Franklyn Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Reality hasn't got a prayer.
The path of single bullet decides the fate of four lost souls.
Preest (McGregor) is a masked vigilante detective, searching for his nemesis on the streets of Meanwhile City, a monolithic fantasy metropolis ruthlessly governed by faith and religious fervor. Esser (Hurt) is a broken man, searching for his wayward son amongst the rough streets of London's homeless. Milo (Bettany) is a heartbroken thirty-something desperately trying to find a way back to the purity of first love. Emilia (Green) is a beautiful art student; her suicidal art projects are becoming increasingly more complex and deadly.
| Sam Riley | Milo |
| Mark Wingett | Frank Grant |
| Jay Fuller | Monk |
| Bernard Hill | Esser |
| Art Malik | |
| Ryan Phillippe | Preest |
| Gary Pillai | Doctor |
| Chris Wilson | Police Officer |
| Eva Green | Emilia |
| Kika Markham | Naomi |
| Susannah York |
| Gerald McMorrow |
6.70 out of 10 (813 votes)
Visitor Reviews
A poorly made story about three crazy people.
posted on 24 Aug 2009Of course, those three people are not crazy in the same degree. We have one that is clinically mad, one that is just having hallucinations with his imaginary childhood lover, which has now grown into a fairy-like beautiful woman, and finally we have a suicidal girl. So we have three grades of madness and a fairy-tale-for-three-years-old-kids way of making a story, which is neither interesting or verosimile, nor captivating or intelligent. PS: I have no idea why some people are talking about dystopia or sci-fi, or even fantasy. This film is fantastic in the same way, for example, A beautiful mind is, meaning that we only deal with the delusions of a mentally disturbed person in the form a futuristic society in which religion plays a central role.
Nowhere near as clever as it thinks it is
posted on 20 Aug 2009It's not fair to criticise just for the sake of it, but it's not possible to state my criticisms without spoilering the movie big-time. So if you don't want to read spoilers, stop here.We have four seemingly unconnected story threads. One concerns a man called Preest (Ryan Phillippe) wearing a full-face hood in a dystopic alternative reality place called Meanwhile City, where he expects to carry out an assassination. The second concerns Esser (Bernard Hill), travelling from Cambridge to London in search of his son. The third concerns Emilia (Eva Green), carrying out suicide attempts as a kind of performance art project. The fourth involves Milo (Sam Riley), moping around with all sorts of personal problems following his wedding not taking place. These threads limp slowly onwards with nothing much happening until the two-thirds mark at which point we finally begin to find stuff out (spoilers start here). We discover that Preest is actually Esser's son, that he is a mentally disturbed serviceman who has escaped from a mental hospital, killing someone as he did so, and that Meanwhile City is nothing but a highly detailed delusion. And we discover that Milo has had an imaginary friend Sally since childhood who helps him through bad times: played by Eva Green in a bad red wig, she has now put in a reappearance. Things come to a conclusion when Preest invades Emilia's flat in order to carry out the assassination of his father (who is someone else in Preest's fantasy) in the restaurant across the road. Preest shoots and wounds Milo (who has accepted that fantasy Sally doesn't really exist) and blows himself up in Emilia's flat. Emilia (who, of course, looks like Sally, what with Eva Green playing both of them) and Milo, both wounded (both physically and psychologically, see, I got that) stumble into each other's arms, the end.I have no problem with movies which present narratives in fantasy and real worlds, where the former can be explained by reference to the latter (Wizard of Oz, A Matter of Life and Death etc.). Neither do I have a problem with stories where seemingly disconnected threads twine together by the conclusion - after all, if you track back any incident in real life to origin points in the lives of participants, then take those as individual starting points, you will end up with something which looks like coincidence.My problems came from something rather more fundamental. Number one, the four stories simply weren't very good. For much of the film I found myself thinking "When these threads finally make contact with each other, the payoff had better be spectacular if it's going to justify sitting through this tedium." Well, the payoff was distressingly inadequate.Number two, while I don't have any problem with coincidence per se, I do like my coincidences to be credible. The denouement here required three certifiable nutjobs (schizo soldier, suicidal art student, full-on imaginary befriender) to wind up in the same place at the same time for no reason other than coincidence. Pull the other one, do.Number three, you could have removed Milo's thread completely and it would have had no effect on the rest of the movie. That shows how completely inconsequential it was in terms of narrative importance.Heaven knows I'm not a very demanding film-goer - I'm easily pleased, and have thoroughly enjoyed movies which have come in for some heavy duty criticism. But I do like to be entertained and I don't like being bored. This film bored me and failed to entertain me and left me feeling distinctly unsatisfied. I got the impression that the film thought it was a great deal cleverer than I thought it was. I encourage potential viewers to read Will Wright's criticisms - a well-reasoned critique from someone who knows what he's talking about.Bernard Hill was excellent: his character was boring. Eva Green was excellent: her character Emilia wasn't boring (Sally was, though). She was sexy and deeply worrying - she can be very scary. She was much more scary than Ryan Phillippe who left no impression on me at all. Neither did Sam Riley.Oh, and who or what is Franklyn? I know Bernard Hill queried seeing the name on some document or other (with no explanation or clarification), but did I miss it being mentioned elsewhere?
Different, certainly, but...
posted on 18 Aug 2009OK, first of all, in reply to the previous comment stating that film students will spend a long time trying to decode hidden meanings and whatnot in this film just to show off to non-film students, where do you get off saying that? As a Media Studies student myself, I enjoyed this film very much, and because I'm currently doing my film study project, I thought this was a very intriguing film, which you might enjoy more if you are indeed a film student.Admittedly, this is a film which requires some thinking and figuring out; in other words, if you don't want a film which requires some thought, then this is not for you. The ending is left almost entirely up to the viewer to work out, as the four story lines come together.About 80% of the film has passed before the resolution comes about, so the ending is rather hasty; one of the film's weaknesses. Also, the cinematography was quite annoying, but I liked that the overall theme of the film came across in the colouring of the scenes, and that this is a dark film but still with short episodes of light.The characters and their interwoven story lines challenge your mind to guess about their relation to one another, and what their role in their ending could be. They're an interesting bunch to follow, and Eva Green portrayed the suicidal art student very well. Ryan Phillipe as Jonathon Priest, however, irritated me, because he seemed to be trying to be V from V for Vendetta, but the character himself I found to be intriguing.Despite reviews saying that this is a lot like the aforementioned V For Vendetta, it only has certain elements that are similar; for example, a masked man seeking revenge for a previous event. Other than that, this film is very original, and is not really like the other film in any way.If this film had maybe half an hour to an hour more in length, a lot more of the ends would have been tied up. I give this film 8/10 for overall casting, the sets, originality of the plot, and the editing. The missing two points are for less resolve than some people needed to be satisfied, the confusion that arises while watching, and other features commonly noted by people who didn't enjoy.All in all, I liked it very much.
My eyes still hurt
posted on 21 Jul 2009I have been reading IMDb's comments for years now. Oddly enough I usually don't agree with most bad comments on a movie. We deal with one of the rare exceptions here. This movie, along with whomever believes that incoherent, uninteresting stories about deranged, suicidal and utterly boring individuals, is good...should be committed immediately. I mean come on, how dumb do the film-makers believe the audience is?! When the movie began I was actually excited (the views of Meanwhile City are just perfect), but after 20 minutes (yes I lasted that long) I wanted to stuff my eyes with popcorn and stab myself with a cola bottle.The story telling was...bleh (no other word came in mind). The actual content was, utter rubbish to say the least. The ending...I mean who the hell would believe those people met there on purpose? I swear, if I was able I would have shot them all myself.Save your time, your braincells and your dignity and avoid this at all costs.
An interesting plot, let down by an inexperienced filmmaker
posted on 17 Jul 2009Franklyn is described by radio 5 according to the advertisement in the july 2009 empire as "Donnie Darko meets the Matrix" or something in that line, it was this line that made me interested in viewing this movie. It is unfortunate that the director chose this to make as an sophomore effort as the plot points show a lot of potential.The first thing that definitely stood out to me is the pacing, it is all crowded into the runtime and yet it still feels like it moving forward at a snail pace, most of the characters needs a lot more character development than is allowed in this movie, the one character that is allowed more than she should have been is eva green's character, view the movie and you shall see why i say so.all in all i would love to see the director and writer of this movie, return to the story somewhere in the future when he is has gained more experience, it is not a bad movie, but it's not good either and can feeling boring to some.
worst movie I've seen this year
posted on 17 Jul 2009It is not what you'd think it is if you see the trailer.I am the kind of guy that enjoys both action and smart movies, even if they're not combined at all. I can also appreciate a good story, even if it's badly acted or with poor special effects.In this movie the acting is great and the picture quality is awesome, but the as a movie... an epic fail.By the half of the movie, about 15% of the people in the theater left and at that point I realized I was still waiting for the movie to "begin".To make the long story short, the movie is terrible, unoriginal and extremely boring.Don't waste your money and time on this.
Clever
posted on 15 Jul 2009Was a bit wary of this one - had read comments about it being pretentious and a little too clever for it's own good.No need to worry on either front.Thought it was excellent - beautifully shot, fabulous performances by all involved and the story comes together wonderfully. The parallel world of Meanwhile City is simply stunning. Think you have to be able to go with it for the first half - and allow it time to start unfolding. This may frustrate some, but it definitely has a sense of balance and shows enough to keep your attention without over-elaborating unnecessary plot strands.Really hope it does well... it's shows bigger budget, mainstream multiplex fodder how it could, and should, be done.
A movie with a grand finale...
posted on 25 Jun 2009that fizzles like wet firework!Oh boy! Franklyn is boring, beyond boring. As many other reviewers have already written, the film tells the of apparently unconnected four persons living in London, three in the present and one in the future.In the film we learn at, a snail's pace, the story of these characters, which are totally and completely uninteresting. But, out of curiosity, I decided to watch (or should I say endure) the film until its anticlimactic end to learn how and why the lives of these four poor souls are connected. And it was a bust! It is interesting what people consider art these days. As long as something is tortuous, tedious and unimaginative it is considered a masterpiece! Franklyn is another big waste of time. Next time I will go out and watch grass grow for two hours. It is more fun and rewarding.
Intriguing and will keep you thinking for days...
posted on 15 Jun 2009The best film I have seen this year so far, its so brilliantly strange and such a brain-teasingly satisfying film to watch.The film is a sci-fi thriller/drama about four characters dealing with problems in their life, from Eva Greens character who is a suicidal artist to Sam Riley's character whose bride ran away at the altar. These characters parts of the film are set in modern day London and their struggles may seem uninteresting at first but once the films pace sets in their stories take on as much importance as the real main character Preest. Jonathon Preest, the mysterious loner of the films alternate reality, Meanwhile City, is the only atheist in a city gripped by Faith, where every resident must have a religion which lends weight to the films plot and themes.All the cast were very good at their parts, Phillippe does well as Preest without going into deep voiced batman territory and Eva Green portrays her very flawed character with enough humanity to keep you interested without becoming fed up with her characters behaviour.The film constantly switches between the two settings, to both dramatic effect and to keep the film moving at a solid pace that should have you guessing at the link between all the characters and how the alternate reality of Meanwhile city ties in with them. Meanwhile City itself is a stunning and darkly captivating location for the other half of the film and provides the visual cement to the films concepts and makes for some of the most inventive design I've seen in sets and costumes for a long time. Its a Gothic vision of skyscrapers and futuristic landscapes with inspiration from cathedrals and ancient architecture. Its safe to say that you shouldn't let anyone spoil the films twists or plot for you, because its twists often seem predictable before hand but upon their realisation they can be quite surprising reveals.For those familiar with films such as Donnie Darko, the ideas driving the film may seem to be done and dusted but Franklyn's fresh approach to the concepts as well as its stunning execution make this film worthy of anyone looking to engage their thoughts in some very interesting concepts regarding, reality and perception. Go out and watch this film, it's conclusion will linger with you for days after wards.
Did I watch the same film as the other commentators?
posted on 26 May 2009It appears from the comments left already that the movie Franklyn has beguiled its audience. I too was at the BFI screening, but I was far from enamoured by what I saw.The cinematography was weak for a feature. TV OK, but not cinema. It was obvious, leaching from Gilliam and del Toro, but without the grand aesthetic. I was hugely impressed by the production design and the CGI/graphics, but it was spoilt by some pedestrian direction. I desperately wanted this film to fly, to show off, but it never really got off the ground for me.Yes it is highly derivative, taking chunks from so many other texts; films, comics, books and TV shows, that in my honest opinion been done better elsewhere.The use of colour and grading did nothing to help the poor use of lens and framing or to aid the differentiation of the narrative strands for the characters. Instead I was left having to acknowledge flashbacks, scene changes and internalised daydreams by chance rather than be led through. (note, not spoon fed) The narrative(s) itself is an absolute mess and I would have been glad of the opportunity to ask the director was the edit we were presented close to the original script. It appeared that the fantasy had been brought forward and scenes rearranged to monopolise on the genre elements above the conceit of the intertwined plots. It fails to deliver in the same way as 21 grams does with multiple character narratives. I personally feel that it would have worked better presented in a Rashomon fashion. Alternatively this could have made a good TV series.This resulted in a film that is as schizophrenic as much as confusing, relying on an awful Blade Runneresque narration to gloss over issues within the film.The audience's attention is abruptly chopped between plot strands, prior to any real comprehension of the characters can be established, and thus distancing the viewer from emotional engagement, a key device in drama.We don't care about anyone in the film To confuse matters further, a second character is given narration, but not the third and fourth. This is one example of the deep inconsistencies with which the characters are handled.Which protagonist's view point do we associate ourselves with at any time? The symbology, icons and themes were poorly handled and desperately needed greater foregrounding. Cinema is a visual and sound based medium, but one does not need endless scenes of two characters talking, to comprehend the story.Show don't tell The music was insipid. No more to say The film had moments that demonstrated potential, but without emotional engagement the 90+ minute running time felt much longer. I will admit that the final scene is good; paced, acted, emotional and dramatic. Bravo, but it left me feeling that if this was possible, then why did it not manifest earlier. Why direct one good sequence at the end? If you have little money then make sure that you amp up the emotional intensity.I must say that it did do a great thing for me and that was to give me a kick up the arse and realise that I should be directing my first feature sooner rather than later. Thanks Gerald
a good challenging visually stunning film ...
posted on 26 May 2009Reading a synopsis of the film, I feared that it would be full on sci-fi ... but thankfully there were two strands - one set in contemporary London, and another of the more fantasy version ...It really is the sort of film where knowing too much about the plot before seeing it, will spoil. I would say that if you like films where all the strands are nicely tied up at the end, you will be frustrated. A few of the strands are resolved, but I still can't work out what a couple of the characters were up to !Eva Green has the largest role, and is mostly good, but at times she seems a bit wooden. Sam Riley was quite convincing as a bit of a loser, and Ryan Phillippe seemed to enjoy his masked role.I saw the premiere at The London Film Festival and the director explained that some of the sci-fi imagery was based on the spires of Cambridge. Ryan Phillippe said that he did indeed act in all the masked shots, even those where he fights the "clerics" - having studied martial arts since he was eight !This film will make you think, but be prepared for a gradual exposition, rather than any great revelations.
Boring boring boring
posted on 30 Apr 2009Went to this movie without having high expectations or anything like that, but what happened in the theater have never happened to me before: I simply got asleep and watched the movie half awake, moreover the same happened to my friend who went together with me.Its hard to decide why the movie was so boring - the mood was created, acting was OK, I liked the colors, it even had that kind of depressive mysticism and fantasy elements that i usually like. I guess its the producing or maybe script that were so weak and made the movie unwatchable.I usually never write comments here, but just want to warn you people, don't waste your money and time..
Good build up that falls flattish
posted on 14 Apr 2009If you're a Ryan Phillippe fan and you've seen 'The I Inside' then you'll be as let down by 'Franklyn' when all is revealed, as you would have been by the earlier film. There is a good beginning - a disturbing dystopian Blade Runner, Gotham City on view with echoes of 'The Prisoner' in the surreal background and figures on display. Ryan Phillippe gets his teeth well into his role of a masked vigilante, even if the narration is overdone.But then there are three other strands to the narrative set in downbeat modern London. Eva Green (looking like death warmed up) trying not to commit suicide, Bernard Hill searching for his missing son, and Sam Riley mooning about after being stood up at his own wedding. Now the trick is how will they all intertwine at the conclusion, and which is Hill's son.The trouble with the film as it builds nicely, despite Eva Green's segment being rather prolonged and somewhat tiresome, and Sam Riley's being very aimless and uninteresting, is that it does not go down a dangerous sci-fi path but ends up in your everyday soapland with a bit of violence. Oh, and I think God appears somewhere to trick out the prosaic elements of the modern day sections! The ending is too pat, ordinary and really not worth the effort spent on creating the elaborate Ryan Phillippe section. The director keeps the pace nudging along, but as a debut writer director, Gerald McMorrow does not viually or verbally excite the viewer greatly. CGI and production design okay, but worth not a lot to the film in the end. The acting is sound with Ryan Phillippe easily the stand out as he begins to mature away from pretty boy roles and has the best part. And isn't it wonderful not to have the usual suspects of British thesps appearing all over the place. Only a barely recognisable Susannah York keeps the flag flying!See it, or wait for it to appear on Film Four (one of the backers) and it will interest you for a good while, but if you spot things quicker than I do (I did not spot the twist in 'Sixth Sense' but still thought it was a let down!) you will get impatient and be disappointed.
A Noble Failure
posted on 02 Apr 2009Franklyn advertises itself as an intriguing sci fi head twister. But those twists are just too few and far between. Most of the commentators here have identified the problems with this film but I still recommend Franklyn. Why? For most first time film makers Franklyn contains all the pitfalls that should be avoided. But the irony is Franklyn is a great idea that dies through amateur film making. Good movies are, most of the time, simple and quick. Even if the idea is sophisticated the rendering of it should not be. But Franklyn's script is the primary fault written by a first timer who's not noticed its errors. The author hasn't identified the important parts of his story. Preest, his father and Emilia are the centre of the film but instead we get a massive wtf Milo subplot and trips to see a mystically pointless hospital janitor. "Meanwhile City" works and while we can always compare it to Bladerunner we shouldn't. Ridley Scott didn't invent the dystopian metropolis Fritz Lang did. And as a metropolis for characters to move through it function's superbly. We just never see them move through it enough!Preest's fantasy city is where the film should focus, Emilia should feature here somehow yet Eva Green's too busy playing Milo's imaginary girlfriend instead of opposite Ryan Philippe. And then when you do get in the city it's too brief and becomes a dull soap opera moping around London. I've no problem with duel reality (similar to Identity) but like that film it became all too one sided.The trick to good screenplay is simple: learn to spot the errors before you spend £10 million on them. Then, as Hitchcock said, directing a film is simple: have a good script when you start. Of course we then realise it isn't that simple… I've also experienced a small production where the first time writer/producer (not me) clung too much to their ideas and defended the mistakes rather that address them. A script can be about anything but it must not contain 'code' than makes the movie machine seize up. The character and events of Milo are a prime example. Suppose we dump this waste of space and just push Emilia and Preest closer together, give them more to do in Meanwhile. I wanted Franklyn to work but it didn't. The script was rushed (it was based on a short story by the director) and was never good enough. But the fact it got made is a triumph albeit for all the wrong reasons. I will happily add Franklyn to the shelf with Dune, Dark City, etc despite its list of well meant errors.PS One commentator here suggested the music and photography were poor. This is hogwash. Both were impressive for a small budget film.
Liked it, believe it or not.
posted on 02 Apr 2009I liked it, believe it or not. it's not the common sci-fi stuff that you usually see out there. is different, incredibly artistic, not bad but not that good either.the cast is simply amazing. Sam Riley is good as always, Eva green gets the biggest role and rocks at it, an Ryan Phillipe really surprised me (he didn't like him much before this movie).i enjoyed it, i think it has some flaws, but in the end it is just what it promises to be: unusual and artistic. if you're a "classic movie" lover, you will not appreciate this movie at all. i've you're a "new wave" kind of person it's a must-see.
Daringly unique and visionary British film with plenty to offer
posted on 29 Mar 2009I have just got back from watching Franklyn at the London Film Festival, and let me tell you, this film is truly something special. A cleverly co-ordinated lesson in narrative structure, the plot revolves around 4 different people, delivered in 4 different strands of plot, one of which exists in somewhere a little futuristic called "Meanwhile City". Each of the four are all trying to fix something in their lives. ++DONT WORRY I SHALL NOT BE Writing ANY SPOILERS HERE+++ At first, my mind was drawn to the film V for Vendetta - the masked vigilante (played very well by Ryan Phillipe, holding his own in a predominantly British cast) seemed to be a similar character, complete with voice-over, telling us the troubles of Meanwhile City. But soon the other plot strands filter in and it becomes far more than a Vendetta-lite imitation, with a narrative structure very similar in delivery to Magnolia, or Gomorrah. However, the director here never makes it confusing as to who is who, with a definite and focused script keeping the four strands together very well.All the other stories are set in contemporary London. My favourite was the story with Sam Riley's character. His bride to be has left him and he is finding ways of dealing with his grief. Elsewhere, Bernard Hill plays a man searching for his son who has (mysteriously) gone missing. The other story strand involves Eva Green as a troubled artist with a penchant for frequently attempting suicide.Whilst the photography and direction in the film is brilliantly vivid and bold, and the cast are wonderfully believable, what really sold this film for me was the story itself. Intriguing, exciting, thoughtful, often very moving, and most of all, constantly surprising, Franklyn is by far the most fiercely intelligent and engaging film i have watched in a very long time. The final 10 minutes are simply amazing and very, very clever (dont read ANYTHING about it though!) Make sure to watch Franklyn when it comes out (the LFF was a lucky early screening, I am told it could be out in January at the cinemas nationwide). BUT WHATEVER YOU DO MAKE SURE NO ONE TELLS YOU ANYMORE THAN THE SYNOPSIS TELLS YOU! else you will not experience the joy of watching the story unravel and reveal itself for its truths. Thank you to all involved in creating something so utterly unique in its execution.
Worst film I've seen since EDEN LAKE.
posted on 25 Mar 2009Saw this today and thought it was sophomoric, pretentious, incoherent, drivel. It is incredibly predictable and then the way the characters supposedly link together is a complete lie. There is NO connection! How did this get £6 million? It is baffling when the dialogue is unintentionally amusing, everything Ryan Phillipe says in his deep Clint Eastwood voice sounds like the man from the film trailer voice-overs. Some of the things he says are priceless. People at the screening I saw were laughing every time he opened his mouth. His mask looks like a pair of old Y fronts with you know what smeared on them. And that in a nutshell is my review! Oh and there is also an actually very disturbing, irresponsible subplot about suicide as art which is in very poor taste. Avoid!
Never comes off the page like it should.
posted on 19 Mar 2009There are movies that, despite their lack of budget and film-makers' experience within the medium of film—despite their failings in telling a coherent, and entertaining story, nevertheless excel in their ability to enthral through idea and theme alone. Franklyn which too often sets out in this manner, in turn neglecting engaging narrative for contorted, mystery-tinged manipulation, is not one of those select few features. Restricted by a small budget and the director and writers' inexperience with feature length productions, the film is interesting to a certain degree but too often falls flat when trying to compel the viewer either through character or plot. Indeed, the only sole reason to continue watching a film such as Franklyn is to find out what the hell is going on; and then you get to that finish line only to realise that the payoff isn't quite what you expected. The result is a feature that feels half-baked, underdeveloped and frustratingly vague for its first two acts. So much so that by the time director Gerald McMorrow decides to show us his hand, we've more or less left the table and cashed in our chips.The problem with Franklyn isn't that it is short on ideas, but that it is short on ideas upon which to implement the themes and arcs to which McMorrow obviously wants to get across. For sure, this is an original, interesting and intriguing piece of work; but it's also dreary and tiresome at the same time. First time viewers should not be alarmed if plot details go amiss, or if the story seems overly convoluted, disconnected and a little contrived—because this is exactly how McMorrow pens his tale. It's deliberately withholding for a reason, and that is because without that sense of mysticism and deliberate manipulation, Franklyn is a mirthless experience. Taken on face value in retrospect, the ninety minutes doesn't feel completely wasted, but there is a certain degree of fallacy involved here that comes off as cheap and overly ambitious. Indeed, this is a bold effort from the first-time filmmaker, and one has to applaud such an audacious venture—but it's also very hard to be convinced by Franklyn either in its grandiose tale, or its dubiously surreal and contorted narrative.For the majority of the feature, we are treated to four stories revolving around four separate characters split over what appears to be two very different timelines of alternate dimensions (this is, of course, merely a subjective speculation on the part of myself, as the truth behind the events of the film are never truly explained—and fair enough, I suppose). Each of the characters have their own little quirks; Emilia (Eva Green) is an extremist artist driven to video-tape serial suicide attempts made by herself; Milo (Sam Riley), a romantic who has recently been left at the alter; a masked vigilante named Preest (Ryan Phillippe) who occupies the alternate reality within a city named "Meanwhile City" ruled by religion and dogmatic oppression; and a father in search of his son gone missing after a traumatic event involving his sister's death.At first, all the characters within Franklyn's two worlds seem distinct from each other, and without and form of link—so much so that much of the feature's initial hour is slow moving and irksomely disjointed from any sort of clear focus or direction to the first time viewer. Yet as the plot unravels, and metaphysical realities are explored with death, imaginary friends and delusional beliefs briefly analysed, the seeds that are planted during the initial acts begin to blossom. It is disappointing then that by the time McMorrow pulls the proverbial rug on us, we don't really care anymore. Confined also by the limitations of such vague narrative and an ending that brings everything together in a poetic but fruitless manner, Franklyn eventually crumbles under its own weight and pretension. It's a movie that tries too hard to be larger than it really is on paper, and the cracks are all too obvious.In the end, I wanted to like McMorrow's work here a lot more than I actually did—it's brave, interesting and makes some intriguing statements on the nature of reality and our perceptions of such manifestations to ourselves as human beings; but at the end of the day I couldn't bring myself to be convinced or won over by the implementation of such ideas. For sure, there was potential here within the bare-bones skeleton of McMorrow's premise and themes—but burdened with obstructive restrictions both in a narrative sense and a production sense, Franklyn simply never comes off the page like it should, and the result is lukewarm in every regard; sporadically intriguing, but overly flawed—I have to wonder why this made the big screen at all; I got the feeling that it could have made an even better mini-series for TV.- A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)
Original and intriguing
posted on 27 Feb 2009I've just come back from the premiere at the London film festival and I've thoroughly enjoyed, it but before I say anything, do not expect it to be "a mix between V for Vendetta and the Dark knight" which is a complete nonsense I read earlier, it's nothing like it. In fact, the sci fi element is only a small (albeit crucial) part to the story, most of it taking place in present day London. It's more of a psychological drama, a bit of a slow starter as well until all the pieces are put together and it starts making sense. To be honest the less you know about the story, the better otherwise it will ruin your enjoyment The acting is excellent, I would say it really is Eva Green's movie, she shines throughout the movie with a rather difficult role and is absolutely beautiful. Sam Riley and Ryan Philippe are very good too although they have a little less material to play with. I think it's going to be hard sell as it is unlike anything I have seen, and if they try to market it as an action/sci fi movie, it will be very misleading but I still definitely recommend it if you're looking for something a bit different.
- 1
- 2
An elegant saga on human despair
posted on 24 Aug 2009I've seen a few movies similar to this, using sci-fi/fantasy imagery to portray an internal state of mind. Too intellectual for some I guess, and it definitely goes beyond 'what you see is what you get'.This movie worked for me. Some have been critical that the characters in the film were not interesting enough. I on the other hand think the director/writer Gerald McMorrow successfully walked the thin line of saying just enough, enabling the actors to fill in the gaps and create personas rather than cookie cut-outs. The characters were memorable and real, responding to slightly surreal situations in two worlds that were both out of kilter with our own. The movie's alternate realities drew me in and kept me interested, and the eventual juxtaposition of both did so even more.This is a smartly made movie - with very convincing CGI for the fantasy world combined with almost an indie sense of the intimate and human in the alternate world closer to our own.Well this review is not much of a blow-by-blow synopsis, others can do that, but if you appreciate strong acting, and an imaginative script, I don't think you will be disappointed.7/10