Archipelago

The film's name Archipelago, is quite rich, whilst it summons the image of the Isles of Scilly, where the film is set, it also captures this sense of distance between the characters in the film, who are nonetheless part of the same family identity. Cynthia loves her brother Edward deeply, but is unable to express this other than through snide remarks, passive aggressive behaviour, and tantrums. Edward is at a quarter-life crisis, limply compassionate and full of weltschmerz, fashioned after Prince Myshkin, the "idiot" of Dostoevesky's eponymous story.

I also, haha, perhaps somewhat fancifully, like to think of Lyonesse in relation to this film, a kingdom that legendarily connected the Scilly Isles to Cornwall, and then sank into the sea. The Scilly Isles themselves are believed in Roman times to have been one island, named Ennor. Something happened and the connection to the mainland, and of the whole, disintegrated. This is much like what appears to have happened to the family in the film (it's hinted that a childhood visit to the Isles was much more light-hearted).

The film could be regarded as not much of a progression for Joanna Hogg. Both Archipelago and her cinema debut Unrelated (2007) concern upper middle class families on holiday in beautiful locations, the status of trapped outsiders, and feature the motif of an absent character continuously at the end of a telephone. However I think there's something genuinely different about Archipelago, the characters are definitely more sympathetic, and the family dynamic very different (although, such is the shock of actually seeing tangible upper middle class characters on screen that, full of schadenfreude, many British class warriors will make a bee-line for the rotten tomatoes).

The location shooting is somewhat of a kindness from the director to those of us who are so used to seeing British social realist dramas played out against bleak and unforgiving landscapes (Morvern Callar being a notable exception). There are passages in the film where Hogg lets the eye rest on pure landscape photography.

The only real happiness in the film occurs after a cathartic harangue from one character produces a genuine smile from Cynthia, who sees the healing in the foulness. This is symptomatic of a particularly British emotional constipation that is in dire need of mend.

Despite the emotional problems of the family, there are moments of genuine hilarity in the film that lightened my mood, the best being what is basically a comedy of manners sketch in a posh restaurant.

On a personal level I think I will be haunted by Tom Hiddleston's performance as Edward, too sensitive for this world, a sad and noble man, who lacks any expression of passion, and misplaces his affection. All the more remarkable given his quite opposite performance as a shallow, obnoxious and cowardly youth in Unrelated.

I am ashamed to say that I have actually watched this film! It is the worst film I have ever seen, filled with pointless scenes that seem to be extended for minutes more than needed. It becomes more and more painful to sit watching this film knowing that, after realising half way through the film that there will be no storyline and not one single bit of action or interesting dialogue, the finishing line is completely unpredictable - it could be several hours before the torture comes to an end. There are no words to describe this film apart from dull - what is the point of any of it? There may be some deep meanings to it, but they are not obvious and not even that good when you think about it. I could have easily made this film, taking a few shots of a rock or a window or a flower and throwing in some standard regular nobodies who can't even keep up a conversation without repeating themselves several times. The fact that I have felt the need to even write this, even though I have nearly fallen asleep from watching it, shows just how much I detest this film and what I can not believe is how interesting people make it sound on their reviews.

To sum up, if I filmed paint drying on a wall for two hours, it would probably be more enjoyable than this. - relief of the end = general consensus of the audience in the cinema.

This is a maddening movie, though a good one. The structure is just about perfect, and the family's dysfunction unspools in a very controlled way. The acting is universally excellent and clear. The movie makes wonderful use of the unique landscape of the Isle of Scilly, and all in all, I felt I was in the hands of first class creators.

But…

The rhythm is eternally and unchangingly slow. Every scene begins with long, long minutes of barely discernible action. There is, despite the simmering resentments, only a single explosion. This lugubrious technique is both effective and maddening. The movie seems like an experiment in just how far you can go into hazy somnambulance and still create dramatic tension.

Don't watch it when you're sleepy.

Few films in recent years have polarised audiences and critics quite as much as Archipelago, Joanna Hogg's follow-up to her much-lauded debut Unrelated. If the critics have had near-universal raptures over its long, very long, static wide-shots and natural murk, for many audiences it's simply the Emperor's new fashion range – arse-achingly pretentious art-twaddle.

Well, I say it's great: a superbly photographed, acidly funny dissection of class snobbery and familial dysfunction en vacance, where invisible elephants stampede through the guest rooms, and every infinitesimal gesture counts.

The characterisation is spot on, from Hiddleston's painfully wet young man to his moist-eyed mother, filling the watery void of her life with watercolour lessons. Easy targets perhaps, but less fish in barrels and more akin to the lobsters their poor holiday cook prepares: seemingly inert, then writhing in silent agony as Hogg turns up the heat.

Lots of good reviews already here, all with good points.

I wanted more, more development, more info, and wondered if the film was overly autobiographical on Joanna's part. Film, for me, is interesting in that it can reflect life, but that only communicates it to others. Really interesting film explores potentials, unknowns, has a resolution, yes. This is not just good storytelling, nor it is audience fetishism - it is respecting the ability of film to be creatively ergonomic, simply put. We watch films to associate, to belong, we do need some feeding, nothing wrong in that. Portraying sadness and dysfunction isn't enough as I see it in film. The medium deserves us to go further. Make a damned story out of it, the reality behind the story will still be there when we think about it. I wasn't sure Cynthia was really acting, which is nothing to shout about, and it's ironic, the best acting I thought was from Christopher, who isn't an actor. Come on, do film making some justice, work it, don't be afraid of it. But I did enjoy it. And it provoked a lot of comments. I am sure if it was that poor, the bad reviewers wouldn't have watched it all. So watch it. It's a positive thing. Liked it.