I really enjoyed this film. I especially liked the langour of its pacing (helped by a wonderful soundtrack), certainly at the start where we simply observe the girls hanging out together drinking copious amounts of red wine and smoking constantly. Something about the timelessness, the heaviness of the heat, the bird song and buzzing insects caught perfectly that summer after 'A' levels where there is nothing to do but simply live, spend time with friends, and fantasies can take on a larger and more defined shape than realities. The 'lesbian' angle was handled deftly - though as another user commented, it would be good to see a film which manages to trace the intensity of female adolescent friendships without having them be sexual in nature - but this is a very special time, and the film caught that beautifully. The poignancy of Mona's existence was undersold as well, which gave it a greater power - she is the one who has truly suffered loss, whereas Tamsin... well, you have to make up your own mind about that. A minor film, but hits its notes perfectly.
122 Reviews
Intriguing surprise
antoniotierno23 June 2005
First of all, the young leads Nathalie Press and Emily Blunt acted superbly; these newcomers are really stunning for the way they movingly played this character drama, showing every sort of emotion a human being may feel. "My summer of love" is not only a lesbian love affair between two needy and sexy teens, set in a beautiful countryside, but it's also a thoughtful portrayal of friendship, deception and obsession. In spite of a story starting as an erotic drama it finally turns into a suspenseful and powerful situation. Last but not least Paddy Considine is also up to the film brightness, rendering a man whose redemption seems to slowly fade.
Lovely
gbill-748777 March 2022
In a nutshell, one summer two young British women from different classes meet and befriend one another, and eventually their relationship gets romantic. That may not sound terribly original, but the way it's executed here by director Pawel Pawlikowski is lovely, and this film has a lot going for it. It's also not as predictable as it may seem.
Natalie Press and Emily Blunt are both brilliant in the lead roles, and easily make this film worth seeing. The moments when Press imitates the devil and when she shows Blunt how a man shags her are priceless. So is seeing Blunt playing the cello and their dancing scene to Goldfrapp's dreamy 'Lovely Head.' The pair have a physical relationship but I liked how restrained Pawlikowski was in showing this. There are wonderful scenes of them disappearing into the flowers and sitting in front of the firelight in silhouette, but what they say and do never feels cliché.
Meanwhile, the patriarchy is on display via the hypocritical brother who has "found God," the backstory of the father who's abandoned the family, and the guy who cheats on his wife with a young woman and then ruthlessly discards her. The film is saying something about men and women here, but it's also saying something about class. I won't spoil it, but the ending is fantastic. At 86 minutes long, it was the perfect length too.
Natalie Press and Emily Blunt are both brilliant in the lead roles, and easily make this film worth seeing. The moments when Press imitates the devil and when she shows Blunt how a man shags her are priceless. So is seeing Blunt playing the cello and their dancing scene to Goldfrapp's dreamy 'Lovely Head.' The pair have a physical relationship but I liked how restrained Pawlikowski was in showing this. There are wonderful scenes of them disappearing into the flowers and sitting in front of the firelight in silhouette, but what they say and do never feels cliché.
Meanwhile, the patriarchy is on display via the hypocritical brother who has "found God," the backstory of the father who's abandoned the family, and the guy who cheats on his wife with a young woman and then ruthlessly discards her. The film is saying something about men and women here, but it's also saying something about class. I won't spoil it, but the ending is fantastic. At 86 minutes long, it was the perfect length too.
No cliché
paul2001sw-110 November 2004
Pavel Pavlikovski directed the bleak, austere 'Last Resort', and was sacked from 'Sylvia' on grounds of having an insufficiently commercial sensitivity.
Now he had made 'My Summer of Love', a nicely observed tale of a teenage lesbian romance. As in 'Last Resort', Russian-born Pavlikovski paints an enticingly skewed picture of Britain that rings true in spite of its aberrence; and gets good performances out of his cast, especially Paddy Considine as the brother of one of the girls, who could certainly have used more screen-time, though his co-stars Nathalie Press and Emily Blunt are also good. The film steers clear of cliché, and has some dryly funny dialogue, but what it lacks is a sense of time as a continuum: it feels like a semi-random sampling of its characters' lives, and although there is a clear plot it's hidden in the background, apparent only later. In some ways, this is also true to life, but it also means that the film remains low-key right up to the moment of its suddenly dramatic conclusion. Pavlikovski also seems surprisingly keen on static location shots (before we see the characters inside of a house, we always see the house from outside),
which jars slightly given the film's general artistic merits. Distinctive, and well-worth watching, 'My Summer of Love' isn't quite a great film; but it is an interesting effort from a director committed to representing life in the ways that Hollywood never does.
Now he had made 'My Summer of Love', a nicely observed tale of a teenage lesbian romance. As in 'Last Resort', Russian-born Pavlikovski paints an enticingly skewed picture of Britain that rings true in spite of its aberrence; and gets good performances out of his cast, especially Paddy Considine as the brother of one of the girls, who could certainly have used more screen-time, though his co-stars Nathalie Press and Emily Blunt are also good. The film steers clear of cliché, and has some dryly funny dialogue, but what it lacks is a sense of time as a continuum: it feels like a semi-random sampling of its characters' lives, and although there is a clear plot it's hidden in the background, apparent only later. In some ways, this is also true to life, but it also means that the film remains low-key right up to the moment of its suddenly dramatic conclusion. Pavlikovski also seems surprisingly keen on static location shots (before we see the characters inside of a house, we always see the house from outside),
which jars slightly given the film's general artistic merits. Distinctive, and well-worth watching, 'My Summer of Love' isn't quite a great film; but it is an interesting effort from a director committed to representing life in the ways that Hollywood never does.
Class distinction
jotix10025 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
One of the things playing under the surface of "My Summer of Love" is the disparity in class and privilege between Mona and Tamsin. When we first meet them, Tamsin tells Mona she has been expelled from school. As a rich girl bored and with nothing to do, Tamsin accepts Mona as a pretty object, but we know from the beginning nothing is going to come about their love for one another. Rather, it appears that love is what Mona feels for the rich girl, not the other way around.
Paul Pavlikowsky's take on the Helen Cross' novel makes for an interesting film that on the surface seems to be an idyllic love between two teen age girls, when in reality no one seems to see the cruelty that Tamsin exerts in the more naive Mona. Tamsin lies about a sister without no shame; that same sister appears at the last moment in the film to ask Mona to return what she perceives as a stolen blouse, humiliating Mona even more. After all, Tamsin is going back to yet another school for rich girls while Mona has to stay in the small village with a broken heart that will not heal. Tamsin, in retrospect is a cool and calculating young woman who has no scruples or much less feels remorse for leading Mona to believe they will stay together forever.
The third main character of the story is the enigmatic Phil, Mona's brother. He does a complete change by joining an evangelical sect and he has left the pub go out of business. Phil is another troubled soul that has no problem at the end renouncing his ties to the religious group that has taken over his pub, and his life. While Phil seems to care for his sister Mona, he is a distant man, in spite of his newly found religiosity. Where he should have been kind and loving, he grows distant and into himself.
The three main characters in "My Summer of Love" are well drawn. Natalie Press gives a fine account of Mona, the more naive of the two girls. She is an unsophisticated girl who has no social graces and is completely dazzled by the more savvy Tamsin. Emily Blunt, a beautiful young actress is perfect as Tamsin, a manipulator, who will have Mona believe that she truly cares for her, when in reality, she is only amusing herself while confined to the summer house in the country. Paddy Considine does a good job as the sullen Phil, the man who finds religion and then abandons it.
The film, under the fine direction of Mr. Pavlikowsky needs the viewer's attention to see the nuances under the story unfolding in front us.
Paul Pavlikowsky's take on the Helen Cross' novel makes for an interesting film that on the surface seems to be an idyllic love between two teen age girls, when in reality no one seems to see the cruelty that Tamsin exerts in the more naive Mona. Tamsin lies about a sister without no shame; that same sister appears at the last moment in the film to ask Mona to return what she perceives as a stolen blouse, humiliating Mona even more. After all, Tamsin is going back to yet another school for rich girls while Mona has to stay in the small village with a broken heart that will not heal. Tamsin, in retrospect is a cool and calculating young woman who has no scruples or much less feels remorse for leading Mona to believe they will stay together forever.
The third main character of the story is the enigmatic Phil, Mona's brother. He does a complete change by joining an evangelical sect and he has left the pub go out of business. Phil is another troubled soul that has no problem at the end renouncing his ties to the religious group that has taken over his pub, and his life. While Phil seems to care for his sister Mona, he is a distant man, in spite of his newly found religiosity. Where he should have been kind and loving, he grows distant and into himself.
The three main characters in "My Summer of Love" are well drawn. Natalie Press gives a fine account of Mona, the more naive of the two girls. She is an unsophisticated girl who has no social graces and is completely dazzled by the more savvy Tamsin. Emily Blunt, a beautiful young actress is perfect as Tamsin, a manipulator, who will have Mona believe that she truly cares for her, when in reality, she is only amusing herself while confined to the summer house in the country. Paddy Considine does a good job as the sullen Phil, the man who finds religion and then abandons it.
The film, under the fine direction of Mr. Pavlikowsky needs the viewer's attention to see the nuances under the story unfolding in front us.
Magnetic characterisation that leaps off the screen with sheer charisma and spontaneity
Chris_Docker22 August 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Two adolescent girls from very different background meet up in the North English countryside. They both come from dysfunctional families one, Mona, is cared for by her born-again brother who is busy turning their inherited tavern into a place of 'worship'. She has a motorbike without an engine that she bought for a tenner from some gypsies. The other girl, Tamsin, has come home from (or been temporarily expelled from) her public school and has come home for the summer to the family mansion and frequently-absentee parents. Somehow they each seem to provide the emotional jigsaw piece that the other lacks, and a tender love affair develops between them.
My Summer of Love is a light-hearted mix of drama and comedy, and would probably stop at being pleasantly superficial were it not for the remarkable performances of the lead characters. Two relatively unknown actors have been coaxed by Director Paul Pavlikovsky to bring us performances that are so vibrant and unique that we remain glued to the screen throughout. At the film's world premiere at the Edinburgh International Film Festival, I asked Pavlikovsky and his leading ladies Natalie Press and Emily Blunt whether the screenplay was scripted or a combination of script and improvisation. They enthused about his 'mad' techniques and 'riffing' performances until 'little gems of dialogue' appeared and were worth keeping. Some dialogue is from their original script, but when I asked if that meant some was improvised he said that improvisation often results in clichés, which is the opposite of what they were trying to achieve. In the search for 'gems of dialogue' some of the scenes would be workshopped beforehand, but with a certain amount of leeway to see what worked when they were actually shot.
(Spoilers): The ending of the film leaves quite a few questions, including ones about the nature of the girls' love for each other and how 'real' it was. In the post-premiere Q&A, Emily Blunt suggested that 'Tamsin is more emotive' in the way she expresses her love, whereas Mona has more of an earthy innocence. This idea that there can be many equally valid forms of true love is perhaps as intellectually challenging as the film gets, although we are left to feel, Blunt suggests, that both of the characters survive the experience and become strong. Nathalie Press revealed that an alternate (perhaps more crowd pleasing) ending had also been shot but discarded.
My Summer of Love is a light-hearted mix of drama and comedy, and would probably stop at being pleasantly superficial were it not for the remarkable performances of the lead characters. Two relatively unknown actors have been coaxed by Director Paul Pavlikovsky to bring us performances that are so vibrant and unique that we remain glued to the screen throughout. At the film's world premiere at the Edinburgh International Film Festival, I asked Pavlikovsky and his leading ladies Natalie Press and Emily Blunt whether the screenplay was scripted or a combination of script and improvisation. They enthused about his 'mad' techniques and 'riffing' performances until 'little gems of dialogue' appeared and were worth keeping. Some dialogue is from their original script, but when I asked if that meant some was improvised he said that improvisation often results in clichés, which is the opposite of what they were trying to achieve. In the search for 'gems of dialogue' some of the scenes would be workshopped beforehand, but with a certain amount of leeway to see what worked when they were actually shot.
(Spoilers): The ending of the film leaves quite a few questions, including ones about the nature of the girls' love for each other and how 'real' it was. In the post-premiere Q&A, Emily Blunt suggested that 'Tamsin is more emotive' in the way she expresses her love, whereas Mona has more of an earthy innocence. This idea that there can be many equally valid forms of true love is perhaps as intellectually challenging as the film gets, although we are left to feel, Blunt suggests, that both of the characters survive the experience and become strong. Nathalie Press revealed that an alternate (perhaps more crowd pleasing) ending had also been shot but discarded.
It's like lego, it's all sort of pretend.
lastliberal11 May 2007
This film is basically about two girls who find each other and engage in a tender and passionate love affair. One might stop right there and feel that that makes for a great movie.
However, this film is so much more. It had the unfortunate circumstance of going up against Vera Drake, else it might have taken every British and European award for 2004.
Yes, there is a tender and passionate love affair between Emily Blunt (The Devil Wears Prada), in only her second film, and Nathalie Press (who we will see this year in Brontë). But the film is so much more.
They don't spend all their time making love; they do have some fun, and it's really funny.
There is the brother, played by Paddy Considine (Hot Fuzz), who found Jesus in prison (don't they all?) and is concerned for his sister's soul. His new-found spirituality is severely tested and found wanting.
Things are not what they appear, and director Pawel Pawlikowski does a great job of taking us to the surprising ending. Just when you think you know how it will end, you are fooled and fooled again.
This is a must-see.
However, this film is so much more. It had the unfortunate circumstance of going up against Vera Drake, else it might have taken every British and European award for 2004.
Yes, there is a tender and passionate love affair between Emily Blunt (The Devil Wears Prada), in only her second film, and Nathalie Press (who we will see this year in Brontë). But the film is so much more.
They don't spend all their time making love; they do have some fun, and it's really funny.
There is the brother, played by Paddy Considine (Hot Fuzz), who found Jesus in prison (don't they all?) and is concerned for his sister's soul. His new-found spirituality is severely tested and found wanting.
Things are not what they appear, and director Pawel Pawlikowski does a great job of taking us to the surprising ending. Just when you think you know how it will end, you are fooled and fooled again.
This is a must-see.
A Very Good Drama About People
Dan1863Sickles3 March 2006
I saw this movie in Albany, NY USA and I thought it was great. I admit, I went because the two young girls were super hot and lesbians are always sexy. But watching it, I really got to like the people in the story. It's not really a sexy movie, but it's a very good drama about people.
Mona, the working class girl, is so sexy and yet so vulnerable. She has no idea she's a beauty, or that she's stronger and more creative than the people around her. She thinks that being sophisticated means smoking and drinking and acting bored all the time. So when she meets Tamsin she is instantly captivated!
Tamsin is spoiled and rich, used to being adored. When the rough, but very sexy young working girl looks up at her with innocent admiration, cruel and shallow Tamsin thinks it might be amusing just to get her going for a bit. But pleasure soon leads to passion, out of control.
Both girls in this movie are superb, wonderful actresses. Mona could seem dim, but we get how smart she could be if she just woke up to the phony side of Tamsin. Tamsin could seem evil, but we get how lies and make believe are the only way she can get attention.
It's a lovely film, with only a couple of tiny flaws. I thought it was too easy for Mona's "boyfriend" to be just a selfish, fat lout. It's the kind of thing you always see in lesbian films, like the girl needs an "excuse" to find love with another woman. Why need an excuse? Also, I would have liked just a bit more on Tamsin's family -- do they know what she really is? Do they care? Just a hint or something at the end.
My theory about why American audiences didn't like this movie is about culture, but not just that Americans are dumb. Americans, when they watch "British" movies, expect to see dukes and duchesses, aristocrats, Jane Austen elegance. Just a couple of teens smoking and drinking doesn't look "British" to us.
You can't say Americans don't "like" British movies, but if you look at GOSFORD PARK and compare it to MY SUMMER OF LOVE you can see what I mean. I hated GOSFORD PARK, thought it was paper thin and sentimental, but it gave Americans the England they want -- aristocrats, servants, luxury, scandal.
See what I mean?
Mona, the working class girl, is so sexy and yet so vulnerable. She has no idea she's a beauty, or that she's stronger and more creative than the people around her. She thinks that being sophisticated means smoking and drinking and acting bored all the time. So when she meets Tamsin she is instantly captivated!
Tamsin is spoiled and rich, used to being adored. When the rough, but very sexy young working girl looks up at her with innocent admiration, cruel and shallow Tamsin thinks it might be amusing just to get her going for a bit. But pleasure soon leads to passion, out of control.
Both girls in this movie are superb, wonderful actresses. Mona could seem dim, but we get how smart she could be if she just woke up to the phony side of Tamsin. Tamsin could seem evil, but we get how lies and make believe are the only way she can get attention.
It's a lovely film, with only a couple of tiny flaws. I thought it was too easy for Mona's "boyfriend" to be just a selfish, fat lout. It's the kind of thing you always see in lesbian films, like the girl needs an "excuse" to find love with another woman. Why need an excuse? Also, I would have liked just a bit more on Tamsin's family -- do they know what she really is? Do they care? Just a hint or something at the end.
My theory about why American audiences didn't like this movie is about culture, but not just that Americans are dumb. Americans, when they watch "British" movies, expect to see dukes and duchesses, aristocrats, Jane Austen elegance. Just a couple of teens smoking and drinking doesn't look "British" to us.
You can't say Americans don't "like" British movies, but if you look at GOSFORD PARK and compare it to MY SUMMER OF LOVE you can see what I mean. I hated GOSFORD PARK, thought it was paper thin and sentimental, but it gave Americans the England they want -- aristocrats, servants, luxury, scandal.
See what I mean?
Bitter Sweet
TVGoHome12324 January 2006
In this day and age it would appear that films that are British made now need a certain Hollywood endorsement or require to be set in chic surroundings in order for it to be considered a triumph. One wet, dreary Glasgow's summer night I stumbled upon this in the video shop and having heard much about I chanced my luck and got it out. On previous occasions I had the opportunity but the subject matter I had found to be off putting. This film is an art-house masterpiece displaying an unusual relationship between a working class girl living in a dull rural town and an upper class private school girl. The film is capturing as you watch their relationship develop towards an ending which is perfectly summed up as bitter sweet. The lead performances are excellent and Paddy Considine is outstanding as the reformed alcoholic turned Christian. This film deserves to be seen by many and warrants much of the praise it gained. Also it gave new hope to many who felt that Britain's days as a great country to make films were over. Rating: Simply excellent
A poor distant cousin to "Heavenly Creatures"
gridoon20238 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
"Boring" should not be the first word to pop into your mind when trying to describe a lesbian coming-of-age drama with a 21-year-old Emily Blunt as one of the leads, but sadly that is the case with "My Summer Of Love". It's not just that "Heavenly Creatures" did this sort of thing much better a decade earlier; I also saw another movie recently, "Trap For Cinderella" (2013), which also does a better job of presenting a similar relationship. The main problem may be that Natalie Press' character is not very appealing, while Emily Blunt's character is not exotic enough. Another problem is the director's occasional pseudo-cinema-veritè style, with amateurish-looking camera zoom-ins and -outs. There IS a surprise at the end, however, for those who stick with the movie. And Emily Blunt, in one of her first roles, is captivating; no offense to Natalie Press, who acts naturally enough, but you can see why Blunt became a big star and Press did not - there is a difference in their screen magnetism levels. ** out of 4.
You do not have to be Lesbian to enjoy this Film!
shmulik-cohen21 May 2005
I enjoyed this film as it asks questions about life, Society and Religion in an unconventional Way. Mona and Tam fall in love one summer.
Press plays Mona, bored to tears with life in provincial Yorkshire, and especially bored with her brother Phil (Paddy Considine) who is a reformed violent criminal and born-again Christian now righteously pouring away the stocks of booze in the pub owned by their late parents, and re-purposing this place of sin as a prayer center. Then she meets Tamsin (Emily Blunt), a kindred spirit despite being outrageously posh, who's rusticated from her private girls' school, and whose neglectful parents let her have the run of their magnificent Tudor family home. Mona explains that her name is actually Lisa, but her habit of complaining got her the nickname "Moaner" Lisa, from her brother, back in the days when he had a sense of humor. Tamsin's enigmatic response is simply to drawl: "I've studied the original." But as I said you do not have to be Lesbian to enjoy this wonderful film. Many people go through life asking themselves who they are? Where do they live and what do they believe in.
Press plays Mona, bored to tears with life in provincial Yorkshire, and especially bored with her brother Phil (Paddy Considine) who is a reformed violent criminal and born-again Christian now righteously pouring away the stocks of booze in the pub owned by their late parents, and re-purposing this place of sin as a prayer center. Then she meets Tamsin (Emily Blunt), a kindred spirit despite being outrageously posh, who's rusticated from her private girls' school, and whose neglectful parents let her have the run of their magnificent Tudor family home. Mona explains that her name is actually Lisa, but her habit of complaining got her the nickname "Moaner" Lisa, from her brother, back in the days when he had a sense of humor. Tamsin's enigmatic response is simply to drawl: "I've studied the original." But as I said you do not have to be Lesbian to enjoy this wonderful film. Many people go through life asking themselves who they are? Where do they live and what do they believe in.
Two young girls from different backgrounds meet and fall in love - as adolescents do.
alanseifert29 October 2004
This is a charming film. A pretty simple story of two slightly dysfunctional girls who meet by chance and become drawn to each other, who fall in love through the summer vacation, who have fun together and then, inevitably, part, is brought totally to life by the charismatic performances of the two young leads. The film looks gorgeous, shot in the beautiful Yorkshire moors, and the direction is sharp. This film is a near perfect rendition of an oft told tale of growing pains and confused adolescent feelings and is so delightfully rendered as to make any further comment superfluous. To see it is to love it! Go see.
Short and sweet with a brutal ending
eallison924 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I just saw this movie today and I must say it is quite affecting, although the ending is sort of like an alarm clock jolting you awake from a nice dream. The most obvious antecedent for this movie I can think of is Peter Jackson's Heavenly Creatures. Both involve a violently consuming relationship between two beautiful young girls. The movie is, to me sort of like a confrontation of opposites, there's the rich, jaded girl (Tasmin) and the naive, innocent one (Mona). Tasmin represents the experienced girl who sees life as a canvas to act out her fantasies in, while Mona seems to live life more directly and literally. This creates the tension between the two and leads to the dramatic ending, which seems somewhat abrupt considering the "magical realism" of the rest of the movie. I highly recommend this movie, it is one that immerses you completely if you allow it to. The acting is exceptional, especially the leads, so natural that it doesn't seem like acting at all.
What is love ? Baby don't hurt me, no more
Edi_Drums6 November 2004
Warning: Spoilers
In retrospect it is easy to say to oneself, "Oh yeah it was always going to happen like that ". In reference to Tamsin and Mona's emotional and sexual adventure though, director Pawlikowsky drops numerous flagrant hints as to the direction that the relationship will take.
Take for example they way in which the girls exchange long glances over Tamsin's singing cello, and how Mona observes Tamsin's able fingers and her bare foot lifting from the floorboard. Even on their first meeting, neither Mona's shyness nor# Tamsin's feigned indifference and middle class air (+ her higher physical position on the horse - a subtle touch), neither of these behaviours can hide the immediate connection between the girls : their equally isolated situations will bring them together.
I think that a more attentive observation to the girls personal presentation as an indicator of social class would have made the story yet more believable. Tamsin was often made to look 'classless', with loose hair, sexy short dresses and large hoop earrings. Meanwhile Mona did not seem to present herself as neatly as somebody of her class might do, particularly in terms of her oft unkempt hair. Why was it not tied back tight ? Where were HER hoop earrings ? Why was she always wearing a cotton tracksuit and never a nylon shellsuit ? Perhaps the costume designer and the director feared that more accentuated representations via the girls' dressing style would have made their exchange of worlds impossible for the viewer to comprehend, they just would have been TOO different.
These may seem strange observations to pick up on, but in such a class-based and image-conscious society as Britain 2004, such things should be considered. (One more thing : a working class girl from a small Yorkshire mining town somehow learnt to move very naturally to salsa music somewhere along the line : possible but not that credible).
Clothing aside, the superb acting was the coup de maitre of the film. Fantastic casting reminded me of the understated British film Secrets and Lies (Mike Leigh, mid-1990s). The jewel in the crown being Paddy Considine. He portrayed excellently the trauma of his slide from devout Christianity back into his fractured and deplorable world of before.
I would disagree with another viewer comment that we are left with a final impression of each of the girls coming out of their experience as stronger people : as Mona walks away at the end, what has she got to look forward to ?
Should we hate Tamsin for the way she plays with Mona's feelings ? Or should we pity her for the way that problems in her life (such as her father's affair) are muffled under layers of apparent security that accompany her middle class upbringing : money, private school education, a 'family life', etc.? In the long term, these factors are only obstacles to addressing the problems of unfulfilling human relationships, in whichever class of society they are found.
Take for example they way in which the girls exchange long glances over Tamsin's singing cello, and how Mona observes Tamsin's able fingers and her bare foot lifting from the floorboard. Even on their first meeting, neither Mona's shyness nor# Tamsin's feigned indifference and middle class air (+ her higher physical position on the horse - a subtle touch), neither of these behaviours can hide the immediate connection between the girls : their equally isolated situations will bring them together.
I think that a more attentive observation to the girls personal presentation as an indicator of social class would have made the story yet more believable. Tamsin was often made to look 'classless', with loose hair, sexy short dresses and large hoop earrings. Meanwhile Mona did not seem to present herself as neatly as somebody of her class might do, particularly in terms of her oft unkempt hair. Why was it not tied back tight ? Where were HER hoop earrings ? Why was she always wearing a cotton tracksuit and never a nylon shellsuit ? Perhaps the costume designer and the director feared that more accentuated representations via the girls' dressing style would have made their exchange of worlds impossible for the viewer to comprehend, they just would have been TOO different.
These may seem strange observations to pick up on, but in such a class-based and image-conscious society as Britain 2004, such things should be considered. (One more thing : a working class girl from a small Yorkshire mining town somehow learnt to move very naturally to salsa music somewhere along the line : possible but not that credible).
Clothing aside, the superb acting was the coup de maitre of the film. Fantastic casting reminded me of the understated British film Secrets and Lies (Mike Leigh, mid-1990s). The jewel in the crown being Paddy Considine. He portrayed excellently the trauma of his slide from devout Christianity back into his fractured and deplorable world of before.
I would disagree with another viewer comment that we are left with a final impression of each of the girls coming out of their experience as stronger people : as Mona walks away at the end, what has she got to look forward to ?
Should we hate Tamsin for the way she plays with Mona's feelings ? Or should we pity her for the way that problems in her life (such as her father's affair) are muffled under layers of apparent security that accompany her middle class upbringing : money, private school education, a 'family life', etc.? In the long term, these factors are only obstacles to addressing the problems of unfulfilling human relationships, in whichever class of society they are found.
Very sincere movie, with high artistic achievements
ltemelkov12 March 2005
My Summer of Love is a brave, sincere film, which gives us, cinema-lovers, the hope that cinema is not dead and is not only a money-making entertainment machine whatever the cost. It looks hard into life of today, but this look is not to frighten, to scare, to scandalize - I'd call it poetic realism, in the best traditions of cinema, when its great masters were not afraid to experiment, but only strive for true presentation of their idea and of their characters. It is also a film about love, because it is done with so much love for people who follow their heart, and who value their openness and freedom of expressing themselves. Highly artistic work of it's author Pavel Pavlikovski, and also of actress Natalie Press, whom I was happy to see at the Sofia Film Fest, at the Bulgarian premiere of the film on 11 March 05.
Simply bad
asc8521 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Usually, if I don't enjoy a movie that is critically received, I can at least see why others "could" think it was great. Not so with "My Summer of Love." Not only isn't it good, it's one of the worst films of 2005, which, coupled with the critical acclaim it has received makes "My Summer of Love" one of the most overrated movies of the year.
Slow and pointless, with an absolutely ridiculous "twist" at the end. I read another user, who pretty much encapsulated my feelings toward this picture. Which is that lately, if you make a film with a homosexual relationship at the center of the picture, and combine that with a negative portrayal of Christianity, the critics are beside themselves with praise.
Ridiculous.
Slow and pointless, with an absolutely ridiculous "twist" at the end. I read another user, who pretty much encapsulated my feelings toward this picture. Which is that lately, if you make a film with a homosexual relationship at the center of the picture, and combine that with a negative portrayal of Christianity, the critics are beside themselves with praise.
Ridiculous.
want more danger
SnoopyStyle18 July 2016
Mona (Natalie Press) is hurt after getting dumped. Her brother Phil (Paddy Considine) is her only family. He is a reformed criminal and a born-again Christian. He runs his congregation out of his pub. Mona befriends rich girl Tamsin (Emily Blunt) who is haunted by her sister Sadie who died from anorexia. The two girls' friendship grows into a sexual relationship. Tamsin is furious at her father and his secretary who is cheating with him. Phil leads his congregation to plant a wooden cross on top of the hill. Tamsin starts flirting with him.
These are three terrific young actors on the rise. This feels more like a bright breezy lesbian romance at first. It turns into something different but it never gets dark enough. The Tamsin character needs more chaos. It would help if they do something more dangerous. It's a movie of a manipulative female but the manipulations are more like emotional game playing.
These are three terrific young actors on the rise. This feels more like a bright breezy lesbian romance at first. It turns into something different but it never gets dark enough. The Tamsin character needs more chaos. It would help if they do something more dangerous. It's a movie of a manipulative female but the manipulations are more like emotional game playing.
expected more
karhukissa23 September 2006
I translated this film for the Budapest GLBT cultural festival. So I expected something that would show lesbian love in a positive light. Instead, this was a rather depressing feature about a teenage friendship which turned into a love affair "by chance". Someone comparing it to Heavenly Creatures had a point. Lesbianism is presented here as an escape from the sordid reality of the girls' (especially Mona's) life.
Not that we see much of these lives, though. This was my major problem with the film. It was based on a novel which was clearly autobiographical, and some points got lost on the way. What part did the zealot brother play in the story? And Tamsin's parents? What was the point in the religious procession, and why was it important to include? Where are Mona's parents? A lot of questions that aren't answered. The two actresses are really superb, but they seem to exist in a void, without an even slightly realistic environment. Maybe this is how the author felt at the time of this happening, but it doesn't make a film. At least not a good one.
Not that we see much of these lives, though. This was my major problem with the film. It was based on a novel which was clearly autobiographical, and some points got lost on the way. What part did the zealot brother play in the story? And Tamsin's parents? What was the point in the religious procession, and why was it important to include? Where are Mona's parents? A lot of questions that aren't answered. The two actresses are really superb, but they seem to exist in a void, without an even slightly realistic environment. Maybe this is how the author felt at the time of this happening, but it doesn't make a film. At least not a good one.
Overrated
misty_7730 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I was surprised to see how well received this film is in other IMDb posts. I was quite disappointed by it.
The camera work, whilst adding to the 'artistic' feel of the movie, annoyed me. As did one of the main characters - Mona - whose constant smoking, irritating voice, and general air of unkemptness was a major frustration. To me the two girls just seemed so different that a friendship, little own a brief love affair, seemed difficult to swallow. The feeling of inevitability one gets that Mona is going to be poorly treated by Tamsin made the whole experience very painful to watch.
Which is not to say the movie isn't well acted. Outstanding performances from the three leads make it film worth watching. But the script and cinematography let it down.
The camera work, whilst adding to the 'artistic' feel of the movie, annoyed me. As did one of the main characters - Mona - whose constant smoking, irritating voice, and general air of unkemptness was a major frustration. To me the two girls just seemed so different that a friendship, little own a brief love affair, seemed difficult to swallow. The feeling of inevitability one gets that Mona is going to be poorly treated by Tamsin made the whole experience very painful to watch.
Which is not to say the movie isn't well acted. Outstanding performances from the three leads make it film worth watching. But the script and cinematography let it down.
Rather a B-movie than a masterpiece
Copenhagener21 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
How can such an amateurish, plot less movie with poor acting even receive such a high rating? I just don't get it. First of all there is zero chemistry between the two main characters. At least a minimum of that would be fair to expect now that they are supposed to not just become friends - despite of two totally different personalities - but a romantic couple. Like in the movie Adele there is absolutely no explanation as to how they become attracted to each other - they are just suddenly making love, from one frame to the next. The whole build-up is skipped. And apart from that there are just way too many plot holes and unrealistic scenes. E.g. Mona goes on a trip with her new friend without knowing where they are going - yet she did bring a bikini for their swim! How was that possible? Is she a fortune-teller? Also her friend brought a bikini - even though it seems unplanned that they went for that swim. As there were nobody else around, and they did not plan the swim - they would have done it in the nude, and voila - there you would have the missing build-up. Instead we get a quick, fully-bikini-clothed kiss. That's all. Heterosexual girls also kiss, thus this is nowhere near any lesbian approach. And what made her brother turn Christian? Nobody knows. Yes, he explains how he saw the light etc. but the individual, life-turning event that triggered his sudden clergy is just added to the way too many unanswered questions. The whole movie seems plot less, just moving from one pathetic, boring, silly, unrealistic scene to the next. The shortfalls are so many and so obvious that the unusually high rating of this movie - even from critics - is just incredible.
Decent summer fare; but disappointing overall
james_cocos-snowboots9 September 2005
I may have enjoyed this movie a lot more if it hadn't seemed like such a rip off of Heavenly Creatures. I understand that this is based on a novel that I haven't read and I only mean this as a comment on the movie. Heavenly Creatures is one of my favourite movies and I was anticipating this movie because I thought that it would present a similar examination of the suffocatingly intense friendship that adolescent girls sometimes form. In this respect it sort of succeeded, but, as the relationship grew more intense it seemed pretty clear that certain power dynamics were at work and I thought that this seemed so obvious that the result should not have been surprising at all. This underscored what I felt was the emotional superficiality of the film. The other huge disappointment was the many BLATANT parallels with Heavenly Creatures which beg a comparison with Heavenly Creatures although the latter is far superior. Even down to Tasmin's love of Edith Piaf which seems just as exotic and captivating to Mona as Juliet's love of MArio Lanza seems to Pauline in Heavenly Creatures. My Summer of Love is like a much less emotionally devastating Heavenly Creatures. The religious aspect is interesting and at least added an original dimension to the film, but mostly, the film illustrated the shortcomings that Heavenly Creatures could have fallen victim to, and thankfully, did not. If I had not seen Heavenly Creatures, My Summer of Love could have been a great summer film, but it was too similar and inferior to Heavenly Creatures for me to really enjoy it.
WTF Kind of mess WAS this!?!
MagicStarfire3 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
WARNING CONTAINS SPOILERS
The author couldn't decide what she wanted to tell her audience.
All the main characters in this film are, quite frankly, insane.
Mona, whose real name is Lisa, lives with her brother, Phil, above a pub called The Swan.
Much to Mona's disappointment, Phil has recently become a religious nut,and turned The Swan into a place for prayer meetings. What they're living on since The Swan is no longer a pub, I never figured out, but with this delusional mess, it doesn't much matter.
Mona, meanwhile has been messing around with a married man, who is a real jerk. Not only is he cheating on his wife, but he has sex with Mona and THEN tells her their affair is over.
Mona next meets the young, attractive Tamsin, a girl who has been temporarily suspended from boarding school, so is home for the summer, and living nearby.
The two develop a friendship and then a romance. Tamsin, however, is ever bit as unstable as Mona, and the two indulge in breaking out a car window, harassing Mona's ex-boyfriend's wife, conducting a semi-séance session, and eventually Tamsin even leads Phil into nearly succumbing to her seductiveness.
Phil, meanwhile, is running around like a nut-case, building a huge wooden cross and trying to force his newfound religious beliefs down his sister's unwilling throat, what time he isn't kicking her, shoving her lover Tamsin, or locking Mona up in her room. Yeah, this guy is really filled to the brim with the "gentle love" of Jesus!
Finally, when Mona tries to hang herself, Phil loses his religion, and Mona packs her suitcase and trots over to Tamsin's house. There she finds Tamsin packing her own suitcase and calmly announcing she's returning to school.
Disheartened Mona then encounters Tamsin's sister, Sadie, whom she and us, had been led to believe died due to anorexia. So what the heck was THAT ABOUT? And where was Sadie all that time? No explanation is really given.
After a near murder attempt, the film concludes with no real ending.
I gave this convoluted, nearly plot less film, with its nutty characters a 4 and that was being darn generous.
The author couldn't decide what she wanted to tell her audience.
All the main characters in this film are, quite frankly, insane.
Mona, whose real name is Lisa, lives with her brother, Phil, above a pub called The Swan.
Much to Mona's disappointment, Phil has recently become a religious nut,and turned The Swan into a place for prayer meetings. What they're living on since The Swan is no longer a pub, I never figured out, but with this delusional mess, it doesn't much matter.
Mona, meanwhile has been messing around with a married man, who is a real jerk. Not only is he cheating on his wife, but he has sex with Mona and THEN tells her their affair is over.
Mona next meets the young, attractive Tamsin, a girl who has been temporarily suspended from boarding school, so is home for the summer, and living nearby.
The two develop a friendship and then a romance. Tamsin, however, is ever bit as unstable as Mona, and the two indulge in breaking out a car window, harassing Mona's ex-boyfriend's wife, conducting a semi-séance session, and eventually Tamsin even leads Phil into nearly succumbing to her seductiveness.
Phil, meanwhile, is running around like a nut-case, building a huge wooden cross and trying to force his newfound religious beliefs down his sister's unwilling throat, what time he isn't kicking her, shoving her lover Tamsin, or locking Mona up in her room. Yeah, this guy is really filled to the brim with the "gentle love" of Jesus!
Finally, when Mona tries to hang herself, Phil loses his religion, and Mona packs her suitcase and trots over to Tamsin's house. There she finds Tamsin packing her own suitcase and calmly announcing she's returning to school.
Disheartened Mona then encounters Tamsin's sister, Sadie, whom she and us, had been led to believe died due to anorexia. So what the heck was THAT ABOUT? And where was Sadie all that time? No explanation is really given.
After a near murder attempt, the film concludes with no real ending.
I gave this convoluted, nearly plot less film, with its nutty characters a 4 and that was being darn generous.
Two Warring Sides
tedg3 January 2006
When we enter into a film, we enter a world.
To varying degrees, depending on how fully you live, we turn our trust over to the people involved in the film, to sweep us this way and that, for whatever purposes they wish. Usually we know what to expect and that's why we arrange to be there. But expectations mean safety, and good film experiences mean you are caught without barriers.
So many films advertise one thing, even starting out as that thing, then creep into dangerous territory. You might even think of this as two women (supposing you are a man), or two faces of a woman. One approaches you with openness and innocence, beguiling you with the natural flow of how attraction, then love unfolds. This film you welcome into your heart.
It will have breezy moments and intimate ones, sometimes meditative and bit a mysterious. Sometimes even strikingly beautiful. You will fall in love with it.
The other face is one which plans. This one knows some mechanics of manipulation. It knows how to dance and sing. It can and will make you fall in love with it. Both of you will feel good, as good as if it were the real thing. No, better, because the real thing never unfolds as it should. Only the unreal seems real.
You'll fall in love with this film also, even though you know the thing is fabricated a bit. At least you hope it is only a bit. Unavoidably, as you go, you will find that the small bit you allowed becomes larger and larger. You'll question yourself and the selfishness of your lover. You'll question love. You'll want to die.
And so this little movie was conceived. It is a simple thing superficially. But what it is, and what is inside it is the same. Whether I can recommend it to you boils down to two things.
Is the thing (and the redhead who represents it) naturally perfect enough for you to give your heart without qualification?
And, is the manipulation by the selfish artist (here represented in the film by a really lovely young woman who plays the cello rather well) so rewarding, such a ride into a world of sense and warmth that the companionship is worth the cost?
If you asked, I'd have to say no. I'd probably send you to "Elvira Madigan," "Heavenly Creatures," or even "Fun." Or if you want a bit of strangeness, "Nights of Caberia," whose end is quoted here.
These 4 people (three players and the filmmaker) are earnest enough. They do have some charm, and you can spend time less pleasantly. But they just don't have the power to tackle something this huge. Love and risk is the biggest thing we have as humans, and they are not up to it.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
To varying degrees, depending on how fully you live, we turn our trust over to the people involved in the film, to sweep us this way and that, for whatever purposes they wish. Usually we know what to expect and that's why we arrange to be there. But expectations mean safety, and good film experiences mean you are caught without barriers.
So many films advertise one thing, even starting out as that thing, then creep into dangerous territory. You might even think of this as two women (supposing you are a man), or two faces of a woman. One approaches you with openness and innocence, beguiling you with the natural flow of how attraction, then love unfolds. This film you welcome into your heart.
It will have breezy moments and intimate ones, sometimes meditative and bit a mysterious. Sometimes even strikingly beautiful. You will fall in love with it.
The other face is one which plans. This one knows some mechanics of manipulation. It knows how to dance and sing. It can and will make you fall in love with it. Both of you will feel good, as good as if it were the real thing. No, better, because the real thing never unfolds as it should. Only the unreal seems real.
You'll fall in love with this film also, even though you know the thing is fabricated a bit. At least you hope it is only a bit. Unavoidably, as you go, you will find that the small bit you allowed becomes larger and larger. You'll question yourself and the selfishness of your lover. You'll question love. You'll want to die.
And so this little movie was conceived. It is a simple thing superficially. But what it is, and what is inside it is the same. Whether I can recommend it to you boils down to two things.
Is the thing (and the redhead who represents it) naturally perfect enough for you to give your heart without qualification?
And, is the manipulation by the selfish artist (here represented in the film by a really lovely young woman who plays the cello rather well) so rewarding, such a ride into a world of sense and warmth that the companionship is worth the cost?
If you asked, I'd have to say no. I'd probably send you to "Elvira Madigan," "Heavenly Creatures," or even "Fun." Or if you want a bit of strangeness, "Nights of Caberia," whose end is quoted here.
These 4 people (three players and the filmmaker) are earnest enough. They do have some charm, and you can spend time less pleasantly. But they just don't have the power to tackle something this huge. Love and risk is the biggest thing we have as humans, and they are not up to it.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
An European independent movie, that is all too aware of itself.
Boba_Fett11383 June 2006
I wanted to see this movie for a long time. I recently finally got the chance to see it and although it was a good movie, it was not the must-see I heard it was and I expected it to be. This movie was praised at all kinds of festivals and website's that are respectable and thrust worthy when it comes to the 'better smaller'-, mainly European movies. Needless to say that my expectations were high, maybe a bit too high. "My Summer of Love" feels like a fabricated movie that is all too aware of its own style, which makes the movie feel forced and too artificially made at certain moments.
The story and premise are good enough. The story feels very pure and the two main characters are good enough to carry the entire movie on their own, which they also get to do. I don't know, for some reason movies with a 'lesbian' love-story always feel so much purer and perhaps sweeter than any other love-stories.
So it's not really the story that is the problem but it really is the way it is told. "My Summer of Love" is directed by a Polish director and made by a mostly English crew. It has European style written all over it, especially when it comes down to its cinematography (shakycam, sudden zooms). The cinematography all feels too forced and planned. It's not pure enough and it's all very calculated. The cinematography of the nature and the more 'quiet' sequences are good and the capture a nice mood but for 70% of the movie the cinematography simply feels too fabricated. The way of cinematography doesn't feel necessary and it doesn't add enough to the movie. It feels like its only used to make this movie distinct itself from the more 'Hollywood' way of film-making. At times it feels like they wanted every sequence to be pure poetry.
The movie also feels incomplete. All of the sequences are too short and they end abruptly. The movie has some interesting plot-lines in it but the sequences are handled in are too short to make a lasting impression. I wanted to see and learn more about certain plot-lines and characters but the sequences were over before I fully realized what happened and what was going on with the characters. This is also the reason why this movie only is 86 minutes short. The movie doesn't cover enough of the story and because of that the movie feels incomplete and perhaps at times makes a dull and a too simple impression. Because it's all 'too short', the movie never really knew how to capture and set the right mood, of the boring country life in a small English town. It was not like I didn't understood or 'got' this movie, it was just that I wasn't grabbed by it all and it didn't made a lasting impression on me.
The ending also didn't really came as a surprise. The movie constantly gave me the feeling that something wasn't 'right', so I expected a twist at the ending, which also came. So even though the ending itself wasn't predictable, the build up to it still was.
The acting is quite good and pure. Nathalie Press and Emily Blunt are good enough as the two young leading ladies but what will they be doing in 10 years from now? Probably not acting. They are pure but they aren't really actresses. But for this movie that's OK really. I mean that probably also was the reason why they were cast in the first place.
I know I'm probably sounding too negative and harsh but that simply is because the movie just wasn't as good as I heard it was and I expected it to be. The movie is still good and pure enough to please the fans of 'European' cinema but too many moments in the movie feel too fabricated. I probably make the movie sound worser than it is, so please if you're into this sort of movies, watch this one as well. It's a movie worth seeing that still has plenty to offer its viewers.
It's a good movie but not the best example of recent good and pure European film-making.
7/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
The story and premise are good enough. The story feels very pure and the two main characters are good enough to carry the entire movie on their own, which they also get to do. I don't know, for some reason movies with a 'lesbian' love-story always feel so much purer and perhaps sweeter than any other love-stories.
So it's not really the story that is the problem but it really is the way it is told. "My Summer of Love" is directed by a Polish director and made by a mostly English crew. It has European style written all over it, especially when it comes down to its cinematography (shakycam, sudden zooms). The cinematography all feels too forced and planned. It's not pure enough and it's all very calculated. The cinematography of the nature and the more 'quiet' sequences are good and the capture a nice mood but for 70% of the movie the cinematography simply feels too fabricated. The way of cinematography doesn't feel necessary and it doesn't add enough to the movie. It feels like its only used to make this movie distinct itself from the more 'Hollywood' way of film-making. At times it feels like they wanted every sequence to be pure poetry.
The movie also feels incomplete. All of the sequences are too short and they end abruptly. The movie has some interesting plot-lines in it but the sequences are handled in are too short to make a lasting impression. I wanted to see and learn more about certain plot-lines and characters but the sequences were over before I fully realized what happened and what was going on with the characters. This is also the reason why this movie only is 86 minutes short. The movie doesn't cover enough of the story and because of that the movie feels incomplete and perhaps at times makes a dull and a too simple impression. Because it's all 'too short', the movie never really knew how to capture and set the right mood, of the boring country life in a small English town. It was not like I didn't understood or 'got' this movie, it was just that I wasn't grabbed by it all and it didn't made a lasting impression on me.
The ending also didn't really came as a surprise. The movie constantly gave me the feeling that something wasn't 'right', so I expected a twist at the ending, which also came. So even though the ending itself wasn't predictable, the build up to it still was.
The acting is quite good and pure. Nathalie Press and Emily Blunt are good enough as the two young leading ladies but what will they be doing in 10 years from now? Probably not acting. They are pure but they aren't really actresses. But for this movie that's OK really. I mean that probably also was the reason why they were cast in the first place.
I know I'm probably sounding too negative and harsh but that simply is because the movie just wasn't as good as I heard it was and I expected it to be. The movie is still good and pure enough to please the fans of 'European' cinema but too many moments in the movie feel too fabricated. I probably make the movie sound worser than it is, so please if you're into this sort of movies, watch this one as well. It's a movie worth seeing that still has plenty to offer its viewers.
It's a good movie but not the best example of recent good and pure European film-making.
7/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
The main problem that My Summer of Love runs into is not surprisingly its premise
stodruza18 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The idyllic England countryside, two girls kissing, then falling in love, how can you possibly go wrong? My Summer of Love stars Nathalie Press and Emily Blunt as two teenagers who fall for one another. It tries to take an interesting, delicate subject and make it into an interesting film. Mona is a Yorkshire native lower in social class than the older Tamsin, who is home due to an expulsion from boarding school at her family's lush country estate. Mona lives with her older brother Philip (Paddy Considine), a hell raiser who has recently found Jesus.
On an excursion into the hills above her home, She meets the equestrian Tasmin, and later visits her newfound friend at her bequest. Tamsin quickly reveals that she has an anorexic sister who starved herself to death, then cries. The two girls soon find themselves listening to old records, dancing, and finally going back into the natural beauty that surrounds them. As promised, they kiss, swim, then presumably fall in love. They take drugs and promise one another that they won't be able to live without the other. Then, while still on drugs, they make a foray into town making a spectacle of themselves for the towns people. Two practical jokes serve to bond the girls together.
Phil locks his sister in her room who stages a fake suicide attempt. After she teases him, he slaps her loosing his cool and kicks all of his congregation out of his house. Mona tells him that she is in love, packs her bags and heads for Tasmin's only to find out that Tasmin was only playing a joke; you see, her sister is actually alive and she was making that up as well as misrepresenting her true feelings for Mona, confessing that " It was just a game." They swim again, but this time Mona is furious and nearly strangles Tasmin to death. She walks away furious, fade out.
The formal qualities of the film seem formidable at first, with the exception, in my opinion, of the sudden zooms which Polikowski demonstrates in the beginning, and continues to use for faux substance whenever he can. A device like that. in my opinion, should be used to accentuate substance, rather then try to create it. If there is no substance to begin with, then the sudden zoom becomes only another affectation in the filmmaker's arsenal. Dancer in the Dark was able to use this technique as a device successfully, but that film was pouring with emotion while this film constantly suffers from lack of it.
The main problem that My Summer of Love runs into is not surprisingly its premise: A well to do English teenager tricks a younger girl into falling in love with her, then breaks her heart A better, if more predictable turn of events would have it that something or someone conspires to destroy the love that the two females feel for one another. This one turning point, is, however, is still not enough, in my opinion, to render a great film. Saddled with a work for adaptation, Polikowski perhaps felt constrained by the existing narrative, or, more probably saw no existing defect in it at all.
In striving for some minimalist story aesthetic, Polikowski leaves us short. The shots are too short, the scenes are too short, and so are the acts. We want to be taken to the end of the line with this film and we certainly are not. The problem, as in so many films that begin with interesting material is the story they finally decide to tell.
On an excursion into the hills above her home, She meets the equestrian Tasmin, and later visits her newfound friend at her bequest. Tamsin quickly reveals that she has an anorexic sister who starved herself to death, then cries. The two girls soon find themselves listening to old records, dancing, and finally going back into the natural beauty that surrounds them. As promised, they kiss, swim, then presumably fall in love. They take drugs and promise one another that they won't be able to live without the other. Then, while still on drugs, they make a foray into town making a spectacle of themselves for the towns people. Two practical jokes serve to bond the girls together.
Phil locks his sister in her room who stages a fake suicide attempt. After she teases him, he slaps her loosing his cool and kicks all of his congregation out of his house. Mona tells him that she is in love, packs her bags and heads for Tasmin's only to find out that Tasmin was only playing a joke; you see, her sister is actually alive and she was making that up as well as misrepresenting her true feelings for Mona, confessing that " It was just a game." They swim again, but this time Mona is furious and nearly strangles Tasmin to death. She walks away furious, fade out.
The formal qualities of the film seem formidable at first, with the exception, in my opinion, of the sudden zooms which Polikowski demonstrates in the beginning, and continues to use for faux substance whenever he can. A device like that. in my opinion, should be used to accentuate substance, rather then try to create it. If there is no substance to begin with, then the sudden zoom becomes only another affectation in the filmmaker's arsenal. Dancer in the Dark was able to use this technique as a device successfully, but that film was pouring with emotion while this film constantly suffers from lack of it.
The main problem that My Summer of Love runs into is not surprisingly its premise: A well to do English teenager tricks a younger girl into falling in love with her, then breaks her heart A better, if more predictable turn of events would have it that something or someone conspires to destroy the love that the two females feel for one another. This one turning point, is, however, is still not enough, in my opinion, to render a great film. Saddled with a work for adaptation, Polikowski perhaps felt constrained by the existing narrative, or, more probably saw no existing defect in it at all.
In striving for some minimalist story aesthetic, Polikowski leaves us short. The shots are too short, the scenes are too short, and so are the acts. We want to be taken to the end of the line with this film and we certainly are not. The problem, as in so many films that begin with interesting material is the story they finally decide to tell.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
