Dark World

Reading 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.

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

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 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.

This movie really is difficult. Not only to describe (it is far too complex for it's own good/commercial success), but also to watch and follow the plot. While there have been other movies who played with the time factor (and/or other stuff, which I won't say anything about here, so it won't spoil anything for you), not many refused to explain themselves to you.

In other words: While many other movies with the same or similar theme, show you the same scenes twice (or maybe even more often), this movie does not give you this luxury. You have to stay focused to get it. Of course the main plot and the big details will be easy to grab. But again, only if you let yourself into the movie. But this movie allows you to watch it a few times and catch nuances, small things, you might not have seen/understood, the previous time(s) you watched the movie. A complex, but rewarding viewing experience then