Just a few disorganized thoughts on the movie Frank, which is often wonderful and often stupefyingly frustrating:

• Michael Fassbender is a brilliant actor. What he does with body language is fascinating; he never reaches or pushes too far. 
• There's a fine line between being surprised by a movie and feeling jerked around by arbitrary plot and tone shifts.
• A movie/play is at its most maddening not when it's bad, but when you can feel the writer & director on the verge of brilliance, but they won't let themselves sustain it because they don't trust in what they've created. 
• I'm not sure how 80 - 110 minutes became a length standard for American films. I'm all for trimming the fat, but the last two new movies I've watched - Frank and the Grand Budapest Hotel - might have benefited from at another half hour, as long as it was used wisely.
• Still, both movies also introduced unnecessary plot threads. Grand Budapest features stunningly glorious visuals and revels in very precise human behavior and language, but the tall tale keeps getting sidetracked by its own whimsy as it unfolds. (No matter - it's still fantastic.) Frank, on the other hand, doesn't have enough faith in the titular character, the music he creates, and the way he affects those around him, and sends us on a Part Two that feels like a different, dumbed-down movie - one that ignores some of the more interesting questions asked in Part One. Worse, a good portion of the latter half hinged on the wildly inconsistent behavior and motivations of the "audience character," John, who makes some remarkably stupid choices. The more we consider what he's been through, the less sense his behavior makes. 
• I love Maggie Gyllenhaal. She is a fearless actress who looks like a real person. Her character in Frank is far from "likable," but Gyllenhaal gives her dimensions and steers clear of cliche and stereotype. We get her. It's an excellent performance.
• There are a couple characters in Frank who are absolute ciphers. I'm blaming you, screenwriters. I realize you wanna focus on the lead singer with the giant fake head, but you gotta give the rhythm section something.
• The first fifteen minutes are beautifully executed. They're funny, mysterious, and entertaining. 
• At times, Frank does a great job of exploring and questioning the link between mental illness and creativity. But it's deflating when some of the mental illness becomes the kind of movie mental illness that only flares up to create conflict or propel the plot in a different direction (consider Frank's "likable" song). The actors sell it best they can, though.
• Despite my issues with the John character, I really like how he thinks he changes and grows during the course of the movie, when he's actually regressing a bit. That's something you don't see much. 
• It's good to have themes in movies. But it's less good to allow a character, late in the film, to explain one of the themes to you. In case you missed it.
• It's perilous to portray the results of creativity in a movie. Consider, for example, how bland and tuneless poor Mr. Holland's opus turned out to be. But the music in Frank is breathtaking. It's alive. There are a thousand ways the music we hear could have gone wrong, but it's kind of exhilirating how well the songwriters and musicians walked that tightrope. The word "amazing" is way overused, but some of this music amazed me.
• Despite my frustrations with the movie, I recommend Frank (which I have been dying to see for weeks now), especially to those with a fascination for offbeat music. It'll stay with you, and it's often entertaining and smart, even when it isn't. 

• Finally: Jill and I were very happy to see certain musicians thanked in the credits. 

If you've seen Frank and wanna talk about it, make with the comments. Jill and I would love to hear your thoughts. It's that kind of movie.