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!

Okay so this is no masterpiece but 5.3 out of 10 is rather harsh, the story is what it is (based on book around true events), its not shot or acted overly badly (although I must admit I'm not totally convinced by Emily Browning) and the scenery and paintings are attractive which in turn means, I think at least, its not a bad way to spend just under two hours of your time.

Why has is been so badly review then, I have no idea I happen to quite like it not because its monumental, makes me cry with sadness or leap with joy, but because it quietly and affectively tells a story worth being told. Perhaps the bad reviews reflect more of disaffection with the story rather than the vehicle of its portrayal. Either way if you like period dramas and have the time on your hands give a go and see what you think.

I went to this blind, as it were, not having read any reviews on here - I think this is probably the first - nor any of the critic reviews in the papers. I am a little surprised that it is showing so low on the star rating as, for myself and my wife, it was a throughly entertaining evening at the cinema. I knew very little about the Newlyn artistic set before but it would appear to have been as incestuous and fraught with failed and doomed relationships as the Bloomsbury literary group of a couple of decades later. Enter Florence, fresh from an overbearing father in London, to visit her brother who was already part of the set. Her beauty turns more than a few heads and A.J.Munnings, a wild and poetry-spouting bohemian, persuades her to sit as a model - and attempts to teach her the rudiments of drawing. Gilbert, in some ways the major-domo of the group but not an artist himself, also falls for Florence but she sees in him many of the traits of her strait-laced father and when Munnings proposes to her she accepts. Tragedy, as we will have garnered from what has gone before, will inevitably follow. The photography and cinematography is a pleasure to the eye and the producer has taken pains to get the period correct. Where it slightly falls down is in the character of Florence who, I have since learnt, was already unsettled and a depressive before she arrived at Lamorna. This would account for her later actions but we get no sense of her instability in the first half of the film. There may be an over-emphasis on "all down the pub for a jolly good drink and a sing-along and pay the landlord with a quick 10 second sketch for the bill" but overall we felt sufficiently interested in the history portrayed by the movie to do some subsequent research on the real characters portrayed.

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.

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.