Reviens-moi

In 1930s England, Robbie is the son of a cleaning woman who has fallen in love with his mother's master's daughter (his childhood friend). On the same night where they reveal their love to each other, Robbie is accused by the woman's younger sister of a rape he didn't commit. Robbie is sent to jail and off to fight World War II... and for the remainder of the film, the two lovers try to reunite while the younger sister comes to term with the horrible mistake she made that tore her family apart.

Let me be honest up front: I had a very minimal interest in this film. I was mildly interested by its Oscar aspirations (7 nominations) and then I was slightly more interested when my friend Chelsea expressed interest (with whom I ended up seeing it). A chick flick starring Keira Knightley (who, to me, is a younger, classier Winona Ryder)? Not my first choice. Although, I went to go see "I Know Who Killed Me", so my instincts aren't always he greatest. Anyway, point being -- I saw this film half-heartedly and really liked it.

The beginning is really strong and interesting, and surprisingly funny. The involvement of a certain curse word (one of the more notorious ones) plays a big part and was funny in a somewhat awkward way. After the opening, the tone of the film turned decidedly darker... which you'd expect with a film about war and rape, I guess. Emotionally the film runs strong all the way through, working with loneliness and casualties of war (there's a scene later on with a dying French soldier that doesn't shy from showing the realities of war).

Worth singling out is a very long continuous shot (maybe 8 or 9 minutes) of English troops on the shores of France. We see troops singing, troops destroying jeeps, troops shooting horses and much more... to get this all in one shot is a major feat. The last long shot I recall is in "Children of Men", which ran about maybe 6 minutes but with much less going on to coordinate. The choreographer (or whoever) deserved the Oscar if anyone did, although in the end it only won a single award -- for best original soundtrack (which I don't recall as being a particularly stand-out score).

I think the film closed rather weakly after all the quality emotion (I can't really explain more without revealing things). But it's still a good film, only maybe losing a point from this closing. If you're a fan of period pieces or tough romance stories (this is no romantic comedy) this is for you. I don't know if I could watch it again -- it's good enough but a bit emotional. But I'm glad I saw it at least once and you should see it too.

We are such a fragile race, so affected by the shifts of a societal breeze. A child misinterprets what she sees and brings about the destruction of people she actually loves. So caught up in her dramatic wants and angry, she lies, and that lie haunts her for her remaining days. This is a movie version of a wonderful book, the best I read that year. It captures the pain and the need to make true restitution. The truth of the matter is that sometimes it just doesn't work that way. The characters come to realize that. It's a slice of life in wartime and all the chickens come home to roost. Probably the most gut wrenching thing is that the character that causes the most damage has great success in life, but carries around her guilt to her dying day. She is never allowed to truly enjoy things. This is a really fine movie and, except for some breaks in editing, does a nice job of presenting the issues in the novel.

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.

The superb Ian McEwan book translated into cold beautiful images by the startling Joe Wright and scriptwriter Christopher Hampton. The result is a series of powerful rushes and abrupt stops. A pacing that, perhaps, is a bit too self conscious for its own good doesn't help us to connect the emotional dots. I had the feeling I had lost something in the love story of the protagonists - something that didn't happen to me reading the book. By the time the "injustice" takes place I was taken by the pain of the injustice but not by Knightley and McAvoy's liaison. Their love story is left to its own devices. The beauty of the images is overwhelming and the assuredness of Joe Wright at his second feature after the, much better, "Pride and Prejudice" keeps you going. The score tends to be monotonous and irritating but in spite of all that I intend to see "Atonement" again and I would recommend it with just the above mentioned reservations.

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.