VALUTAZIONE IMDb
6,0/10
18.444
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Un ritratto delle vite spezzate di quattro persone, un detective vigilante, un genitore preoccupato, un uomo goffo in cerca di amore e un artista suicida, mentre lottano per fare fronte nell... Leggi tuttoUn ritratto delle vite spezzate di quattro persone, un detective vigilante, un genitore preoccupato, un uomo goffo in cerca di amore e un artista suicida, mentre lottano per fare fronte nella loro città religiosamente distopica.Un ritratto delle vite spezzate di quattro persone, un detective vigilante, un genitore preoccupato, un uomo goffo in cerca di amore e un artista suicida, mentre lottano per fare fronte nella loro città religiosamente distopica.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 2 candidature totali
Recensioni in evidenza
Yes, it's a slow, slow build-up featuring seemingly unconnected story threads, fantastical settings and comic-book characterisation. Yes, it's all a bit of a muddle at times, and plays like the disconnected fast-cut chapters of a cynically devise modern supermarket bestselling novel.
But it's different.
Not out-there different, just stoically different from the average Hollywood committee-designed faux art-slice. It's a film that refuses to bend to the will of popular expectation and also to the viewer's clamouring desire for exposition.
For that it's to be applauded; it seems remarkable it managed mainstream distribution given the fact so many will be 'bored' ('man') awaiting the connections to satisfy their anticipation.
And you may well gather what's going on before it's explained (with a little ultimate dubiety) on screen, but this is still a well-executed piece of cinema with a solid cast that dares to offer something a little different to current lame traits after seemingly setting itself up as just another by-the-numbers collage.
Clever at times, atmospheric, beautifully shot with a good cast. Worth, nay deserving, of a watch as a mild antidote to patronising Hollywood mainstream. A solid seven out of ten.
But it's different.
Not out-there different, just stoically different from the average Hollywood committee-designed faux art-slice. It's a film that refuses to bend to the will of popular expectation and also to the viewer's clamouring desire for exposition.
For that it's to be applauded; it seems remarkable it managed mainstream distribution given the fact so many will be 'bored' ('man') awaiting the connections to satisfy their anticipation.
And you may well gather what's going on before it's explained (with a little ultimate dubiety) on screen, but this is still a well-executed piece of cinema with a solid cast that dares to offer something a little different to current lame traits after seemingly setting itself up as just another by-the-numbers collage.
Clever at times, atmospheric, beautifully shot with a good cast. Worth, nay deserving, of a watch as a mild antidote to patronising Hollywood mainstream. A solid seven out of ten.
There 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.
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)
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
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
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.
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 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.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizPreests 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?"
- BlooperThe 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.
- ConnessioniReferenced in Film Junk Podcast: Episode 265: Date Night (2010)
- Colonne sonoreCatacombs Bar
Performed by Ben Wynne
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Franklyn?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Франклін
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 6.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 1.279.576 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 38 minuti
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti