Summer in February (2013)

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

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.

"Summer in February" is a bio-pic based on real people--just the sort of story I usually like. The retired history teacher in me likes learning about actual events and characters. However, as much as I wanted to like the film, I found it very ponderous and unappealing. The film is set just before the First World War. It begins with a small community of bohemian artists who have made the Cornish coast of England their home. Here, they seem happy and productive. However, when a newcomer arrives, things begin to take a turn towards the dark side. Florence Carter Wood (Emily Browning) is a rich young lady who wants to study from other artists and she's readily accepted by this group. One guy is infatuated with her but he unfortunately keeps this to himself. In the meantime, another artist, A.J. Munnings (Dominic Cooper) falls for her and asks her to marry him. The fact that she said she would marry Munnings is odd, at least in the film, because there isn't much build up to this--they meet, spend a bit of time together and suddenly they marry. I have no idea if their courtship was like this in real life, but I do know that their marriage was NOT a marriage made in Heaven! Again, this was a bit confusing, as you see Wood marry him willingly--but on their honeymoon, she tried to kill herself. The film seems to say that she knew he was sleeping around but still married him and then tried to take her own life. While this made little sense and the film tried to paint her as a sad but understandable woman, I assume she was mentally ill--though the film seemed to de-emphasize this. Again, this did seem a bit confusing as healthy and normal folks DON'T marry people who they dislike and don't try suicide on their honeymoon! This just isn't rational and I was looking for some possible explanation--and without mental illness, it left me confused--especially since you really aren't sure if Munnings actually did anything wrong and the film showed him trying, in vain, to make the marriage work--at least at first. What's next for the happy couple? See the film if you'd like to know.When I went on the internet to learn more about Munnings and Wood, there wasn't a lot of information about their marriage. Munnings later went on to be one of Britain's most celebrated artists--that was easy to find. But, about Wood, there is very little information. So, how close this is to the true story, I have no idea. After seeing the film, however, I'm going to say something that usually violates what I want in bio-pics--I wish the story had been VERY different even if the film became more fictional than not! This is because I didn't like the characters--they all seemed brooding, dull and hard to relate to or care about in any way. This does make selling the film problematic--and when the film was recently released, it was a box office failure. Now, it's just been released to DVD--having debuted on Netflix this week. Considering how ponderous the film is at times and how contradictory the characters act, however, I just cannot recommend it. Now I am not saying it's all bad--the cinematography was lovely and the acting was good--but without likable characters (or at least ones you can understand) and a sluggish pace, it's really not a film that most folks would or could enjoy. By the way, if you do watch the film, be aware that there is a fair amount of full frontal nudity in the first portion of the movie. It didn't seem gratuitous or inappropriate, as these artists painted nudes and, like true bohemians, had a different moral compass than the typical Brit of the day.

It's beautifully acted and shot. Christopher Menaul, the director behind Belonging, Feast of July, Above Suspicion, 1st Night, Treatment and Punters, brings us this blob of nothingness. It's a true tale of love, liberty and scandal amongst the Edwardian artists' colony in Cornwall. I thought this film was fantastic in some ways and terrible in others. There's something for everyone here, though the two male leads were overcast. I refuse to totally dismiss this, because I find it quite engaging. The film's screenplay is tight and well-written, and worthy of praise. An intelligent script, with direction that does it justice. As a final rating, it receives 7 out of 10 from this reviewer.

I see the mean is 7.2 but IMDb has shown the rating as 5.2 ? This is one of the most underrated films in decent years. It was a great film from start to finish. Superb cinematography, an engaging storyline, 3 superb main acting performances and a wonderful score. It has not been a hit at the UK Box Office as very few cinema's ever showed it depriving the UK cinema going public of a real gem. Shame. It will in time become a cult classic and word of mouth from DVD and TV will ensure it will evertually gets the recognition it deserves.Go see, if you can find it on anywhere !