Summer in February

We think of Alfred Munnings as someone born old - the reactionary curmudgeon grimly rejecting everything new in art. So a romantic tale of the young Munnings joining a Cornish artists' colony in 1912 makes an appealing topic, even though the film turns out to be little more than escapist wallpaper.

The screenplay is drawn from a novel based on real events, with the future Dame Laura Knight as the moving force behind the group, played with gusto by Hattie Morahan. Her patronising of gypsy communities may be called... well, patronising, but it lends colour to this film, along with the equine theme, giving us not only a dramatic race-meeting down on the beach, but also some well-deserved exposure for Munnings' acclaimed horse-paintings.

Artists' communes are always incestuous, and the main story is a love-triangle, with Munnings and his friend Gilbert competing for the hopelessly unstable Florence Carter-Wood, played in a suitably minor key by Emily Browning. A discreet view of a local artist's model emerging naked from the sea brings out the insecurity in Florence, who stands in front of the mirror anxiously comparing her own endowments. Later, when she is shown Munnings' portrait of her, proudly displayed at the Royal Academy, she attempts suicide because his portraits of other women are also on display. By now, Munnings and Florence have married, but the non-chemistry between them is painfully obvious. Gilbert's relationship with her is far more harmonious. But he is just off to the war, as the end-titles helpfully notify us.

The producers are obviously trying to achieve a Brideshead touch, but the characters are not sharply drawn, and we are mainly just drifting in an agreeable atmosphere of rocky coves, gypsy violins against the surf, passionate poetry recitals and credible period dialogue, not without appropriate elements of coarseness.

Laura's husband, the eminent Harold Knight, is somewhat thrown away. And one of the poems ends with the words 'Summer in February', which are left hanging there as the title of the film, though their meaning is hard indeed to fathom. IMDb mentions a running-time of 100 minutes, so my HD version at 82 must be missing some scenes. It is certainly missing professional post-production - ye gods, the audio is something like two seconds out of kilter with the video!

Every movie must have a story that either invokes some sort of inspiration or realization for its viewers otherwise it is equal to reel of toilet paper. Well I wouldn't compare this to toilet paper, but it has everything except story. I don't know how related it is to the true story it is based on but I can say it feels as if something is happening in the background and the viewers are kept away. The characters are so indifferent to each other that at some point I felt like I will break the screen but then the beauty of the scenes stopped me. The actors/actresses are struggling to make sense of the dialogues and expression not knowing why they are doing so. If this movie is based on a book and as I read from other reviews that it is really beautiful then the director and the screenplay writer has to find another job. No wonder it is rated so low.

I knew nothing of this artistic group and was keen on discovering their story. But everything is so dull! You do not feel the passion and turmoil in the characters (Dan Stevens has one and a half expression throughout the film) or it takes the form of violent outbursts that seem unexplainable or just the result of neurotic impulses. You do not feel the connection of the painters with nature, apart for the omnipresence of horses (unescapable considering the type of paintings AJ became famous for). The scenes are overly repetitive (Dan Stevens fishing, filmed in the same way) and Florence taking poison twice with the same type of shots. Besides, everything is too heavily predictable. The beautiful scenery of Cornwall cannot make up for an utter lack of substance and conviction. Very boring, eventually.

I find it strange, that Cambridge educated Stevens chose to leave probably the most successful period TV drama of the last 20 years to star in exactly the same role in a period movie! He was very good, understated, doesn't overact - leaves that to Dominic Cooper to ham things up. But what was Matthew doing in Cornwall, and why did he feel the need to go to Nigeria? I didn't really care for the love interest either, and for a woman who was supposed to be educated and liberated a la Austen, why does she marry the most inappropriate ego-centric genius who happens to ask her.

There was a scene as she walks along the cliff where I was literally willing her to throw herself over -might have spiced things up a bit.

Having said that, I did enjoy the film, mostly for the scenery and the accuracy of the manners and costume. The story line was weak and the heroine unattractive and ineffective. The two male leads were overcast but made the whole thing work.

By the way, a shout out to Cornwall, the most beautiful coastline of anywhere in the world.

This film tells the story of an artists' colony in Cornwall, where two artists fall for the same woman.

I like both Dominic Cooper asks Dan Stevens, but this is not enough to make me like this film. The story is slow and rather uneventful. Even the nude scene feels out of place, and should not have been in the film. Why the woman makes that crucial mistake that costs her her life is beyond me. The only upside is that the scenery is very beautiful. Other than that, there is little to like about this film.