Fandust The main attraction is obviously the idiot being shirtless. All muscle, no brain. Also, obviously a political statement against guns. The bad guys had guns, the good guys had a-do, whack-a-do, whack-a-do. Why didn't the bad guys kill the witnesses when they had a chance? Why did the idiot think a knife was sufficient against the bad guy leader's enforcer? Why did the idiot get stinking drunk, when in reality that would kill his chance of survival, let alone getting revenge/justice. Why did the idiot have no weapon when he met the bad guy leader at the hostage swap? Breaking the neck of his hostage made good suspense, but of course should have instantly gotten him shot. The idiot was dismissed from the Marines not for his temper, but for having no brain.

Peter Pluymers "I thought you were some sort of monster or something, like f*cking Charlize Theron. But look at this. Nice house. Nice woman. You're not a big tough guy. You're a f*cking pussy."Frank (Kevin Interdonato) seems like a dead-normal, hard-working guy who occasionally suffers from horrible headaches. But this Frank in "Bad Frank" is a labile person. "He was born bad" as someone says later in the film. Frank is an ex-marine who got into trouble due to his hot-tempered character and he's forced to end his military career. Apparently a course about "Anger management" was a necessity. But now Frank seems to be on the right path. A decent job, a handsome wife (Amanda Clayton), a cozy house and he stays away from people who could have a bad influence on him. A calmer and healthier life with alcohol being banned as well. And this could be accomplished with some medical supervision. frank keeps everything under control when he takes his medication on time. I found it strange however that he had problems with making an appointment when he notices that he's running out of pills. Apparently his medical and psychological condition isn't really clear to the attending doctor. Otherwise his case would be treated with high priority.It all goes wrong again when his best friend Travis (Brandon Heitkamp) asks Frank to help him with a job. A job causing Frank to look an old acquaintance straight in the eye again. It's Mickey (Tom Sizemore), someone out of his dark past. The rest of the story isn't quite original and has been used repeatedly in films. What you get is a kidnap / revenge movie with Frank releasing his demons again. Demons that made a mess of his life. A violent life full of victims. Not only those who bumped into his muscular body, but also relatives who don't want anything to do with him anymore because of his aggressive behavior and use of alcoholic in the past.Kevin Interdonato plays the tormented Frank perfectly. You just feel the oppressed rage and you know this uncontrollable aggression can be unleashed any moment. Unfortunately I have mixed feeling about "Bad Frank". There are parts which are excellent. But these are alternated with some weaker ones. I wasn't impressed by the emotional Frank. And to be honest, I thought the outcome during the job looked a little amateurish. So, at that moment, I really feared this would be nothing more than a pale and uninteresting B-movie. Everything changed the moment Frank starts to kick stand like a madman. An individual in a bar and Donny Shakes (Brian O'Halloran) experience this in a painful way.Even Tom Sizemore surprised me as the psychopathic Mickey. The scene with him and Travis was the most entertaining and frightening part in this movie. A highlight full of pure rage and madness. The last time I saw Sizemore act, was in "Weaponized". But that was too horrendous for words. Sizemore seems to be in money problems, considering the number of post-productions he is currently working on. Unfortunately, this is followed by the weakest moment of the entire film: the conversation between Frank and Crystal Duro (Lynn Mancinelli). In my opinion this scene was way too long and largely unnecessary. In my view this was used as a filler and they could have shortened this part so the movie had a perfect total playing-time of 90 minutes."Bad frank" isn't really bad. But you can't really call it a top movie. It wouldn't be fair to compare it to a movie like "Taken" because there's a significant difference in budget. Though it's really suitable as a typical Saturday night movie.More reviews here : http://bit.ly/2qtGQoc

Fredrik Lehto Normally when watching movies on my computer I watch a movie while doing something else at the same time but for this movie I couldn't take my eyes away.I loved it. From the first minutes where he put the hammer onto his hands, you felt that this guy is not right. There are some cheesy things in the movie and some of the dialogue is not the best. But in the end you have two (three? ) psychopaths against each other.I really loved it. Gonna rate it at 8, would have been higher if some of the scripting would have been better. But from acting, story etc it is amazing.Some are comparing it to Taken which is not right, I rather compare it to 'A History of Violence' which is a great movie on it's own albeit this one a bit darker.

A_Different_Drummer What prompted me to track this film down and have a peek was the paradox presented by the mainstream reviews.They were skewed in every possible direction.BAD FRANK was clearly one of those rare films you either loved or hated, but no middle ground.If you loved it, you loved the performances, the quirky dialog, the oddball plot development and direction, and the whole "film noire" mood (even though it was shot in color). And also it was nominated for a whole bunch of awards I had never heard of, even won a couple.However, if you hated it -- and a lot of mainstream reviewers did in fact hate it -- you saw it as a poor knockoff to Taken; you saw it as failing to deliver on its "action" promise; and you saw it as overlong, jumbled, and generally disappointing.In other words, for a reviewer, this was a challenge. I had to find out for myself.And I did.Here is my take on BAD FRANK.1. Critics who saw it as a cheap knockoff of Taken did not understand the film. In spite of the story and the casting, even in spite of the PR package put out by the distributors, this is much more a film that belongs in the class of "artistic horror" than an action story.TAKEN, with Liam Neeson (the first one, not the horrible sequels), was a jewel of writing and direction. Action, reaction. Action, reaction. A straight arc from beginning to end. BAD FRANK benefits from, and yet also suffers from, Tony Germinario's intention -- as both writer and director -- to break as many scriptwriting conventions as he possibly can. And he does it just to show he can. (Like George Carlin's gag -- "why does a dog lick his privates? CAUSE HE CAN!") 2. When judged in its proper class -- as idiosyncratic horror, like LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT -- it is pretty interesting, and stays with you after the credits roll, which is saying something. Which is not to say it is perfect, or even close to perfect, or even that it could get a table close to perfect at a fancy restaurant. It is overlong, some of the dialog is terrible -- and Tony Germinario may possibly have seen one too many Tarantino movies, and it shows.But the acting is astounding. Interdonato never breaks character even for a split second, and Sizemore matches him pound for pound in the race to see who is crazier and deserves to have PLANTERS stamped on his butt.3. The ending (which I will NOT give away) shows, once again, Tony Germinario's obsession with breaking rules. Remember the happy ending in Taken? Well, this ain't Taken. Not even close! Once again, a wackjob ending like this one is the hallmark, the fingerprint, of a horror film, not an action film.Summary: as a first film for a fledgling writer/director correctly niched in its class -- horror -- it is interesting and memorable. As pure entertainment competing for your attention with the other 10,000 movies available in theatres and on the net, it is perhaps less of a sure thing. But still memorable.Recommended? Yes, m'am.