Adicionar um enredo no seu idiomaA writer's quest with his partner to expose a psychologist's unethical claims of curing homosexuality.A writer's quest with his partner to expose a psychologist's unethical claims of curing homosexuality.A writer's quest with his partner to expose a psychologist's unethical claims of curing homosexuality.
- Prêmios
- 1 vitória e 1 indicação no total
Tom Vitale
- Gym Patron
- (as Thomas Vitale)
Suzanne Gilad
- Additional Voices
- (narração)
- (as Sue Gilad)
Avaliações em destaque
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.
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.
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.
My only regret about this movie is it is not yet available for purchase. I would love to watch it again.
Frank is a journalist who is living with his psychologist boyfriend. His boyfriend unethically sets him up to meet with a rival psychologist who works with making gay people straight. Frank battles with the psychologist, his boyfriend and, ultimately, himself. The ending is excellent, and leaves the viewer with even more questions about homosexuality.
It really made me think about whether or not gay people can be made straight. If they are born that way, what if they are very unhappy? Can or should they be allowed to change their sexual orientation? How much of this is because of the gay political climate? Is there really pressure to remain gay if someone wants to be stressed?
I highly recommend this movie, because it is intelligent and witty, and does not cater to one side of the debate, but leaves it to the viewer.
Frank is a journalist who is living with his psychologist boyfriend. His boyfriend unethically sets him up to meet with a rival psychologist who works with making gay people straight. Frank battles with the psychologist, his boyfriend and, ultimately, himself. The ending is excellent, and leaves the viewer with even more questions about homosexuality.
It really made me think about whether or not gay people can be made straight. If they are born that way, what if they are very unhappy? Can or should they be allowed to change their sexual orientation? How much of this is because of the gay political climate? Is there really pressure to remain gay if someone wants to be stressed?
I highly recommend this movie, because it is intelligent and witty, and does not cater to one side of the debate, but leaves it to the viewer.
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 ).
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 ).
A challenging premise. The main flaw is that it takes way too long to set up the plot. The acting is very weak in some scenes(and very good in others). It seems like 90% the shot compositions are close-ups. The film feels very long. About 25% could be edited out. Too much emphasis on repetition of characters conflict and not enough on the conceptual issue. I my opinion it takes something noble and reduces it to a petty squabble between childish overdone stereotypes. Music was unhelpful.
Unfortunately a missed opportunity to get these ideas to a broader audience, as the focus was too much on some unlikable characters on not on the social issues.
Unfortunately a missed opportunity to get these ideas to a broader audience, as the focus was too much on some unlikable characters on not on the social issues.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesThe mailbox next to Frank's bears the name "Vito Russo". Vito Russo was a film scholar and historian who wrote 'The Celluloid Closet', a study of homosexuality in film that was adapted into a documentary film of the same name.
- ConexõesFeatured in 2006 Independent Spirit Awards (2006)
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Central de atendimento oficial
- Idioma
- Empresa de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente