criterionforum.org

I didn't see a thread for this film, so I thought I'd start one. Having just finished McEwan's remarkable novel and being an enormous fan of Wright's previous film, 2005's Pride and Prejudice, I must say that I'm terribly excited about this one. Advance reviews have been good, but I imagine that we'll hear much more after this film opens at Venice:

Teaser

Trailer

I liked the book a lot and the trailer looks very promising.

But did anyone else think: "Daaaaamn. Keira Knightley sure could use a sandwich or three?"

malcolm1980 wrote:But did anyone else think: "Daaaaamn. Keira Knightley sure could use a sandwich or three?"

Apparently, they had wanted to cast her as the older Briony, but she protested. She seems pretty anatomically correct for Cecilia.

Early reviews from Venice:

Hollywood Reporter is enthusiastic
Times Online is hesitant to rave
Variety raves

Jeffrey Wells with a surprising mea culpa.

Info: For those who don't read Well's quirky, bizarre, occasionally insightful, often ridiculous blog, a few weeks back he ripped one of Variety's writers for having a "British bias" for praising the film, insulting both Knightley and McAvoy in the process.

Via_Chicago wrote:Info: For those who don't read Well's quirky, bizarre, occasionally insightful, often ridiculous blog, a few weeks back he ripped one of Variety's writers for having a "British bias" for praising the film, insulting both Knightley and McAvoy in the process.

Let's not forget the leaked email he wrote to James Mangold obsessively thanking him for the nude scene in 3:10 To Yuma. To say it was creepy would be putting it mildly.

How fantastic! Atonement is one of the greatest novels I've read, next to The Virgin Suicides, In Cold Blood and Lolita. Can't wait to see the movie.

Rather shamefully, I haven't read McEwan's novel, so I can't give a point of comparison. But I must say I was surprised how much I enjoyed this one. It's old-fashioned to a fault, and all the better for it, despite Joe Wright's determinedly glitzy style (the already-famous Dunkirk single-take sequence is technically worthy of Jancso and Welles, although I'm less convinced of its integralness to the story). Fantastic performances from the young Saoirse Ronan and the old Vanessa Redgrave, and surprisingly solid ones from Knightley and MacAvoy. I suspect that McEwan's admirers may find that the story has become a bit too ENGLISH PATIENT-y, right down to the Anthony Minghella cameo, but for me it pushed the right buttons all the way to the end.

rs98762001 wrote:may find that the story has become a bit too ENGLISH PATIENT-y

My desire to see this has now dropped below zero...

While I haven't read McEwan's novel, I certainly don't plan to inflict myself to this glossy piece of Oscar bait until I do. Everything I've read about the book, and everything I read about the movie makes it seem this film is as much a bland, uninspired and sentimental shell of the original novel as the Kite Runner and Cholera films were (No Country aside, it doesn't appear to be a good day for literary adaptations). It certainly has been getting better reviews than those two, which is a plus, but it seems so blatant a pull for an Oscar, and as far as prejudging a film, to me thats worse than any kind of hipster-quirk.

The Dunkirk scene has me intrigued however.

Cold Bishop wrote:

rs98762001 wrote:may find that the story has become a bit too ENGLISH PATIENT-y

My desire to see this has now dropped below zero.

Seriously. I was kind of interested but those are the magic words

Michael wrote:How fantastic! Atonement is one of the greatest novels I've read, next to The Virgin Suicides, In Cold Blood and Lolita. Can't wait to see the movie.

Did not read "Atonement", but I read the others, and your judgement is more than good enough for me. I didn't think we needed yet another version of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE until I saw it. I loved THE ENGLISH PATIENT too, and I don't give a shit who knows it. What are you boys waiting for ... the next SPIDERMAN movie?

Yeah, you either like English Patient or you like Spider-man, there's no middle ground

Actually, The English Patient and the Spiderman movies are pretty similar to me: bloated, overlong, self-important, with listless characters and too-loud music. The slight difference in their literary origins is neither here nor there.

Matt wrote:Actually, The English Patient and the Spiderman movies are pretty similar to me: bloated, overlong, self-important, with listless characters and too-loud music. The slight difference in their literary origins is neither here nor there.

For a second there, I thought you were comparing the movies to yourself, and was very amused.

Poncho Punch wrote:

Matt wrote:Actually, The English Patient and the Spiderman movies are pretty similar to me: bloated, overlong, self-important, with listless characters and too-loud music. The slight difference in their literary origins is neither here nor there.

For a second there, I thought you were comparing the movies to yourself, and was very amused.

lol

Poncho Punch wrote:

Matt wrote:Actually, The English Patient and the Spiderman movies are pretty similar to me: bloated, overlong, self-important, with listless characters and too-loud music. The slight difference in their literary origins is neither here nor there.

For a second there, I thought you were comparing the movies to yourself, and was very amused.

That was way harsh, Poncho. We all know that Matt has always been concise.

<=== chagrined.

domino harvey wrote:

Cold Bishop wrote:

rs98762001 wrote:may find that the story has become a bit too ENGLISH PATIENT-y

My desire to see this has now dropped below zero.

Seriously. I was kind of interested but those are the magic words

Now that I have seen it; I find that the problem with this movie lies elsewhere and involves what is either a too clever trick or a brilliant resolution forcing the audience to re-think all they have seen.
What I thought I was seeing was a not quite as good as it should have been period drama with a soaring music score and perfectly lit characters in their close to heaven English country house quickly finding nothing but misery in the way only they can as minor events get misinterpreted in the way only they can by perfectly lit people who make the mistake of inhabiting English country houses in British period dramas. (That may have been a run on sentence, but at least it was straightforward, which is more than I can say for the movie).

Well, turns out, the movie is really about something else entirely, and I have to reveal some generalized and non-specific spoilers here:
Toward the end, we find out that a couple of scenes do not actually occur and that we must view what we have seen on a level that transcends the straightforward storytelling present in the scores of other period dramas we may have seen. We have entered the realm of art, and find (according to Boston Globe critic Ty Burr), that "art is the broom by which we clean up the horrible messes we have made of life". Good observation, and after being initially infuriated with certain portions of this movie, and after a good nights sleep, I am ready to concede that he is right in concluding that "the ending satisfies while refusing to console." And, thanks, Ty, for pointing out that the movie seen briefly is "Port of Shadows".

Matt Zoller Seitz struggles with the ending.

rs98762001 wrote:(the already-famous Dunkirk single-take sequence is technically worthy of Jancso and Welles, although I'm less convinced of its integralness to the story).

Haven't see it, but this is a steadicam shot, right? Anyone with a big enough budget can mount a lot of extras/explosions and run around with a steadicam (see Children of Men), however this bears no relationship whatsoever to the meticulous crane+dolly shot design of Jansco at his peak.

I've lost count of the number of critics who say that the Dunkirk sequence is stunning but is "not necessary", or "takes you out of the movie".

And, I've lost count of the number of movies which are not about action or violence, but still emphasize any action scene in their trailers or promo material.

For me, the scene is clearly necessary on several levels. We later find out that something happened to Robbie (James McAvoy) on that beach which is critical to the story. And, we subsequently see the wounded soldiers back in England being cared for by the nurses; so it is important to know what happened in France.

This leaves us with but one possible objection - that the scene is merely the director showing off his filmmaking talent. You can take that position if you wish but I have read up on the Dunkirk Evacuation and there is no question that it was (at first) panoramic, out of control, chaos. The officers and sergeants subsequently got everything under control and hundreds of thousands of soldiers waited in long lines for the heroic British civilians in their small boats to ferry them to the larger ships offshore. The movie clearly states that we are seeing the early chaos before the boats arrive, so, the last, lingering issue becomes this - Gotta show stuff blowing up in the promo material or the boys will assume that the movie is strictly girlie goo goo and put it on their "must miss" list.

Was finally able to watch this film yesterday and have subsequently read close to a dozen reviews (Sarris, Ebert, et al). I'm surprised that no mention has been made by the clear debt owed to Joseph Losey stylistically, in particular the early scenes. The tracking shots, the lighting, the acting inflections, the latent eroticism are all highly reminiscent of late period Losey, especially the Go-Between.

As for the much-discussed Dunkirk set piece, I think Joe Wright is correct in his aesthetic choice. It is one of the most technically accomplished shots in recent cinema, but moreover, SERVED A NARRATIVE PURPOSE!

I hardly believe anyone would argue that Orson Welles' decision to film the opening sequence of Touch of Evil is nothing if not an "l'exercis du mise-en-scene." Nonetheless, it didn't disqualify the sequence's narrative brevity.

The single-take Dunkirk sequence fits stylistically with the rest of the film for two reasons: the character of Robbie is highly disillusioned at this point (having been wrongfully jailed and thereby sent to the frontlines for 3 1/2 years), and yearns for reconciliation with Cecille. The hypnotic camera swirls and pirhouettes underscore this psychological malaise. Furthermore, the subsequent scenes following the single-take introduction to Dunkirk, disclose that Robbie's succumbed to war's maladies on a physical level. This would have consequences later on.

The single-take - a whirlwind introduction to the bitter "realities" of war and the events in his life that wrought this predicament - effectively captures this surreal disillusionment. Compare this to a scene like Spielberg's Omaha sequence in "Saving Private Ryan," and how unimaginable it would be without Spielberg's aesthetic decision to employ discordant frame slips and asynchonous film speed to capture the madness of that battle's futility. Likewise, I do recall that a number of critics back then criticized Spielberg for fetishizing the scene in question with gimmickry.

Both approaches served their films well, IMO.

maybe spoilers

The Dunkirk shot seemed completely appropriate to me. I really enjoyed this film, though I wonder how far the director attempted to go to make myths out of the two characters within the film from the perspective of the "writer" in that meta way. Are we supposed to feel or somehow understand that the scene with them in the apartment towards the end doesn't feel right? It strangely reminded me of Beetle Juice in retrospect, with the ghosts of Davis and Baldwin not able to leave their house.

I realize I'll probably be in the minority here. I just saw Atonement and I really didn't care for it. In fairness, I've never read the book, so I can't base any judgement on the merits of the novel.

I saw it with a friend and his astute assessment was, it's a film about female characters you need to feel invested in, and it's written from a male perspective. The female characters simply seem very one dimensional for me. Which is a shame after such promise.

The film is impecably acted and technically beautifully done, it's presented under the guise of an art house film, yet there was nothing there. The story doesn't distinguish itself from other similar kinds of stories told in the past, for example, false accusations, WW II settings, crushes and jealousy. This film could have been another production of Masterpiece Theatre.

This might have been the failure of the script adaption, but I was disappointed after the reviews I've seen.

Actually, I'm a little perplexed by the positive reviews this has generated, to each his own of course.

There seemed to be too much detachment with the tone of the film for me to feel invested.

Again, just my humble subjective opinion. You win some and lose some.[/i]

John Cope wrote:Matt Zoller Seitz struggles with the ending.

These are my thoughts exactly. And not having read the novel, I'm glad to hear that this final whitewash of the tragedy that preceded most likely didn't have its origins in the source material.

What a bullshit film. A treatise on the imperceptibility of reality or the British Cold Mountain? You tell me, Joe Wright, but for chrissake, pick one.

-Toilet Dcuk