of note include Parker Posey who makes an extended cameo as a wild-eyed serial killer and Raoul O'Connell who is notable only because he is hot, hot, hot!

There is a brief scene after the credits that perhaps most people have not waited to see. I wonder if the UK censors in the mid - 1990's did as well; it is in my opinion the key to the whole film. Without spoilers it implicitly says that the whole film is a joke, and that the supposedly ' unbearable scenes ' are a kind of acted out pantomime for adults, and that over 18 years olds are adults! The acting is no worse than what you can see in other short for cash cult films, and sometimes it is quite good. The gist of the scenario is a fascination with killing so as to see the inner organs within our outer flesh, and only two scenes one in a windmill and one at the end that I averted my eyes. I have done this in certain family Westerns! Also, and that is again in my opinion this is not a purely gay film at all. A young woman joins the men in the so-called atrocities, so using logic this crosses over the divide of how it is just men who think about killing. I do not think it is gruesome especially as in 2025 you can see worst atrocities on television news. And they are real, and this film is definitely not. And Todd Verow is a good queer director who is not afraid of choosing risky material. If the film was submitted today in the UK would it get a certificate ? A question that I think needs an answer.

I was intrigued by the synopsis on the backside of the dvd: it suggested a controversial and erotically titillating gay-themed thriller, raising fascinating questions as to the role of violence and death in sex. It's actually amazing that someone was able to create such raving texts on the basis of what I had to watch: to me it seemed nothing but a tedious, pretentious and badly acted bore.

There's hardly any story. We just follow the narrator, joined by his lover and his lover's younger brother, in their quest for sadomasochistic encounters with a string of guys, culminating in actually killing their sexual victims. This maybe could make for an interesting movie, like a sexual variation of American Psycho, but here pretentiousness and amateurism totally stifle every potential.

The atmosphere is depressing and bleak, as are the settings. The photography is terrible, like it was made in the 60's, grainy and lackluster, alternated with arty sequences of flashy strobe images that take many tiresome minutes. The actors drone their lines as in slow motion. They are reasonably good-looking, but no-one is able to raise even a fraction of interest in their character, let alone sympathy. Main character Dennis (Michael Gunther) is portrayed as an extremely annoying self-righteous narcissist, his victims are all dull, passive, pathetic guys who sullenly let Dennis have his sadistic way with them.

There's a warning on the cover my dvd, that the movie contains explicit sexual content. Sure, the movie is in fact one long succession of sexual activities, but for all its provocative intentions it's surprisingly tame: apart from an occasional buttock and a glimpse of something more it sticks to an endless parade of kept-on boxer shorts. Definitely not the wild and unbridled sexual passion that (I humbly plead guilty!) I had hoped for.

Truly pointless. A combination of violence and sexual titillation that makes the unsurprising point that it is possible for the audience to be titillated and nauseated at the same time. This film gives no insight into the characters who would perform such senselessly violent acts, nor into the mind of the filmmaker who would tell such a s

This film is very disturbing, and it took a strong stomach to tough it out to the end. It brought to mind stories I have heard about Mexican porn "snuff" films, because the audience is treated to squirm-inducing sado-masochistic rape/murders. Characters murder victims on-screen for sexual pleasure, and unless you enjoy watching that, there is no other value to the movie. There was little, if any character development or plot. I had to wonder if Parker Posey knew what she was getting herself into when she did this movie. I read the other review, which referred to this as a "black comedy", but if it is, I must have missed something. I am also dumbfounded by reference to this as a "coming-out" movie, as it is a deeply sick depiction of the edge of any sexuality (Parker plays a hetero-sex murderer), and only fits the most outraged homophobe's stereotype of what gay life is about. Utterly horrible, and to be avoided.

This film is about a gay man who has had fantasies about killing other men since teenage.

Honestly, I see little point in the existence of "Frisk". It is a poorly made B movie with poor acting and poor production. The plot is not well explained or particularly engaging. Apart from the main character Dennis, there is no character development. So most people in the film seem like random people, making the plot more confusing to follow.

I am very disturbed by these perverted and sick minds portrayed in the movie. It is not a film for me.

No, it isn't a snuff movie, nor is it a gay movie.

But it fails to bring across the raw, underlying need of the characters to do what they do.

The actors just go through the motions. And you don't actually feel part of the narrative.

WHY the characters are the way they are is not important, though many might think it is.

I haven't read the book.

I think the idea was a character felt that his murder couldn't be properly appreciated without people to appreciate them. Which is why he needed accomplices.

Their savage murders drew them to greater feats.

But the storyline seems to be intent on the cinematics, instead of the dramatics.

I adore art films. They challenge the mind in ways mainstream films never can.

This film, unfortunately, is not an art film, though it attempts to be. Fundamentally, the idealized violence is acceptable (to me, at least, for the purposes of understanding the characters).

I have seen MORE violence, MORE gore, and MORE raw emotion in other art movies and left PROFOUNDLY moved. Sometimes wordless but still moved. THOSE are art movies that challenge us, make us THINK, but always FEEL.

Sadly, this film does none of those things.

Tired of coming out movies? Jeffrey and the Birdcage say nothing about your life? Fall asleep during Celluloid Closet? Then rent Frisk- refreshingly grotesque and lands all the right satirical punches on late 20th century gay culture. A litmus test for the politically correct.

Okay. There are moments I think this is a top movie and sometimes it's not that good. What is top is the acting of Raoul O'Connell. The guy brings so much into the movie as character. Unbelievable!. Really awesome. I have no other word for it. When he appears the story starts to be interesting. He takes my attention. He wakes me up. And he brings depth into what the director thinks and wants. He is a a gift from heaven I think. Okay. That means. Please great directors. Please take him and ask him to play in your movie. It's a selfish thing of me. Because I like to see him. Frisk is a movie you like or dislike. It's a kind of horror story. It shows some dark side of human. Of a gay man. It tells about our society nowdays. I 's really something do make a movie like this, without to much money. Hope they will spent some more money into the story and ask Raoul O'Connel again and there will be a master piece. Okay. Hugs from Bert in Amsterdam

Pretty awful. Even though I had read and loved the book, I couldn't make heads or tails of the movie. Although one thing needs to be pointed out, in the films brief conventional narrative moment, Craig Chester is brilliant as the semi-comatose whore. When his trick for the evening is trying to drag his lifeless body out of his house, Chester wakes up to ask if there was anything he could have done better for them. It's hard to explain, but in a way, that one moment almost gives this terrible, rootless film a sense of humanity that leaves an impression. I would watch the first 30 minutes again for that scene alone.