A portrait of the broken lives of four people (a vigilante detective, a worried parent, an awkward man looking for love and a suicidal artist) as they all struggle to cope in their religious... Read allA portrait of the broken lives of four people (a vigilante detective, a worried parent, an awkward man looking for love and a suicidal artist) as they all struggle to cope in their religiously-dystopian city.A portrait of the broken lives of four people (a vigilante detective, a worried parent, an awkward man looking for love and a suicidal artist) as they all struggle to cope in their religiously-dystopian city.
- Awards
- 2 nominations total
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
The main page review for Franklyn on IMDb (at the time of writing) is telling. It is telling because the whole reason it praises (and indeed the only way it discusses) this film is in relation to the "popcorn cattle" that presumably won't appreciate this film. This I see a lot – anything different is seized upon by those seeking to elevate themselves above the normal cinema public – the same writer may also go out of his way to hate blockbusters whether he/she liked them or not. I can understand this approach to the film Franklyn because, superficially it does offer the Gothic thrills of a bigger budget film but with the creativity and intelligence that the interweaving, real/fantasy parts of the film bring. Or, could have brought I should say because the problem with the film is that it is not the intelligent, complex and well-written film that it (and those that rushed to love it for being different) wanted to be.
I went through a cycle with this film. At first I was engaged and curious, then that started to become a bit of confusion as my curiosity didn't get fed, this was then followed by a touch of impatience as things didn't seem to be coming together. Finally I ended up with a bit of apathy as the film brought itself together in a way that sort of didn't make sense, sort of seemed rushed and sort of seemed overly obvious and easy. And this is why the film doesn't work – because all the ideas, like the threads, just don't come together in a way that works. OK this might be a problem at the end of the film but this feeds backwards through each thread, keeping them separate, removing clarity and meaning each thread has to stand on its own. The fantasy world of Meanwhile City manages this, despite feeling like a cross between Dark City, V for Vendetta and Rorschach from the Watchmen graphic novel. However Emilia's thread feels, like her character, self-indulgent and petulant without anything to get the viewer into it and keep them there. Milo's thread sort of engages in regards the creation of fantasy worlds but it never really works or engages.
It isn't "bad" though but it is never more than OK because it the central problem of it essentially not working as a single story and also struggling even as individual threads. The cast are a mixed bag. Phillippe makes for a tough anti-hero and has a much better presence than I expected him to have but doesn't have the material to work with, and spends his "best" scenes in a mask. Green puts her all into it and delivers the script well – unfortunately this means the problems with her thread and character are all up there for all to see. Riley is surprisingly weak; I recognise that that is an aspect of his character but his performance didn't do anything for me. Hill is strong and it is just a shame that the film doesn't reward his work with more – he certainly seems to have an understanding of where he fits into the film.
The superficial appeal and intelligence of the film offer a potential that it never lives up but it does offer enough to make it feel like a shame when it fails to deliver. I'm sure the film will have a cult following but for me (and I imagine many casual viewers) it disappoints in its failure to come together with the intelligence and creativity that it should have had.
I went through a cycle with this film. At first I was engaged and curious, then that started to become a bit of confusion as my curiosity didn't get fed, this was then followed by a touch of impatience as things didn't seem to be coming together. Finally I ended up with a bit of apathy as the film brought itself together in a way that sort of didn't make sense, sort of seemed rushed and sort of seemed overly obvious and easy. And this is why the film doesn't work – because all the ideas, like the threads, just don't come together in a way that works. OK this might be a problem at the end of the film but this feeds backwards through each thread, keeping them separate, removing clarity and meaning each thread has to stand on its own. The fantasy world of Meanwhile City manages this, despite feeling like a cross between Dark City, V for Vendetta and Rorschach from the Watchmen graphic novel. However Emilia's thread feels, like her character, self-indulgent and petulant without anything to get the viewer into it and keep them there. Milo's thread sort of engages in regards the creation of fantasy worlds but it never really works or engages.
It isn't "bad" though but it is never more than OK because it the central problem of it essentially not working as a single story and also struggling even as individual threads. The cast are a mixed bag. Phillippe makes for a tough anti-hero and has a much better presence than I expected him to have but doesn't have the material to work with, and spends his "best" scenes in a mask. Green puts her all into it and delivers the script well – unfortunately this means the problems with her thread and character are all up there for all to see. Riley is surprisingly weak; I recognise that that is an aspect of his character but his performance didn't do anything for me. Hill is strong and it is just a shame that the film doesn't reward his work with more – he certainly seems to have an understanding of where he fits into the film.
The superficial appeal and intelligence of the film offer a potential that it never lives up but it does offer enough to make it feel like a shame when it fails to deliver. I'm sure the film will have a cult following but for me (and I imagine many casual viewers) it disappoints in its failure to come together with the intelligence and creativity that it should have had.
It 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
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
If you like dark, Gothic movies with both style & intelligence, this one's for you. First-time director/writer Gerald McMorrow makes a great debut with "Franklyn", a cryptic fantasy-thriller about 4 lost souls in different times & places, bound together by a mystery that slowly unravels to a brilliant climax.
The story is told in fragments, and if you're not paying attention you might easily get lost. But that's what makes it so rewarding when you start to figure it out, and you realize what these people have in common.
Most of the action happens in a nightmarish, dystopian world called "Meanwhile City". These scenes are reminiscent of the haunting works of Alex Proyas ("The Crow", "Dark City") with bits of Frank Miller's comic book style ("Sin City", "The Spirit"). There are also some refreshing, humorous nods toward Terry Gilliam ("Brazil", "12 Monkeys"). But what sets this apart from those dark, shadowy films is the juxtaposition of contemporary London, bright & crisp, like something you'd see by the German master Tom Tykwer ("Run Lola Run", "Heaven", "Perfume").
If you don't recognize all those names, don't worry. The point I'm making is that McMorrow's directorial debut has elements of many great directors tied together in a fresh, original way.
There's not as much action in this film as in most fantasy-thrillers. Depending on how you like your movies, that's either a good thing or a bad thing. I thought it was perfect because it lets the story breathe, and it gives us the chance to digest the slowly-unravelling mystery. There are interwoven themes touching on religion, individuality, family, fate, love & hate. And psychosis, which always makes things fun.
And even though it may be light on action & explosions, there's tons of nice eye candy to keep you riveted. Speaking as a hetero male, by "eye candy" I mean Eva Green and her sexy goth wardrobe! (If I weren't such a hetero guy, I'd be tempted to become a cross dresser.) The 2 leading men are quite the lookers, too, both suave & classy in their own way. And if that's not enough eye candy, you can't miss the enormous sets & wide angle shots: breathtaking.
If you're a fan of any of the directors/films I mentioned above, don't hesitate to check this out.
The story is told in fragments, and if you're not paying attention you might easily get lost. But that's what makes it so rewarding when you start to figure it out, and you realize what these people have in common.
Most of the action happens in a nightmarish, dystopian world called "Meanwhile City". These scenes are reminiscent of the haunting works of Alex Proyas ("The Crow", "Dark City") with bits of Frank Miller's comic book style ("Sin City", "The Spirit"). There are also some refreshing, humorous nods toward Terry Gilliam ("Brazil", "12 Monkeys"). But what sets this apart from those dark, shadowy films is the juxtaposition of contemporary London, bright & crisp, like something you'd see by the German master Tom Tykwer ("Run Lola Run", "Heaven", "Perfume").
If you don't recognize all those names, don't worry. The point I'm making is that McMorrow's directorial debut has elements of many great directors tied together in a fresh, original way.
There's not as much action in this film as in most fantasy-thrillers. Depending on how you like your movies, that's either a good thing or a bad thing. I thought it was perfect because it lets the story breathe, and it gives us the chance to digest the slowly-unravelling mystery. There are interwoven themes touching on religion, individuality, family, fate, love & hate. And psychosis, which always makes things fun.
And even though it may be light on action & explosions, there's tons of nice eye candy to keep you riveted. Speaking as a hetero male, by "eye candy" I mean Eva Green and her sexy goth wardrobe! (If I weren't such a hetero guy, I'd be tempted to become a cross dresser.) The 2 leading men are quite the lookers, too, both suave & classy in their own way. And if that's not enough eye candy, you can't miss the enormous sets & wide angle shots: breathtaking.
If you're a fan of any of the directors/films I mentioned above, don't hesitate to check this out.
I 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.
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.
I'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 an almost 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
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 an almost 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
Did you know
- TriviaPreests statement - "If a god is willing to prevent evil, but not able, then he is not omnipotent. If he is able, but not willing, then he must be malevolent. If he is neither able or willing then why call him a god? Why else do bad things happen to good people?" - is almost directly lifted from Epicurus, who is credited with first expounding the problem of evil. David Hume in his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779) cited Epicurus in stating the argument as a series of questions: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"
- GoofsThe man talking to Milo in the room where the red haired woman disappeared to and another unseen character added some tiles to his original cross shaped design on the table. After Milo leaves the camera tilts down as the man writes into his notebook and the additional tiles are gone, reverting back to the cross shape.
- ConnectionsReferenced in Film Junk Podcast: Episode 265: Date Night (2010)
- SoundtracksCatacombs Bar
Performed by Ben Wynne
- How long is Franklyn?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Франклін
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $6,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross worldwide
- $1,279,576
- Runtime
- 1h 38m(98 min)
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content