|
Post by pauliepoos on Sept 7, 2007 20:21:46 GMT
You know how sometimes you look forward to something so much, that when it eventually happens it can only be an anti climax? That didn't happen for me with Atonement - it really was that good. Ever since I saw a dialogue free trailer, this has been the top of my must-see list. Keira is perfect, even if her dialogue is a little clipped at times (some scenes reminded me of the Victoria Wood spoof of Brief Encounter) and James McAvoy, who I've felt has been massively overhyped the last few years, matched her perfectly. The Dunkirk scene that every review has raved about really is just utterly absorbing. And even though she doesn't turn up until the final third, Romola Garai stole the film for me. There's just something about her that has moved me in everything I've seen her in (I've not seen Dirty Dancing 2). The younger Briony is fantastic too, but less powerful because she doesn't have to deal with the consequences of her actions. And even though I find Vanessa Redgrave can be quite hammy at times, she was riveting as elderly Briony. The final revelation about Cecelia and Robbie's fate is heartbreaking. And how apt that Anthony Mingella popped up when Atonement is just as epid and well staged and romantic as The English Patient and as tense and dark as The Talented Mr Ripley. But the end was totally ruined for me when within 15 seconds of the credits starting, the film stopped, the lights came on, and I Don't Feel Like Dancing started playing.
|
|
|
Post by Rad on Sept 7, 2007 20:48:14 GMT
I am looking forward to this despite it having Keira Knightley in. I haven't read the book since it came out in paperback so I am hoping I will have forgotten some of it in order to be surprised (well, not by the major plot points, but by other bits) by the film.
|
|
|
Post by gravedigger on Sept 7, 2007 21:04:58 GMT
BLOODY SPOILER BRACKETS WON'T WORK.
I loved it. I just LOVED it. The tagline ("Joined by love. Separated by fear. Redeemed by hope") makes it sound so mediocre and cheesy, and it's so, so, so not. One of the best films of my year, mostly because of the BEAUTIFUL direction, and the truly very sound acting, even from Kiera (the head girl vibe actually worked).
Also, on a lighter, more fangirly note, I think I might be in love with James McAvoy. I kept giggling and annoying my boyfriend (who hated it anyway, the swine).
|
|
boxedjoy
Su Pollard
Don't you wish your snack was as tempting as this?
Posts: 369
|
Post by boxedjoy on Sept 7, 2007 21:58:46 GMT
This is based on one of my favourite books ever. a) The book is a great read. b) I had to review it for a class in uni and I got the best mark in my whole year group. c) It was also the best mark I have ever received for any assignment at uni. So I am desperate to see it now. [/Although I am confused: as I understood it, the whole point of the book is that it is a book, is it not?spoiler]
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Dunkley on Sept 8, 2007 6:47:36 GMT
So should I read the book before seeing this? Which would have the maximum impact?
I love Keira Knightley, and don't get why so many people don't. It's mainly girls but I don't think it's really a jealousy thing. Perhaps Keira's just one of those lasses who tends to alienate other girls and is mainly friends with the boys.
|
|
|
Post by audrey notwhatsheusedtobe on Sept 8, 2007 9:31:52 GMT
I hadn't read the book and I still liked it, although I left the cinema bugging my friend - who had read it - with loads of questions. Remarkably, I even liked Keira Knightly in it and normally I will avoid films with her in them as I really find her so insipid, but she was very good in this. And that green dress was amazing. I did have a slight problem with one aspect of the plot though... ... would a young girl (living a very protected existence) in 1935 actually know the word cunt, what it meant and about 'sex maniacs' and rape? Seriously, I didn't know stuff like that growing up in the 1980s.
For the book people... are we supposed to believe any of it actually happened? From the whole (brilliant) Vanessa Redgrave bit, I got the feeling that none of it was necessarily true, especially as she says she's dying of a kind of dementia.
|
|
Sarah
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by Sarah on Sept 8, 2007 13:53:19 GMT
I wasn’t going to read the book before watching the film, but then I watched Newsnight Review last night and it was totally spoilertastic. So now I’m thinking that I might as well read it and be knowledgeable about what happens rather than just unsurprised about who lives and dies.
Also, annoyingly they ran out of time before they got on to discussing Keira Knightly’s acting which is what I actually wanted to hear about. Even more annoying was John Harris making a funny noise when Keira’s name was mentioned like he thought she was rubbish. Or maybe he was just clearing his throat. Who knows.
|
|
|
Post by pauliepoos on Sept 8, 2007 15:02:55 GMT
Regarding Audrey's spoiler As I understand it, Briony tried to atone for her original lie with the lie that Cecelia and Robbie lived happily ever after. The scene where she visits them in the flat was fictitious, but the scene where the two met for tea did actually happen.
|
|
|
Post by audrey notwhatsheusedtobe on Sept 10, 2007 12:15:07 GMT
Regarding Paul's spoiler, regarding my spoiler... Yeah, I understood that the bit in the flat was ficticious (although how would Briony know about the tea room meeting?) but I was wondering whether - as Briony has been established as an unreliable narrator - it is hinted that we can't really believe even her re-telling of events (she also mentions she has dementia). I felt there was lots about how we invent memories from our own perspective rather than base them on fact, writers in particular. Maybe I'm just expecting there to be a bigger postmodern thing going on there though.
So - assuming that the older Briony's re-telling is true - then is the bit where she sees that the red haired girl has married the choco-paedo part of the made-up bit?
Incidentally, I have Dirty Dancing 2: Havana Nights on dvd.
|
|
|
Post by pauliepoos on Sept 10, 2007 19:20:38 GMT
Ok, to Audrey's spoiler relating to my spoiler that related to Audrey's spoiler. Watching it as a film, I took it to be that the events of the film happened as they happened, other than what she admitted she had fabricated, thus Lola and the choco-paedo do indeed marry.
For a deeper understanding and I'd read the novel - the last chapter and ending is different to Vanessa Redgrave's scene and explains a great deal more about Lola and choco-paed and why Briony can't publish the novel whilst they're still alive although this position will change when she dies.
|
|
|
Post by audrey notwhatsheusedtobe on Sept 11, 2007 10:04:52 GMT
Oh man, I totally have to read the book now! I'm very snobby about buying ones with movie tie-in covers though.
|
|
|
Post by pauliepoos on Sept 11, 2007 10:06:05 GMT
They have the original one in Waterstones as part of the 3 for 2 offer. You could probably read the final chapter without buying it just to understand more about the rest of the story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2007 10:07:19 GMT
Shitpants. Why did Keira Knightley have to go and be in a GOOD FILM? I have not been able to stand the sight of her ever since she said "do I look pritty?" in Snobs Love Christmas (or whatever that Richard Curtis film was called), and the thought of owning the DVD of a film where she doesn't say "bighnty huntar" every other line pains me.
|
|
|
Post by Rad on Sept 12, 2007 12:38:06 GMT
It was good, I liked the way Briony never discovered the joys of changing your hairstyle. I didn't hate Keira as much as usual. Though still, meh.
But I preferred the book, which I think makes more sense.
FACT! Some of this was filmed in warehouses on Grimsby docks. I don't know which bits, but my guess is some of the war stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Devil In Your Car on Sept 13, 2007 18:06:06 GMT
Excellent. McAvoy! McKee! Mays! (And probably some other ace people who's surname begins with M that I might have forgotten).
I hope that the film doesn't put people off moving to Balham. Perhaps the council should get Kirstie and Phil on the phone.
|
|
Mike
Su Pollard
"I want a chandelier. A motorised one."
Posts: 382
|
Post by Mike on Sept 14, 2007 15:43:40 GMT
It's a measure of a truly great film when even Keira Knightley can't balls it up. This is one such film. Absolutely amazing.
That ending actually left me speechless for a good five minutes or so. Has everyone else been getting the ridiculously long trailer for Elizabeth: The Golden Age beforehand? It looks really good, but I haven't seen the original as yet.
|
|
|
Post by francopopfille on Sept 16, 2007 19:14:31 GMT
Yeah, I got the ridiculously long trailer too....it looks good, I might go see it.
The ending of Atonement made me feel a bit funny as well. I didn't know what to say about it after. It was really good, but I didn't feel like saying "it was good" because that just seemed a bit inadequate really.
Has Ian McEwan been accused of plagiarising this somewhere? I have a vague memory of something happening.
|
|
|
Post by audrey notwhatsheusedtobe on Sept 18, 2007 13:32:34 GMT
Has Ian McEwan been accused of plagiarising this somewhere? I have a vague memory of something happening. Well, my initial reaction when i saw the film was that it was incredibly similar to LP Hartley's 'The Go-Between', but when I mentioned this to a McEwan-lovin' chum, she said that he had intentionally set out to write a novel inspired by 'The Go-Between'.
|
|
|
Post by francopopfille on Sept 19, 2007 19:56:19 GMT
There's a letter in the latest issue of Private Eye which says basically "Atonement is a novel about novel-writing and is therefore incredibly flimsy from the start". I know, technically, it's about novel-writing but since that's not revealed until the end- surely the book is more about the actual main plot? And why is a novel about novel-writing necessarily flawed? It just seemed a bit confusing. There's also a letter from the woman who wrote the York Notes for Atonement, who says in response to "would a 13-year old in 1935 know the word "cunt" , that after she interviewed contemporary people, she thinks most of that age would either have contemporaries who knew it, or they could work it out for themselves from the context
|
|
|
Post by jamiek on Sept 22, 2007 22:53:52 GMT
James McAvoy just totally dissed Billie in Parkinson...you know that bit where they come on and should be like
'Luvvie, fab to see you'
He was just like
'Alright mate' to Parkie and then sat down - I'd fuck him into next Tuesday but I really couldn't consider a relationship if he continues to ignore her.
On topic, I watched the movie tonight: it was very good, although twelve year old Briony has a face I would never tire of punching.
|
|
|
Post by mcqueeniac on Oct 7, 2007 22:22:46 GMT
I was misled into seeing this film by people assuring me Keira Knightley was actually good in it.
They lied. She was just less shit then usual.
The end had me bawling my eyes out, of course I cried during the Pokemon movie (the one where Ash died! that was tragic yo!) but still I really was moved.
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Oct 7, 2007 22:30:22 GMT
There's also a letter from the woman who wrote the York Notes for Atonement, who says in response to "would a 13-year old in 1935 know the word "cunt" , that after she interviewed contemporary people, she thinks most of that age would either have contemporaries who knew it, or they could work it out for themselves from the context Yes. It's been in English for a very long time: www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/cunt?view=ukMy rather-well-to-do Aunt once put it on the Scrabble board.
|
|
|
Post by xenomaniac on Oct 9, 2007 22:47:30 GMT
I had to come on and check that we in fact saw a duff film print of the film. At the start everthing was stretched so Keria looked wider than taller for the first 20 mins - including her dripping wet scene. Someone had a word with the cinema staff so they adjusted the tape.. they then had it so the screen was cropped at the bottom but left in more at the top than intended - so now everyone's chins were cut off (as were the subtitles for the French bit) but we were treated to boom mics bobbing between actors in EVERY scene. i am furious. Don't think i'd enjoy the film anyway as i didn't care at all about the characters and felt that long tracking shot on the beach was blatant showing off and had no point. DId you get a refund? I hate it when the cinema does that, can it be that hard to set up? You are wrong about the film Rory, it is amazing. And the Dunkirk scene is breathtaking, but very weird. You'll just have to watch it again until you like it I'm afraid!
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Dunkley on Oct 11, 2007 12:04:19 GMT
We finally saw this yesterday, and it was ace. Everyone was brilliant, especially the lead two, all the Brionies, the cousin who looked like Elizabeth the first, the twins, OH I'M JUST LISTING EVERYONE HERE. But yes, well done casting director and actors.
The shot from Robbie's pov where he's coming back to the house about to be accused was seriously beautiful.
We ended up in the wednesday afternoon 'Silver Screening', so it was basically just us and a load of pensioners. The sudden movement of thirty grey heads and the sharp intakes of breath when the c-word first appeared was quite something.
It's time to read the book now.
|
|