Victor (Julian Morris) and Kelly (Antonia Campbell-Hughes) kiss in close embrace
Film review

Kelly + Victor

2012 · Directed by Kieran Evans · 1h 35m

In a sentenceKelly and Victor try to get close while the screenplay keeps finding new ways to hurt them

In Liverpool, Kelly (Antonia Campbell-Hughes) and Victor (Julian Morris) begin a relationship in which tenderness accompanies physical pain. Each is drawn to the other, but getting close brings distress as well as affection, and the intimacy they seek is difficult to separate from hurt. Gaz (Stephen Walters), Craig (William Ruane) and Victoria (Claire Keelan) also figure in their story. The couple’s encounters raise questions about what they want from one another and how far their attraction can carry them when being together is itself a source of trouble.

Plays from YouTube when you press play; nothing loads from them until then.

Fi1m review

Kieran Evans’s romance is sensitively acted and disappointingly thin on character. Antonia Campbell-Hughes and Julian Morris make the attraction persuasive, but the accumulating misery exhausts our concern for the couple.

Kieran Evans approaches Kelly + Victor as a romance whose attraction does not become simple to dismiss when it starts to hurt. Adapted by the director from Niall Griffiths’s novel, it gives the lovers enough tenderness for us to understand why they might want each other. The film is uneven, with performances that hold our attention long after the writing has begun to lose it. Its problem is how little we learn about these people beyond their capacity to suffer.

Antonia Campbell-Hughes is the main reason to stay with it. She gives Kelly a vulnerability that keeps us interested even when the screenplay provides little to distinguish her from any other troubled lover. Julian Morris makes Victor’s attraction credible, and the two actors are persuasive in their intimacy. Their work needs more ordinary detail around it, so that these people can acquire interests and habits beyond the difficult relationship occupying the screen.

The intimate scenes are where the film comes closest to working. We were unsettled by the way tenderness persists alongside physical pain: the affection prevents us from dismissing what happens as mere provocation. Kieran Evans keeps his attention on the couple, giving the actors room to convey the attraction within those uncomfortable encounters. For a while, the tenderness gives us a reason to remain with a romance that is otherwise difficult company.

Piers McGrail’s framing gives Liverpool a welcome presence beyond its function as the place where these people suffer. There is pleasure in looking at the city, which helps prevent the film’s gloom from becoming visually monotonous. The cinematography also gives us something to attend to when the dialogue grows flat, though this is a limited defence of a drama. The supporting characters, especially, could have used some of that attention.

Tony Kearns’s editing is less successful at giving the material a steady rhythm. The movement between the central relationship and the subsidiary stories feels choppy, so scenes that ought to deepen our interest can interrupt it instead. The musical selections are better judged, helping the changes of mood without making the tenderness feel forced. There is care in the music and the images, even when the story leaves us unconvinced.

The screenplay’s contrivances are more damaging than its awkward dialogue. Kieran Evans keeps adding complications to a relationship that already has enough difficulty within it, and the additional stories make the couple’s suffering feel increasingly arranged. A film about painful desire has to make us believe in decisions we might find hard to explain or share. Here, the writing too often expects the actors’ commitment to carry us past questions about why anyone would behave this way.

Romantic dramas can leave motives partly obscure; few of us could give a tidy account of every attachment. But when pain takes up this much of a film, small signs of a life outside the relationship matter. A little humour or an ordinary shared interest would give the tenderness more weight and make the distress less repetitive. Leave this one for an evening when fine acting is enough.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

58
Positive
4
Mixed
4
Negative
4

The reviews are evenly divided between positive, mixed and negative responses to Kelly + Victor, though praise for the lead performances and cinematography cuts across those divisions. Critics repeatedly credit the actors with commitment and conviction, and several admire the film’s sense of Liverpool. Even less persuaded reviewers find visual skill here. The central relationship’s mixture of tenderness, danger and pain is compelling for several critics, though that interest does not always last.

The sharpest disagreement concerns whether the romance earns its emotional intensity. Sight and Sound finds it engrossing and praises Evans’s visual language, while The Hollywood Reporter considers it implausible and emotionally unconvincing despite its committed performances. Reservations elsewhere cluster around thin characterisation, awkward dialogue and contrived or choppy storytelling. The spread is wide: what some critics welcome as an unsentimental treatment of damaged lovers, others find increasingly wearing in its emphasis on misery.

Sight and Sound
20 September 2013 · Trevor Johnston
85*

Johnston finds the film a fascinating, emotionally engrossing romance that turns its ambitious ideas into cinematic electricity. He praises Evans’s visual language and Campbell-Hughes’s performance, while noting that some supporting dialogue feels anodyne.

Read the full review →
Evening Standard
20 September 2013
75*

The critic calls it a lovely, mostly cliché-free romance and a sound night out, despite an overly histrionic turn. They single out the lead performances and the film’s gradual, tantalising reveal of its protagonists for praise.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
19 September 2013 · Peter Bradshaw
75*

Bradshaw finds the drama provocative and engaging, with an unsentimental take on romance. He praises its cinematography and acting.

Read the full review →
Screen Daily
15 October 2012 · Mark Adams
64*

The review’s verdict cannot be determined because its text is behind a paywall. No specific praise or complaint is visible.

Read the full review →
Time Out
16 September 2013 · ★★★ · Dave Calhoun
60

The review finds the film’s portrayal of love and pain between two damaged souls compelling but says its atmosphere turns sour too quickly. It singles out the film’s resemblance to Blue Valentine before noting that shift in tone.

Read the full review →
Variety
28 October 2012 · festival review · Guy Lodge
42*

Lodge finds the film uneven but a striking calling card, with its credibility-straining depiction of a sadomasochistic relationship undermining its ambitions. He praises the stylish cinematography and carefully integrated musical selections.

Read the full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

Is Kelly + Victor worth watching?
Kelly + Victor earns 57/100 from us: its sensitive performances give it some value, but we cannot recommend it without substantial reservations. Antonia Campbell-Hughes and Julian Morris make the attraction persuasive; the thin characterisation and increasingly contrived suffering make this one for viewers willing to let fine acting carry a disappointing drama.
How long is Kelly + Victor, and what is it rated?
Kelly + Victor runs 1h 35m. It is a romance and drama film.
Where can I watch Kelly + Victor in India?
Kelly + Victor is not on any streaming or rental service in India at the moment. It is available in 9 other countries; change your country at the top of the page to see where. Availability is checked daily.
How violent or frightening is Kelly + Victor, and is it suitable for children?
Kelly + Victor has a UK 18 certificate and is unsuitable for children, with intimate encounters that combine tenderness and physical pain. We find that mixture unsettling because the affection remains persuasive even when the encounters hurt; viewers uncomfortable with painful intimacy or sustained emotional distress should approach it cautiously.
How does Kelly + Victor compare to Red Road?
Kelly + Victor is the less successful of the two films; we recommend Red Road for its tighter storytelling and more sustained unease. Both centre on troubled connections, but Kelly + Victor concentrates on a painful romance in Liverpool, while Red Road is a watchful thriller that makes Glasgow integral to its discomfort, despite a weaker eventual explanation.
Is Kelly + Victor based on a true story or a book?
Kelly + Victor is adapted by director Kieran Evans from Niall Griffiths’s novel, rather than presented as a true story. Knowing the book is not a prerequisite, though we make no claim about the adaptation’s fidelity: our reservation concerns how little the film establishes about its lovers beyond their attraction and suffering.
What should I watch after Kelly + Victor?
After Kelly + Victor, try Red Road (2006, Fi1m 74): Another troubled connection, with the Glasgow setting made integral to its unease. Then The Piano Teacher (2001, Fi1m 82): For a more exacting account of desire, control and emotional isolation; and Happy Together (1997, Fi1m 86): A volatile relationship given room for everyday boredom, humour and longing.

Cast

If you liked this, try…

  1. Red Road (2006, Fi1m 74)Another troubled connection, with the Glasgow setting made integral to its unease.

  2. The Piano Teacher (2001, Fi1m 82)For a more exacting account of desire, control and emotional isolation.

  3. Happy Together (1997, Fi1m 86)A volatile relationship given room for everyday boredom, humour and longing.

  4. Head-On (2004, Fi1m 72)A turbulent romance whose lovers have lives beyond the pain they cause.

  5. In a Lonely Place (1950) · not on Fi1m yetA romance that makes charm and the fear of violence equally persuasive.