User Reviews

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!

FIXING FRANK is somewhat of a rarity these days - a film well made form script to production that puts a hot topic on the table and challenges the viewer to think, all the while providing a very entertaining movie experience. The work began as a play by Ken Hayes who also adapted his play for the screen and while the 'opening up' of a stage play on the cinematic format is successful, in many way the dialogue feels very theatrical and the method of production stagy. That fact may annoy some viewers: for this viewer it worked, allowing us to here the superb script delivered in its entirety without frosting it with unnecessary visuals.

Credit director Michael Selditch for the creative approach to this filmed play. He keeps the story moving and integrated and draws exceptionally fine performances from his superb cast. In essence this is a three person film - two apposing therapists who are at opposite poles of dealing with the concept that being gay is an immutable inherited trait versus the possibility that with therapy the gay behavior can be changed to heterosexual behavior if the patient desires that 'change'.

Frank (Andrew Elvis Miller), a writer who is in the process of exposing a therapist Dr. Aspey (Dan Butler) who claims he can 'cure' gay men - at least according to Frank's lover Dr. Baldwin (Paul Provenza), an activist gay therapist. Frank, coached by Baldwin, has sessions with Aspey with the idea of trapping him into revealing his 'damage' to gay patients who have complained to Baldwin of Aspey's techniques. But what Frank discovers is a that Aspey deals with choices and changes on a strictly therapeutic angle, not basing claims for 'cures' for a lifestyle he does not condemn. In the process of the 'therapy' sessions, Frank grows into his own identity - a fact that alters his relationship with Baldwin and opens many closed doors of thought for all three characters - and us.

The actors are all excellent: one wonders if they played these roles on the stage. The intermingling of the sessions with conversations outside of sessions is additive and while many may object to the theatrical use of placing all three actors on the screen simultaneously when a 'session; is in progress, the format works well in allowing the script to be heard and maintain its punch. This is a thinkers' movie, the concepts are controversial and may find some viewers anger points, but as a film it works exceptionally well. Grady Harp

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.

I found this really interesting, not only because of sexual preference/identity issues, but also because of its universal theme of trying to figure out who you are apart from other people in your life whose opinions may sway you toward doing what you think they think you should. For me, watching this character try to unravel this tangle was inspiring. Also it was refreshing to me to face head-on some of the questions it raises. Even though the film takes a stand in the end, there's a lot of room to question and think about the issues, and I didn't come out of it with clarity, but more with thoughts about the questions, which is so much better than everything being wrapped up neat package. If I have one critique it's that maybe the film could have ended even more ambiguously (hence I gave it 9 instead of 10). This story is very layered and clever, if not always entirely subtle about it. Shot beautifully - another review listed as one of the negatives that it is mostly close-ups. I think this is a strength of the film, it is so much about internal dialog of the main character, and the other main characters are really in his space mentally so I think the way it was shot really reinforces what he's going through. The use of reflections and enclosed spaces whenever the shots are NOT close-ups also enhances this feeling of closeness and constriction. And the director's commentary is pretty good, which is so rarely the case... starts off on the wrong foot, but stick with it, they actually do discuss meaning and intent and ideas rather than the all-to-often string of production stories.

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.

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.

The dialogue is cliché, the camera-work insipid, the characters unbelievable, the acting amateur, and the plot tortured. How did this movie get made? Obviously a play trying to be cinema--they are two different forms. Obviously a didactic diatribe that presents itself as balanced while smugly confident that you'll get the message. Should have been a comedy, a satire. I suppose this was supposed to be allegorical, that the two doctors were supposed to be like the queer little angel and devil sitting on Frank's shoulder and whispering in his ear. I'm not even sure those characters existed outside Franks head. the sad thing is, I could care less. I wanted to tell Frank to grow a pair and go out and experience the world instead of sitting around navel-gazing and lamenting his circumstance. Would love to see a movie about this subject done well.

On the topic of the validity and morality of offering psychological treatment for those unhappy with their same-sex attractions. As at July 2007 the APA's official attitude is that "ex-gay" therapy should not be promoted, because it is likely to do more harm than good - but they don't object to the members providing treatment if it is actually sought by the client. "Fixing Frank" plays devil's advocate in letting us decide whether this attitude is really acceptable.

Frank is a young journalist who is lacking in assertiveness and personal motivation. Frank's psychotherapist partner has a long standing loathing for a rival therapist whom he knows has been providing "ex-gay" treatments. He convinces Frank that there's a great opportunity for an expose feature by posing as a client seeking an ex-gay cure from this other therapist. The plan falls apart as we see how carefully chosen and passionately delivered rhetoric very effectively chips away at Franks self-confidence as a gay man.

It's a fine film for helping us to empathise with anyone who has sought ex-gay therapy - and is particularly interesting for allowing us to look through the eyes of the ex-gay therapist who passionately believes that he's doing the right thing.

The commentary track on the DVD is invaluable. The director and the actor playing the ex-gay therapist are both gay - but the other two actors are extremely convincing straight men (the cast are all great actors).

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.

This is one of my favourite indie and gay-themed movies. Do not get turned off of watching due to the low quality of photography; for the acting and especially the script, it is worth of several viewings.

As the description of the movie says, it's about a gay journalist trying to expose a supposed conversion therapist. The beauty of this movie it's in its cleverness. It makes all the characters human, with their positive and negative traits and it doesn't judge. Despite the controversial topic, it manages to stay objective and present pro and con arguments instead of running into childish scapegoating. It's smart and it makes you think about life decisions. The main part of the movie are dialogues and the actors deliver them perfectly. I've seen it several times and I still find new depths in the story.

After seeing Fixing Frank as a FISA screener I contacted the director to ask it was slated for DVD distribution and a film this good belonged in my library. It asks with attempting to definitively answer powerful and thorny questions about identity and desire; it smacks of integrity to present these questions and leave it to the viewer.

I would loved to have seen the play, but I believe I got an excellent feel for it with how it was presented as a triad, with the two therapists fighting over Frank's very identity. The depiction of one of the men in Frank's mind while he spoke with the other dramatized the psychological tug of war with artful cinematography choices. It had moments of humor, pathos and drama that engaged from beginning to end.

Fixing Frank brought an important and relevant play to people who might never get a chance to see it. It got me asking questions I thought for certain were already answered, and it never left me with a moment of boredom or irritation with the filmmaker.