it was creepy--the movie was exactly what i'd envisioned in my mind's eye while reading the novel. it was clearly made considering both readers in general and 'atonement' fans specifically.

of course the movie can't impart the information and detail of the book, but the carefully selected dialogue and meticulous scenery adroitly translate pages of text to the screen. the three main characters are painted subtly and masterfully against the war, whose rot and horror become palpable to the viewer. 'atonement,' the book and the film, imparts loss and regret with an eloquence few authors or directors ever achieved.

four motherfucking stars!

for those who haven't read the book--did you find the movie disjointed at all? did certain scene changes seem abrupt and confusing?

V.

I wouldn't be surprised if this movie turned out slightly boring and disjointed at points. I'm cauciously optimistic, as this was one of my favorite reads of 2006

it was remarkable in that respect. usually when you see a book adaptation, you react like 'well i never really saw ______ like that, but ok...' on this it was like you must have seen it before somewhere

one of the best flims of this decade
may PTP sleep on it long and hard

>one of the best flims of this decade
>may PTP sleep on it long and hard

One reason why people are sleeping is b/c it's on a limited release right now in the U.S.

Another reason is the perception of the literary prestige pic.

I've heard about the opening scene/shot (or whatever people are talking about) not just from you, but reviews.

Especially the sure to be legendary Dunkirk long shot. But also very heavy-handed and emotionally manipulative - at times it felt like a Spielberg picture. Overall very high quality and def worth seeing.

BTW

But
>also very heavy-handed and emotionally manipulative

(SPOILERS)

Not just the instant-classic Dunkirk tracking shot but everything from the twins bouncing a ball, to Keira Knightley's green dress, to that quick look at James McAvoy through the fields popping with flowers, to all the underwater shots, etc. There were even a couple instances were thoughts of Orson Welles came to mind: Briony at the wedding, McAvoy at the theater, Knightley's death. Just these real dramatic angles coupled with a sublime sense of mise-en-scène. (The girl I saw it with was so caught up with the makeup too that we waited through the entire credits just to recognize those particular individuals.) Overall, the artistry was striking.

However, while I chose to like the majority of how the story was told and would recommend it in spite of the occasional slip-up, Wright did try too much to pull at the audience. For instance, some of the symbolism came off as rather obtuse: Briony and washing her hands, McAvoy talking of the British retreat but that they will soon come back. As far as manipulation, Soldier Who Looks Like Robbie was a cliché moment, and I'm not sure whether Briony's encounter with the dying French man was successful enough to forgive it for its contrivances (the line about the blood on her face there was another all-too-obvious touch). Then you have the repeated echo of "come back to me" (or whatever it was), which was cool once but seemed worn and tired the third time around. Plus, there's the whole Vanessa Redgrave I-never-went-to-the-apartment-just-joking interview ending that came close to being offensive. (Because of how she justified wanting to give the couple their final happiness and McAvoy's haunting final look, I ultimately bought into it. Still, I'm not sure if closing with a sit-down talk on TV, which is essentially the same kinda cheat as a voice-over, was the best way to handle things.)

Anyway, I know that above paragraph is gonna make it seem like I didn't like the film at all, but really I did. Again, visually, it's the most terrific thing I've seen all year (as far as English "wartime" films are concerned, all the bullshit praise heaped upon Children of Men should have been held for this one). Also, the opening scenes at the home leading up until the arrest are charming, daring, sensual, tragic, and though they too turn on a convenient plot twist (mistaken identity, the wrong letters), because there is enough development already in place to justify that any character motivations are not just some fluke, I can accept 'em without blinking. Conversely, the latter scenes may not be so tightly constructed, but still there is a strong, central relationship worth pursing and exemplary work by the leads (Knightley was so goddamned alluring early on and then broken later I'm ready to forgive her for her career so far; and McAvoy's outburst at the apartment was a great moment that made me realize how well he had crafted his man-without-a-home character). Most notably though, I'd have to champion Atonement's picture quality once more; it's consistently full of the richness, longing, despair, and simple beauty that at its best the story overall too achieves.


> But
>>also very heavy-handed and emotionally manipulative

in the book i was thinking, during the first part, 'this novelist is a twat!' then it got the page 100 or whatever, and it was signed by 'Briony, 1955' or something ie. it wasn't Ian McEwan's 'voice' we were reading, it was SUPPOSED to be heavy handed and a bit snooty

And I recognize the type-writer throughout and that the score even mimics it at times, I believe, but I think as an excuse for occasional lapses into heavy-handedness and contrivances that only goes so far. Because even if my criticisms of the film's narrative are really pointing out shortcomings in Briony's character, it's still the authorial voice with which the film rests upon, so my satisfaction or dissatisfaction with it / her is going to naturally, and justifiably, I think, reflect any satisfaction or dissatisfaction I have with the film altogether, i.e., if Briony is prone to emotional manipulation--as her character certainly appears to be throughout (I'm drowning, he raped her, etc.)--to the extent that in unfolding her story these characteristics are still there, as it affects me, the audience, I still have a right to any discontent. It's a blurry line that brings up discussion of metafiction, which, when paired with an unreliable narrator, is a big headache that reminds me of literary seminars I've tried to forget.

Anyway, if "Atonement" is the title of Briony's novel, which McEwan / Wright are treating as a work of non-fiction within their larger work of fiction, also called "Atonement", then the final TV interview must be the work of McEwan / Wright. Subsequently, as I thought it was the largest misstep of the film, it cannot be saved by a kind of "Briony being Briony" argument. It's how McEwan / Wright chose to finish up this tale. It's them who choose for her to have a breakdown in the green room, to give her the isnt-it-fitting vascular dementia, and tidy things up otherwise . . . unless, of course, Briony was secretly working on a sequel.

I would also ask if the reveal of Briony at the TV station is really to say, "hey, see, this story was told by one of its characters with a biased POV", does that make it a kind of surprise ending, like The Usual Suspects or something? If so, then maybe it sabotages the film even more than I originally thought.

and she was confused by the ending so i was breaking it down for her
what i said, what i took from it, was
the first part is a young inexperienced writer (writing a novel out of real events) - her judgmental nature and slight snobbery come across on every page
the second part, she has matured technically but still has some naive ideals that underpin her work - ie. everything works out sort of OK in the end
the third part, which is narrated 1st person in the book and uses the interview ploy in the film, she admits she's aware of the conflict between reality and fiction. she tries to persuade you that the happy ending was better; but i think the actual writer (McEwan) is suggesting otherwise, when you consider the illness she has and the fact you DO find out what happened

it's the 'danger of fiction' that every novelist faces
ie. they become the arbiter of some moral situation
in Atonement, McEwan lent the problem some more urgency by making it a 'true story' where the author-character's desire to arbitrate had caused a real-life catastrophe

dag, its not in theatres around new orleans .... is it avavilbe online somewhere ??? It looks better than decent, and pride and prejudice was straight. How does it compare to Across the Universe ?

The problem with this film is any attempt at manipulation it made didn't work in helping the audience really attach ourselves to these characters.

i was confused as all get out. i had to concentrate to understand what the heck was going on and didnt get anything until the end.

WHO WAS THE FRENCH SOLDIER???? with briony? when she was a nurse...was he really someone she knew?

>WHO WAS THE FRENCH SOLDIER???? with briony? when she was a
>nurse...was he really someone she knew?

that whole scene confused the hell outta me

d

poplock.blogspot.com

of another person. He may have only known her name because her sister had been his nurse at som epoint.

I was a bit confused at that part too but this is the only conclusion that I could draw.

i think the point of the scene was that he says all that stuff, and then Briony unwraps his head bandage and you realize then that his brain is severely damaged and he was talking nonsense

the head nurse sent Briony just to comfort him in his final minutes, she was just pretending she knew who he was because it didn't matter, he was so far gone

Nonsense shit hole, McEwan's most ejaculatory english book. Black Dogs or Saturday would have been better.

nothing like his swedish or thai books

I guess you obviously haven't read much of his shit.

mostly i prefer his farsi output.

looks great, and i really dug the first act when they're young and briony is psycho.

but once they grew up i lost connection to the characters. the first act sets briony up as kind of a nutcase -- so when the end comes and she's crying i really don't give a shit. as a viewer, i dislike her very much at this point. she gave them a happy ending or whatever? who cares. psycho.

also, i didn't really buy the love between cecilia and robbie. he sends a note that he wants to eat her out, this excites her, they get busy a bit -- and now they're in love forever across time and space? i needed more out of that initial set up to care that they were separated.

and no, i didn't read the book.

>for those who haven't read the book--did you find the movie disjointed >at all? did certain scene changes seem abrupt and confusing?

yes! how is the book different?

The script and the performances were fine, but the movie was just... there

That long tracking shot was very cool, though

Don't know if the girl should have been nominated for an Oscar

The end reveal was cool, but... the whole thing was just so... dry to me

Maybe my "Keira Knightley really ain't that hot and way too skinny" bias is bleeding through here, iono © spm
________________________________________________________________________
Magnificent Trident

I thought everything up to when the police started getting involved was incredible, like the best stretch of filmmaking I've seen all year: gutsy, sexy, crude, smart, beautiful, etc.. It gave a tremendous pulse to the old-British-people-with-money types, something that doesn't come about too often.

Now, we can argue about the drop-off once the movie leaves the mansion, but you weren't caught up at least initially?

>Maybe my "Keira Knightley really ain't that hot and way too
>skinny" bias is bleeding through here, iono © spm

I normally would have agreed, but, like I said above, I'm now willing to forgive all her past sins (on screen and red carpets) for what she did in that green dress.

I mean, it was cool and all, how they kept going back and forth in time to show us what happened (like at the fountain, for example), but I guess I agree with the poster who said that he didn't buy that those two could be these eternal lovers whose destiny was cruelly ripped away from them... I think the jumping around pretty much prevented me from getting too emotionally invested in the story...
________________________________________________________________________
Magnificent Trident

I also felt emotionally uninvested for some reason, and the stakes of the destiny denied these lovers really didn't seem to be built up that high...

with everything zoo said, i just watched it and didn't read the book and yes i found it disjointed and confusing at times, it definitely shouldn't have one best drama at the golden globes and that lil girl who's in it for like a half hour has no reason being nominated for an oscar. the cinematograpphy was completely amazing though it literally blew me away and was the only thing keeping me entertained at times. the first act was really well done but as soon as they moved on to the war scenes it lost ALOT of steam.

i was expecting something a lot more engaging...the 1st act was...the whole part after the arrest was almost boring at parts...him in the army..i dont know..it just left all the other characters behind and i dont like how it was told..backtracking....didnt really enhance the story at all and maybe even made it less interesting..i think it could work in other films, but this story was not dynamic enough to pull off that kind of storytelling....overall i loved the first part but the rest was kinda eh...and the end was very unfulfilling and kind of surprising how it broke out of the narrative

I thought the story told was very compelling tho.

there's not a single interesting character, not a single good line of dialogue, and almost every scene is shamelessly unsubtle.

and i think that's kind of what killed it...

like ROMANCE, WAR, TRAGEDY, BLOOD, HORSES GETTING SHOT, RAPE! it felt like a desperate attempt to FORCE the audience to care about what was going on, when in terms of actual plot points and characterizations there wasn't quite as much reason to. it just felt emotionally manipulative and exploitative. world war two shouldn't be a prop.

i guess i look at this from my perspective as a spoken-word poet: a lot of poets write pieces that are so emotionally or politically "heavy" that people feel that they have to love them even if the actual CONTENT and form is wack. does that make sense?

it WAS pretty though.

--------
EL GUANTE'S HAUNTED STUDIO APARTMENT: 3/'08 on Tru Ruts/Speakeasy Records
www.myspace.com/elguante
http://elguante.blogspot.com

the typewriter effect for percussion was so refreshing and wistful. i just loved it.

mcavoy has got some chops.

i like keira, but i gotta know, is she the automatic choice for period piece brits nowadays? well, i mean younger than cate of course.

i dont think it was made for folks that didnt read the book.

it was very heavy and sad--i think i glossed over the ending in the book b/c i didnt realize cee and robbie had died--which lead to it being so sad lol. i had to re-read that part when i got home. to me that makes what briony did soo much worse.

if i hadnt read the book, i think i'd be lost. the shots and robbie and cee after the fountain when she was deciding what to wear and he was in the tube/typewritter was too long i think and not really necessary. it didnt lead anything to the story telling.

maybe they should've showed leon, briony, & robbie when they were younger or something - or a few shots of them throughout the years to give people the connection between cee and robbie.

i dont like that they changed the end to an interview. i prefer the party.

i did like the acting of kiera, james, and young briony. that scene in the apartment was great. he was about to go off on her. i thought the guy that played paul was creepy.

the movie was okay but i'd recommend people read the book instead. if anything i'd say watch the movie just to see mcavoy

oh, the beginning of the book is a bit slow but once it starts it's good.

Has anyone seen the British tv series adaptation of the Zadie Smith novel? It sounded interesting.

Maybe it's because we weren't able to see any background with Keira and James. I know they had a history, I know they had some connection throughout the years....but as much as I tried to tell myself that and get invested into that connection, their 'love' being torn apart just did not have the emotional resonance because the viewer never SAW any of the past between them(there was no development of this connection that the viewer actually got to witness, it straight up jumped into this relationship that we all assume, but that is far different than actually seeing it over time, and struggling with them). That is the main emotional element to the movie, and not being able to connect to that, imo took alot out of its meaning for me.

The score was brilliant esp with the typewriting, the performanes were excellent, and that 5-min shot on the beach? Stunning, absolutely stunning. If only I could have felt the emotion that was intended....

about 1 hour into the film, i realized i just did not care anymore

technically great, but the story failed to hold my attention

It's cool.

i really liked it.

the score and cinematography were all on point.



the revolution will not be inboxed.

But I don't know if Saoirse Ronan deserve to be nominated. She was cool, but I wish they would of nominate the character she played, because she went through so much transformation. They hired 3 different actresses that looked almost the same person just aging. The girl with the red head didn't even AGED! Anyways, I thought the score really did stood out. Some rapper would sample that! But yea, overall it was overrated and underrated it some parts, does that make sense?