scatterbrainlibrarian.co.uk

I liked the book so was looking forward to the film but I admit I was rather disappointed though I can’t really nail why. It looked pretty and everyone seemed to be well cast but the dialogue was strangely lame and everything seemed to happen in a very unexciting way. It had a slightly rushed feeling to it and I found it oddly unengaging. There just wasn’t any thrill or tension. Also, the philosophy of it was laid on with absolutely no subtlety. A five year old could not fail to grasp it. As for what they did to the ending …I simply don’t understand why they changed it.

I caught myself a couple of times watching the audience watch the film and that’s unusual for me. Even if I only think something’s mediocre I can still be absorbed in it and forget I’m sat in a cinema at all. Of course, it may be my fault, I may just have been unable to concentrate for whatever reason. It may also be that I hae watched so many fantasy films over the last few years that I’ve reached saturation point. There are only so many beautiful computer generated cities one can look at before getting bored.

So, overall what can I say? It wasn’t a bad film but the fact that it was only ‘OK’ makes it a failure in my eyes as I can’t let go of my notions of how good it could have been.

I really enjoyed this re-telling of the epic tale of Beowulf. It was beautifully made and I loved what they did with the visuals in making it part real, part animation. For a story of this type it really works. I loved the acting performances too. Angelina Jolie was especially impressive as Grendel’s mother. I can always spot John Malkovich and he was, as ever, excellent.

What a gripping story it is. I have borrowed the original from my mum and intend to read it once I’ve struggled through my current book group read (don’t ask). I just loved all the themes: heroism and the lies on which it can be built, the love of the great story rather than the less impressive truth, how violence and revenge can become a vicious and neverending cycle, the susceptibility of man to temptation, the corrupting influences of wealth, lust and power and, most interestingly, the arrival of Christianity and its replacement of the old ways.

The only thing I did think the film lacked was poetry. The dialogue was surprisingly simplistic and unimaginative which is odd given the amount of material they must have had to work with. At times it really didn’t matter because the visuals and the story pulled it along but at other times it really grated.

That aside, though, I thought the film was great. Way better than expected and I really recommend it.

Interestingly enough my parents have just seen ‘Atonement’ and, I am delighted to report, absolutely loved it. Reading back on my review of it I seem very tentative and yet it is quite simply one of the best things I have seen in a cinema for a very long time and a superb adaptation of one of the best novels I have ever read. Why was I so cautious? I did have a strong sense of not wanting to give the game away and also, I think, I believed that it would be misunderstood and undervalued as the book often is. I admit I secretly thought it might not do too well and that I would just end up hurt that a film I loved so much and was so moved by would get kicked around in the mud. I went through it with the book and probably wasn’t too keen to go through it again with the film.

Anyway… it seems to be doing well and I need not have worried. I can drag my parents along for a second viewing! It really has made my week to know they liked it.

Actually, I think that other review I wrote was being too precise. I was picking at minutae as I so often do and while I meant the criticisms and stand by them I think in the review they swamped the overall very positive impression the film made on me. 

When I read the review back to myself later I thought it came across far more negative than I intended. It’s funny how I can have one view of it in my head and a different one comes out onto the page.

It is one of the best films I have seen for ages. It involves some of the best cinematography I have ever seen. It made me cry. It made me think. And most importantly of all it was ‘true’ in that it made sense, had integrity, and was in keeping with the book.

It’s good. Go and see it.

(And I do want that green dress).

Yesterday I was lucky enough to see a preview of the film ‘Atonement’ based (very closely as it turns out) on the truly masterful novel by Ian McEwan.

I applaud the way it stayed true to the spirit, mood and overall point of the book and it coped well enough with the periodic nature of the story. I think at first I was so overwhelmed with relief at this that it took a while for some of the film’s faults to filter through to me. Hence my initial reaction was ‘wow!’ but my reaction after a few hours had dampened to ‘good film, worth seeing’.

I thought it was well acted throughout and I was greatly impressed with Romola Garai who is one of my favourite actresses. It was also beautifully made, especially the war scenes. I have a couple of minor quibbles though. That damned typewriter motif is annoying and clunkingly deliberate. I’m intrigued to see whether others hate it as much as I did!  Also, the nods to method acting were unfortunately a little silly and melodramatic (and put me in mind of some scenes from The History Boys).

There was a live interview afterwards with director Joe Wright. I have mixed reactions to his work in general. He seems extremely gifted in terms of getting the best out of actors and in terms of understanding and empathising with characters. He always manages to make them sympathetic -I was impressed with his ability in Pride and Prejudice to make even Lydia, Mary and Mrs. Bennett understandable characters. This was also clear from the interview he gave in which he made some extremely insightful comments about the characters in ‘Atonement’.

However (you sensed that word was coming, right?), I just think he tries too hard sometimes and can end up being too deliberate and gimmicky as with the whole typewriter thing in this film and as with many things in ‘Pride and Prejudice’.

These are all minor gripes though. I was greatly impressed by this film overall and I give it a definite thumbs up. I just think it would have to be a four or a four and a half out of five and not a five. I really, really hope it does well, I will certainly go and see it again and will definitely be buying it on DVD as something I will want to watch more times throughout my life.

Having rounded that off as a general review I ought to add that there was an interesting discussion in the talk afterwards about happy and sad endings. There was a suggestion (much to Andrew’s delight) that there’s a certain snobby prejudice against happy endings. This may be true but in my experience there tends to be a healthy and necessary prejudice against being fobbed off with sentimental nonsense. There are, however, many great (and greatly respected) films that have happy endings and no-one is ‘snobby’ about those. So I’m not sure I entirely ‘got’ that.

What really interested me was that Wright clearly considered both the book and film of ‘Atonement’ to contain a strong element of hope and goodness. I hadn’t really looked at it that way before but I guess he’s right. Although things are messy and tragic with bad people getting away with it and good people suffering there is a sense that the main characters are all ‘good’ and in some ways redeemed, with spoilt Cecilia deserting her privileged background to become a wartime nurse and Briony’s lifelong pursuit of ‘Atonement’.

There’s also the idea, and I did pick this up from the book, that it’s not always a bad thing to have an over-active imagination and to substitute your own reality for the one you see before you. This was cause of great injustice and tragedy but also of redemption and hope. It’s an interesting thought and one to ponder as you watch the film.

Having managed to miss the previous two Bourne films (to the consternation of pretty much everyone I know) I was not entirely sure I’d follow this one. It wasn’t tricky, however, and I admit I rather enjoyed myself. Totally implausable and not without flaws it was still consistently exciting and unpredictable. The flashbacks and plot became just a sideshow while I focused on Matt Damon looking gorgeous and the thrilling, amusing and highly entertaining action.  Even Daniel Bruhl put in a performance. Made my night, I can tell you!

I was also impressed by the camerawork. It went from sharp and sparse to chaotic and violent to fast and terrifying. Numerous beautiful cities provided rooftop chases, elegant empty buildings, impossibly deserted towerblocks and snow covered urban squares. I will never be able to look at Waterloo Station in quite the same way again.