Surreality is an intriguing premise in entertainment, and, when skillfully employed (generally in a sci-fi context), it can make for compelling viewing. But deft handling of the material involved is what makes all the difference, and that’s where this latest effort from writer-director Mark Jenkin doesn’t quite hit the mark. Life in a coastal fishing village in the UK’s Cornwall region hasn’t been what it once was for 30 years. Overfishing, coupled with the mysterious disappearance of the fishing boat Rose of Nevada, left local anglers without a resource to exploit, not to mention more than a little bit spooked. However, when the craft suddenly and inexplicably reappears in the harbor one day three decades later, the remaining residents of the now-rundown community are even more mystified. That’s especially true for the boat’s owner, Mike (Edward Rowe), and the widow of one of the missing crew members, Tina (Rosalind Eleazar). They wonder what to do now that the trawler has reappeared, but they ultimately decide to put the boat back into operation. Mike hires a crew of three, skipper Murgey (Francis Magee) and two down-on-their-luck mates looking to better their lives with new jobs, Nick (George MacKay) and Liam (Callum Turner). And, on their first voyage, they bring home a huge catch. But what surprises them when they return is that the village appears to be bustling with people and activity again – just as it was 30 years earlier (before Nick was even born). The reason for this is that it actually is 30 years earlier, and the crew members are viewed by the locals (including the past selves of individuals from their own time) as the crew of the boat when it went missing. It’s mind-boggling to the returnees, to be sure, prompting them (particularly Nick) to try and figure out what’s going on. In this sense, the story has very much the feel of an episode of The Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits but dressed up in what it likes to think of as slicker packaging. And I say “what it likes to think of,” because, frankly, this view of itself is somewhat inflated. For instance, in an effort to avoid revealing too much too soon, the film’s pacing is needlessly dragged out and overly cryptic, qualities that easily try viewer patience. Things admittedly get better when the big plot twist finally emerges, but it also remains somewhat enigmatic, as if the narrative doesn’t quite know which tangent to take. In many ways, this offering ends up following a trajectory very much like that found in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode “Things Past” (1996), suggesting a dearth of originality in scripting. In addition, the picture’s cinematography seems off, too, through its use of a purposely grainy, pock-marked filming technique to suggest that the story is indeed being depicted on film shot in the past, an approach used by the filmmaker in his previous offering, “Enys Men” (2022). In that case, however, the story was set in the 1970s (and effectively captured the period as such), while this one takes place 20-50 years later, with footage that comes across as out of place. Hence, because improvements in photographic quality and film preservation emerged in those ensuing years, it’s difficult to fathom how the film quality would have degraded to such a degree during that time frame (yes, it’s truly possible to go to the well one too many times). Given all of these issues, then, “Rose of Nevada” ultimately feels a little too needlessly padded for its own good. As I noted previously, this release reminds me a lot of two classic sci-fi TV series, and a work of those vehicles’ length (30-60 minutes) probably would have been more suitable than the current nearly two-hour runtime. To its credit, the picture features fine performances from Turner and MacKay, who gives one of his most polished and most mature performances to date. But that’s hardly enough to save this adrift vessel. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it should have remained lost at sea, but it certainly could have used a more capable navigator.
