Abbitte

My wife and I went to see the movie last night and were totally blown away by the whole experience. So brilliantly directed and acted. The movie time just flew by and we were drawn in and captivated by each dramatic moment. Never having read the book or been an expert on WW2, I had a truly open mind on what to expect and I'm not one of those who count every rivet or go looking for technical inaccuracies however small. This was truly a masterpiece of cinematography. We were treated to wonderful performances, lavish sets, shocking and thought-provoking moments and haunting themes. I had the privilege of being an extra in the Redcar, Dunkirk scene and once seen in its full glory and effect on the big screen I was simply in awe and glad to have been a part of it. Walking along Redcar beach from now on will never quite be the same again. I am quite sure that the movie will win a number of awards within the next 12 months, but that is not what really matters. Movies are there to entertain, tell a story and affect you emotionally and by God this did it in spades! If you have not seen it yet, you must!

At a gathering in a country house a jealous little girl meddles in her sister's love life, and things will never be the same ...

From an interesting novel that had an engrossing first half but, for me, trailed off in the second. So I had a different experience with the film adaptation, where the country house scenes are not quite satisfying but the following war story is brilliantly told. The narrator is a fascinating little character, but looking back I think her motivation needed to be colder and her atonement more problematic. In the end the story is wrapped up with a talking head, which I guess was unavoidable but not the mark of a great movie.

The long tracking shot on the beach at Dunkirk is amazing - not only a technical marvel (the amount of ground covered, the multiple interactions) but it creates a great sense of chaos and despair.

Performances are good, and it's no wonder people raved about Ronan. The music is excellent and plays about with the rhythm of a tapping type writer. Photography too, although I didn't get the sense of oppressive heat in the first act.

Overall: interesting and impressive, but some big flaws.

I saw a preview of this film yesterday and felt privileged to be one of the first people to see the film. It was also a pleasure to see a film before reading any other critical review or opinion. I am a great fan of Ian Mcewan and was concerned that it would not be possible to capture the subtleties and nuances of Mcewan's writing but I needn't have had any worries. The director, Joe Wright and screenplay writer Christopher Hampton have done a superb job and the complexities of the novel are superbly captured with real imagination. The story is set in three main areas, an English country house in 1935, war torn France 1940 and London 1940. The atmosphere in of all three are wonderfully captured by the director, cinematographer, costume design and score and I am sure that there are going to be some Oscar nominations for these. James McAvoy as lead man gives a tremendous performance of a restrained but passionate man. I was not as convinced by Keira Knightley's performance and am not sure that her acting has the mature edge to capture the social nuances of the times that McAvoy did so successfully. Do not see this film if you like fast paced films and rapid plot development! This is not a film for the pop video generation. If however you like character development and a plot that unravels at a pace that allows you to be immersed in the atmosphere of the film then I can highly recommend Atonement as one of the best films that I have seen this year.

Comprising recognisable, realistic and outstandingly beautiful performances, set within an uncomfortably believable and heartbreakingly tragic story, it will leave a mark, a scar, a wound on your soul; especially if you have an ounce of humanity, understanding and empathy for the circumstances within which it is told.

I deeply appreciate Atonement for other reasons and while the films are about 10 years apart I am utterly perplexed by how Nolan's Dunkirk became the critical darling it is, especially since this film exists. This film isn't about the evacuation of Dunkirk or WWII (those elements form the background for a fully realized troubled romance and family drama) and YET this film spends about 20 minutes on Dunkirk and it conveys the horror, defeat and dread of it it far sharper and more resonant than Nolan's film does for its entire run time. There is a one very long shot of soldiers on the beach that even manages to capture the whole what is time when facing your death thing better than Nolan's film.

With that being said I most appreciate the soft, luminous cinematography and the very atypical score in this film. Indeed atypical flourishes-the split perspective, the inserted fiction within the narrative, what's being atoned for etc.-greatly elevate a sweeping romance that might have been too conventional if the film played it straight up. It is really the details-sometimes as small as word choice-that really make this film a ravishing epic.

Doomed romances rest on their casting and I can say that both Knightley and McAvoy don't disappoint. McAvoy especially is really sexy, beautiful and emotional in this in that perfectly restrained British way. It may be his career best performance. Good film. It is much better than No Country for Old Men.