Fixing Frank

I started watching this movie, not knowing what to expect. The whole issue of conversion therapy has been close to me ever since a friend of mine who's gay wanted to try and change his sexual orientation. That's why I approached this movie with both anticipation - for some possible answers - and dread.

Let me put it this way: if you want to understand why some gay men want to change their sexual orientation, you've come to the right place. The movie, through the characters of Frank and Dr. Apsey, raises many questions that aren't easily dismissed. The writing is good, the acting is good, and the way it all plays out is both engaging and plausible.

At the end of the day, however, I felt the problem was that too many of the questions raised weren't handled well enough, weren't addressed as they should have been, considering their enormity. Supposedly the movie gives both sides a chance to show their point of view. Supposedly you're given an answer at the end as to which "side" Frank chooses. But you're given no insight as to why he makes the choice that he does at the end (don't worry, I won't give it away) and you certainly not hearing a real discussion between the two opposing POVs, as one is more dominant in this movie, in a way that Considering the importance (even the urgent importance, that the movie itself refers to) of not leaving this discussion one-sided in those areas where there are answers to be offered to the questions raised here, I think there's still an issue of social responsibility pressing, that suggests those answers should have been supplied more than they have been.

Yet for all this, it does make you think. If you're willing to be a thinker, if you're willing to have a go and find the answers that truly balance things out yourself, you could indeed enjoy this movie.

First of all, I have to admit that I am a sucker for movies that have a stage-feeling to them. 'Suicide Kings' is a great example and 'Fixing Frank' is another brilliant movie to add to the family.

Frank is a writer who is working on an article about a psychologist who is trying to 'cure' people from homosexuality. This, of course, is not Frank's own idea, but his boyfriend's; another psychologist who is more than involved with anything having to do with gay-rights. Trying to be the "good fag", Frank is on a mission to bring this psychologist down, but as time passes he begins to doubt himself as well as his relationship with his boyfriend.

Needless to say, the subject is delicate and the fact that the movie's standpoint is pretty much neutral will probably strike a sensitive nerve within a lot of people. Personally, I couldn't have seen the subject being approached in any other way. Because handling a political and ethical subject such as this without preaching is hard. I'd say they did a pretty damn good job.

Some people say that the main character, Frank, is plain, neutral and terribly underwritten and yes, it's all true. But I do believe that was intentional. Having a fully developed character would make it too personal which would somehow spoil the whole purpose because this is not really about this person we know as Frank; it could be about anyone.

I love the theatrical dialog and the actor playing the gay-curing psychologist is brilliant.

If you watch this movie, thinking it will be another gay-movie, you will probably be disappointed. Because even though it concerns a gay-issue, this is more of a movie debating what's ethical versus personal choice. And yes, it's highly recommended.

A person's response to a film often depends of where they are emotionally and psychologically at a particular point in time. Great films can break through whatever emotional and psychological barriers the viewer brought with them - their baggage - and enlighten, inform and entertain. This film, although engaging, does not come near being great. The adaptation to film from play should somehow transcend the mediums. If you just film the play, you are missing the opportunity to use the medium of film to enhance the storyline. This film never loses its play quality. The dialog that works so well as a play, become tedious and goes on forever! Do people really talk this way? I think not! After a while the psycho babble becomes a hmmmmmmmmm in the ears. Now what was the point? Ah, the actors did a great job!

The feelings through seeing this film were so contrastant than not exactly easy to define it.

It is a film about rivalry, chains of lies, manipulation, dark games and forms of cruelty .

Two psychologists.

The boyfriend of one of them used for presumed article , in fact for proves to compromite the colegue.

The first part is more than promissing.

The second seems not only dark but forced in few scenes.

Because the premises are reduced at terrible confrontation in which young man, not very clever but batsy enough for his ignorance confronts a man who seems interested about him in profound sense.

Obvious, Frank is only a tool for mature. Dr. Apsey, for less mature, remaining in his traumas circle Dr. Baldwin. And the presumed independence is only a lie itself.

Not bad film, useful , first, for reflection ( maybe for bath scene, to, for different reasons ).

This is a great film! I think it came from a play--really intelligent and psychologically suspenseful. I couldn't wait to see how it ended. Really made me think about the whole issue of "fixing" gay men, turning them straight through psychology. The actors are all really good, and there are a couple of steamy shots worth checking out! I'd love to see another film by this director soon.