Frisk

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.

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.

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 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.

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!