A little too laconic for its own good, well acted

Tom hiddelston is so good actor

Joanna Hogg and holidays... I don't know anybody else who captures the way tensions accurately appear in the English upper middle class, which I think is specifically unique to Britain. Superficial conventions of extreme politeness with a refusal to talk or to be able to talk about the real issue until the emotionally repressed explode into horrific, expletive-laden violence while this is stoically borne by the rest of the party and never brought up. It's unthinkable to anybody who hasn't witnessed this, recognisable to everybody else who has. "Unrelated" was another gem.

I'm a giant fan of all things Brit including movies but this one seemed to me like a bit of unrelenting tedium, albeit spotted with a few bursts of verbal rage. For instance we're staring at a still shot of some trees for . . . . about . . . . this . . . . long (or maybe longer) then we switch to a scene where something moves perhaps one of the characters and that lasts for an equally endless amount of time. At this point we're absolutely craving a bit of diaglogue . . . . wait . . . . for . . . . it . . . and voila, there it is, a handful of spoken words offered to the audience like a bone to a dog. Four stars because it's beautiful to look at - even the tediously long shots of stuff and because, well, it is after all British.

This is a laidback film with little going on other than long discussions, in a very foreign holiday type setting. The surroundings do provide good cinematography/atmosphere certainly and its not unpleasant, its just a bit slow and it's not exactly exciting. There's a decent cast and it has a light and somewhat pleasant feel to it tonally but there's not much else I can say about it really...it focusses on middle to upper middle class people and features a number of conversations held between various characters in a, as I say, laidback setting - hardly action packed or gripping stuff but it's ok I suppose. I wouldn't specifically recommend this film as such, no.

Unrequited love, hate, frustration in the most upper middle class thing ever as most of a family goto a Georgian house on the Isles of Scilly to not have an affair with the art teacher, the hired help or actually achieve very much at all. It's a great, staccato, internalised scream of a film; where everyone knows they aren't suffering in any normal definition of the term. They can't wait to leave to get on with life but already miss whatever that was when they are gone. Beautifully observed, written and performed.

It's easy to see why Archipelago is such a Marmite film: the characters are upper middle-class and skirt often pretentiously around their self-absorbed and unexpressive frustrations while ignoring the feelings of (for instance) their live-in chalet girl. But Joanna Hogg's film is unusually hypnotic. The palette - like the Scilly Isles location - is all greys and windswept greens, there are few if any close-ups, no climaxes, and yet by the end all that is unsaid has been thoroughly articulated. A very interesting and deceptively simple work.

It was good. You have the wrong Christopher Baker shown below as the actor who played Christopher.

even I like Tom but the movie makes me want to sleep

Take some of your least favourite relatives on a holiday to somewhere gloomy and film their inevitable arguments on a home video camera. What you will end up with is Archipelago, the reason why I always check the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, rather than just going by the critic's score. Once bitten, twice shy. The film has been praised for giving us a window into upper middle class life, but nobody seems to have stopped to wonder whether there's anything interesting to look at through that window. I wish that I could give you a detailed review describing what this film is about, but sadly I left the room halfway through it, when I realised that I had other things I'd prefer to be doing, like sleeping, or having my teeth drilled. Luckily, this isn't a problem, since the film doesn't really seem to be about anything. Characters have whispered arguments over the sound of high winds, making sure that the audience are unable to hear the dialogue and so are free to imagine it as "searing" or "claustrophobic". The 'action' (if you can call it that) is limited to arguments over being served cold food in a restaurant and one three minute scene of nothing but a man undoing the drawstring on his pyjamas. Personally I found it dull, but if you're one of those people who complains that nobody in Harry Potter ever stopped to go to the loo, or that no one in The Shape of Water brushes their teeth, this may be the film for you. Here at last is a director commited to realism- or else one that isn't aware that editing the boring bits out is an option. Like I say, I left before the end. Possibly about halfway or two thirds in the film suddenly changes conpletely and becomes genuinely interesting. Maybe aliens land, or the painter murders that bloke (don't expect me to remember their names), or one of them actually shows an emotion beyond disdain and barely concealed hatred for the rest of their family. Possibly (and far more probably) I am just a philistine. Most likely it is just that putting me in front of this film and expecting me to enjoy it for what it is is like putting a four year old in front of the Mona Lisa and being surprised when they are unable to admire the technical skills it took to create it and instead complain that there aren't enough dinosaurs in it. Though I personally can't help but suspect that the critics who are praising this are only doing so to make themselves seem clever, I am fully prepared to accept that perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the Emperor really is decked out in a beautiful suit of finest material, and I'm just the one idiot who can't see it. But, I'll say this, I think that I and others like me probably represent a greater percentage of the film-going population than critics and film buffs. So, by all means, go and see this film if you're the sort of person who can understand arty films and enjoy them. But if you're just looking for a way to pass the time on a Saturday evening, then I reccomend you skip this.

Tom Hiddleston is one of my favourite actors and I watched this while going through his filmography. Unfortunately, I'm clearly not meant for art films because I found this painfully boring. Nothing happens at all.

I might set up a competition among family and friends where we take it in turns to suggest a film, the aim being to make the others give up watching it as soon as possible before its end. This would be my offering. Beautiful scenery. I quite liked the lighting (or lack of it). But it was so remorselessly slow, with shots held for far too long, combined with great dollops of mundane, uninteresting conversation or visual content. As for the characters, at least the son and daughter provokes some reaction from the viewer....the former being wet, the latter a self-obsessed cow. Othwerwise, the film is dull, more dull , and duller still.

A slow story about an English family, slightly at odds. The characters and microscopic plot develop slowly with seemingly partly improvised dialog, and flatly and statically photographed but well-composed and engaging Scilly Isles exteriors and elegantly spare holiday cottage. The viewer does much of the work, decoding languid, oblique conversations alongside a few more dramatic ones. That is interesting for the enthusiast for a rarified drama, yet the fundamental family conflict is unconvincing. Too little in particular is discernible about the angry daughter, and the mother's emotional exhaustion seems to match teenage children rather than the slightly tedious twenty-somethings we see here.

The acting is well done, Hiddleston is very good but he can't help the uninteresting story and very slow pace even for this type of movie. It really drags to a uneventful conclusion. The scenery where the movie is set fits the characters as well, very drab and not compelling.

This is, without a doubt, the most realistic movie I have ever seen. It was bleak, boring, beautiful, and I absolutely loved it!

Ummm maybe a little bit to long for all the non action. Almost 2 hours of just hinted frustrations, emotional restrain and a constant wait for something to boil up pretty much sums up the movie and gives a hint why there is such a big difference between critics and public.

I may not have as refined tastes as some of the other reviews, but I found this film to be an absolute bore and poorly executed. Through awkward and prolonged camera angles, and inaudible dialogue this film trudged through a forced and awkward story line. To be blunt, this film reminded me of some that a teenager would do for a school project. I really don't mean to be overly critical, but this film really wasn't entertaining or though provoking, and worst of all, I didn't walk away feel like the crew put a full effort into this film. I am an average cinema fan, and so I may not have "understood" the director's intentions, but I would not recommend this film to anyone.

Joanna Hogg's dole-drum blah movie style gets old fast. It's a guessing game trying to figure out the point of the film and WTF is going on!

It has its moments, but over all it very forgettable. Not a lot happens and not much is explained--little character development. The actors also seem to have very little dialogue to go on and appear to be improvising, more like scrambling, a lot.

A thoroughly and unremittingly tense and miserable film, full of awkward silences punctuated by the odd, profanity-spattered outburst. The palate is the same as those used by the people-free greys and blues of the landscapes painted by the characters. But this is one of the best films I've ever seen at transcribing family tension and breakdown. It's like a feature-episode of Eastenders with people that are too upper class to bicker properly and so sit in silence, paint, then freak out.