The wind and tide is with Mark Jenkin’s latest entry.
“Rose of Nevada” is Mark Jenkin’s first film since “Enys Men,” which I wasn’t a big fan of because I didn’t really understand the story. But as the filmmaker specializes as a cinematographer and editor, it looked so classic and nostalgic being filmed on a 16mm camera. And that’s no different here. The only other difference is that “Rose of Nevada” is better than “Enys Men,” because it creates a different view of time travel and a boat trip that sets it off.
The Rose of Nevada, in case you’re asking, is a fishing vessel that disappeared 30 years ago and mysteriously returns to a fishing village in Cornwall. The owner (Edward Rowe) gets rid of the name and finds some new recruits to go fishing, which I’ll get to in a second. And there’s also a creepy old woman who has been poisoned by that vessel’s disappearance as she may have lost a loved one to that, and when it leaves for its voyage, she says: “See you soon, my darling.” I think she knows something otherworldly is bound to happen.
George MacKay plays Nick, a family man struggling to make ends meet and Callum Turner plays Liam, an itinerant worker sleeping at the docks; both of whom earn jobs on the vessel. They travel with the rent-a-skipper Murgey, whose grizzly appearance might remind some horror movie fans of Quint from “Jaws.” And so, all is going well, they catch a lot of fish, and they safely return home. But there’s one small hitch: they both been transported back to 1993 when the vessel went missing. That means people think Nick is Luke and Liam is Alan, as both those men were the ones who disappeared.
While Liam becomes accustomed to his new identity, especially since he has now a wife and daughter, it’s Nick who needs to escape from it. Don’t expect the “Back to the Future” formula to come in, but expect some vice versa within the situation.
It’s never quite explained why these two men end up back in 1993 with people believing they’re the lost men, but “Rose of Nevada” takes a genre like that and gives it a riveting look and thought-provoking examination. And the performances from MacKay and Turner couldn’t be more considerate and grounded. They play two men from different backgrounds, who end up in the same time period but with different aspects. And I guess maybe Jenkin doesn’t cater the movie goers who want the same kind of story, thus proving his skills.
Since he specializes in great cinematography, we see the rainy boat trips, the characters, and their homeland in glorious atmosphere. In fact, this movie should be shown in an old fashioned movie theater, and if today’s theater owners weren’t so cynical about attendance, then there can still be those kinds of theaters. And I miss the best of them. But even with major chains with digital projectors, we can still see the scope and it looks haunting.
I’m still delighted that both “Obsession” and “Backrooms” have been breaking box office records with horror fans, and I’ve lately assumed that mostly entries from the “Conjuring” universe are the ones to attract what I call horror moths. But then again, “Lee Cronin’s “The Mummy” didn’t find much of a crowd. I’m not sure if “Rose of Nevada” will bring in “Obsession” or “Backrooms” crowds, especially since Jenkin was no YouTuber. But I never distinguish filmmakers by their backgrounds, but rather their actions in presenting horror films. And this movie knows how to send these young deckhands back in time, and the actors know how to play them in a time trip like this. Can Nick get back to his future, or is he stuck in the past? That’s a good question, and all of us need to think about it.
In Select Theaters This Friday
