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.

British films with a historical theme are typically well-made, gorgeous to look at and in general worth watching; and Christopher Menaul's "Summer in February" is no exception. This is certainly a powerful advertisement for wonders of Cornwall only too apparent to those like myself, who have been there and fallen in love with the county pretty much instantly. For artists, it was always a matter of landscape and "the light" there, and this is also no exaggeration.In this particular case, the artistic community featured is one that assembled in Cornwall from around 1907, and in particular in the 1910-1913 period. The film itself claims to be set in 1914, when the February was indeed mild, as winters in Cornwall typically are. However, this is a slight "telescoping" of the facts in what is otherwise a fairly faithful presentation of true history. The key protagonists are (Sir) Alfred James (AJ) Munnings (1878-1959) - here rendered by Dominic Cooper; Florence Carter-Wood (1888-1914) - played by Australian Emily Browning; non-artist Captain Gilbert Evans (1883-1966) - played by Downton's Dan Stevens; Dame Laura Knight (1877-1970) - played by Hattie Morahan; and Laura's husband Harold Knight (1874-1961) - played by Shaun Dingwall. All are well-acted, and portray what by the standards of the day was a bit of a "Bohemian" lifestyle.At this point, we come to the key question here - do you want to devote 100 minutes of your life to the relatively passionate and tragic, but ultimately sort-of trivial goings-on of artists few have ever heard of over 100 years ago? The question comes all the louder when one notes that the story told here (basically by writer Jonathan Smith) arises primarily because Munnings was not an especially nice or stable guy, Florence was not an especially rational woman, and Evans was the "Officer and Gentleman" you might expect.By this point, a normal person might be screaming out: "who cares?" In my view, this is the wrong attitude; but then I opted to watch the film anyway - because of Cornwall, because British-made, and because the acting was good in a story that does have a good dose of passion and sadness in it. As a bonus, I learned that, for all their faults, the above artists were very talented indeed, produced quite a few very impressive works (readily viewable online, as well as in galleries) and are (relatively) little-known solely because the tide of (trendy, though not necessarily ordinary person's) interest turned against their kind of painting. Munnings was notably opposed to Modern Art, and Menaul has Cooper make an angry (possibly drunken) reference to "Pi**-casso", which I found quite witty! In fact - among many other things - Munnings went on to paint pictures (sometimes even slightly impressionistic) for the Canadian Cavalry in WWI, and these are as significant and moving as you might expect.Perhaps you don't need to watch a film to learn about the above artists and come to appreciate their worth? Well, as it happens I did, and am more than happy to be enlightened in this way...And I shall certainly track down these artists further the next time I'm in Cornwall.

Trigger Warning(s): Scene of attempted rapeIt has been almost a year since I have last seen an Emily Browning movie, and while I could have certainly watched Pompei, I didn't want to since it seemed so bleh. However, with Summer in February I thought this was going to be a cute period drama, something which could work well for Browning since she seems destined, due to her porcelain doll looks, to be in quite a few British period dramas. But with her not having the best record when it comes to movies, at least with me, does this one continue the trend or break it?Characters & StoryAfter having a fight with her father about a man who was the perfect match for her, Florence (Emily Browning) runs away to live with her brother Joey (Max Deacon) in the pursuit of not just getting away from their father, but also to paint. And what better a place to end up for with the great AJ Munnings (Dominic Cooper) sharing the same circle as Joey, as well as Harold Knight (Shaun Dingwall), there are many possible teachers and mentors in town. Though it seems with Florence's beauty, these artist would prefer her to replace local model Dolly (Mia Austen) over really providing tutelage. So she has to force the point she came to learn to paint.However, in the pursuit of justifying her stay to her father, she ends up attracting two men. The first being AJ, the wild and passionate painter, and then Gilbert (Dan Stevens) who is this calm, cool, and collected military man. And while the film, at first, presents Florence as a girl who isn't looking for love, just good company, knowledge, and maybe someone to match wits with, she soon falls for one of these boys and the quality of the film falls with it.PraiseAs noted in the introduction, Browning certainly has the perfect look for a period drama. Add in the right amount of cheekiness she possesses in her voice, as well as a look which screams naivety, innocence, and perhaps privilege, and I think you have a prime candidate for a Jane Austen adaptation. However, in terms of this story, while Austen- esque sarcasm isn't on display, for the first 40 or so minutes Browning is quite a sight and her character Florence seems like someone who demands to be taken seriously. With this you are presented a rather interesting picture in which a woman seems to not mind male attention, even enjoys it a bit, but seems committed to becoming a better artist over anything else. Which, for me, I thought was a perfect direction for the film. Though with it being based on a true story, and set in the early 1900s, I should have knew it was too good to be true.CriticismIf just because, unfortunately, with Florence falling in love, or perhaps more so in great admiration, her story as an artist slips away as she ends up a love interest. One who seemingly picked the wrong man, slowly loses reason to draw, and becomes a bore to watch. Mostly due to all her wit, and any sense of moxy, just disappearing. Making the hour after she becomes married, at first, a bit interesting since we see her deal with insecurities and what not, but after a while things feel like they are just dragging on and it makes you wish what happened in those first 40 minutes still was going on rather than the mess you are left with.Overall: TV ViewingDespite rarely giving any Emily Browning film an overall positive review, I do remain a fan. Not just because I think she is attractive either, if anything I think it is because she certainly has talent, but the issue is she doesn't find films which are good throughout. They start off strong but once the drama starts to really kick in, usually the film falls apart. Which is what leads to the TV Viewing label for this film since the film started good, not strong but good, and I liked seeing Browning use her great ability to seem vulnerable, a bit cheeky, and certainly someone who could hold her own against not just the male gaze, but all the talent around her. However, once she got diminished to a love interest it was all downhill. Her life became about who her husband may have been with, her wondering if she made the right decision, and then her wanting to escape from her husband. All making for the type of drama done far too much for this film to not put any effort into trying to stand out and make things interesting.

Summer in February feels like one of those movies that knows it's not going to get nominated for any Academy Awards, especially since the film is a United Kingdom (UK) productions and the producers probably weren't even sure if it was going to get released in the U.S., but somehow ends up feeling like an "accidental Oscar Baiter". The story is based on the true story of the Lamorna group in the U.K., and centers around three characters. It is a love triangle between AJ Munnings (Dominic Cooper), his new wife, Florence Carter Wood (Emily Browning), and his friend and Florence's eventual lover, Gilbert Evans (Dan Stevens).Summer in February is a beautifully shot movie and feels like a period piece with the correct costumes, and some of the acting is pretty good, but for my taste, it just lacked action. The three leads are good in their respective roles. Dominic Cooper, in the role of AJ, brings an easy level of energy, though he seems somewhat incapable of yelling. His character, true story or not, is just unlikeable. Are we supposed to sympathize with a man who abuses his wife that way? No wonder she had an affair with his friend. Sure, he changes his attitude near the end, but it's just too late for me. Dan Stevens is good as Gilbert, though he has moments where he overacts (hence the Oscar bait feel). His character is way more likable than AJ's, and that just seems somewhat unnecessary. Emily Browning is easily the weakest of the three. She is an Australian actress, and I thought she was sounded Australian, rather than British, but eventually, I got used to her, although, she does have a slow delivery, and no real chemistry between either of the leads (Dominic Cooper and Dan Stevens). There are other actors and characters in the film, but none of them were as well developed as the three leads.The direction by Christopher Menaul (unlike Dallas Buyers Club) seems to be playing it easy for the most part. The musical score by Benjamin Wallfisch is melodramatic and supposedly "uplifting" as to be expected in a period drama. I know this based off a true story, but that doesn't excuse the messy nature of the film. Summer In February just feels like one of those films that they made and forgot to give a flavor to.