Cool News
Capone gives testimony on ATONEMENT, but is it true or false?
Hey everyone. Capone in Chicago here.
This holiday season's period film Oscar bait is ATONEMENT, based on Ian McEwan's novel, and it's unlike any spanning-the-ages type of film I've seen in a very long time. Often showing the same scene from different perspectives, and often utterly shifting the meaning of the selected events in the process, the film begins its tale in 1935 Britain. The 13-year-old Briony (Saoirse Ronan) has a schoolgirl crush on the older Robbie (James McAvoy), who is the well-educated son of Briony's family's housekeeper (Brenda Blethyn). It's clear early on that Briony's obsession with Robbie is unhealthy, as is evidenced when she tosses herself into deep water right in front of him after he promises to rescue her if she ever was in danger of drowning. From a distance, Briony witnesses what she believes to be a passionate exchange between Robbie and her older sister Cecilia (Keira Knightley), when in fact the moment is more of an argument. But it's enough to upset the young, would-be writer and send her down a path toward ruining what she perceives to be a love affair between the two grown-ups.
After intercepting a rather explicit letter Robbie accidentally sends to Cecilia (who have since acknowledged their passion for each other), Briony accuses Robbie of a truly awful crime, claiming herself as the incident's only witness. Robbie is taken away by the police. Jumping ahead to the ending months of World War II, we find Robbie was given the option of prison or the military. He and a couple fellow soldiers find themselves behind enemy lines in the north of France, and they sneak their way to the sea in hopes of somehow making it back to Britain. In the film's single most impressive moment, the three men stumble upon the aftermath of the Invasion of Normandy. If ATONEMENT is remembered for anything, it will be for a minutes-long tracking shot following Robbie's team through the death and destruction on that beach; it's an awe-inspiring sequence that I almost want to watch over and over just to notice as much of what's going on in the background as I can.
Meanwhile, a now 18-year-old Briony (Romola Garai), who apparently is ever-so-sorry for her actions as a youth, is a war-time nurse, who is attempting to undo the damage she has done. Her sister won't meet or even speak with her, and a great deal of the film shows her often gruesome work as a combat medical professional, as she writes an account of the events in which everyone's lives were changed. The last moments of the film, featuring an elderly Briony (Vanessa Redgrave) doing an interview about her book detailing these events, may be too far fetched for some viewers to handle. Director Joe Wright (who helmed Knightley's PRIDE AND PREJUDICE) and screenwriter Christopher Hampton (DANGEROUS LIAISONS) have perhaps overplayed their hand with the film's message about Briony's final act of contrition for the misdeeds she did these doomed lovers. Frankly, the ending (whether this is how the novel ends, I don't know) feels like a bit of a cop out and an example of too little, far too late.
Still, everything leading up to the final disappointing 10 minutes is spectacular. Knightley is simply simmering, and this may be the first time I "get" what all the fuss is about McAvoy, an actor who has failed to really impress me to this point, even with his work in THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND and BECOMING JANE. He absolutely carries his own in both the love story and the war scenes, and with one performance I finally buy him as both a romantic lead and a shell-shocked, wartime hero. Atonement is a flawed work, but still well worth seeing. The film's R rating is something of a joke, since the rating is given primarily for the letter Robbie writes Cecelia and a little clothed humping against a bookshelf (see, even the sex is literary). The film is an impressive and beautifully shot movie that is better, perhaps, than the material warrants thanks to some winning performances.
Capone
capone@aintitcoolmail.com
-
+ Expand All
-
The movie ends as the novel does (well, not the exact circumstances, but the main 'twist', i guess) and I think it would be a cop out for it *not* to do so...what would then be the point of the whole thing?
-
still wait for video
-
Should not, in a world that's right, be up for anything more than a few tech oscars. But we don't live in that world. We live in the "Shakespeare in Love" Best Picture World.
-
Yowza.
-
The 7 minute uninterrupted shot on the beach...it was done much better last year in Children of Men. Twice. And at least there it had narrative relevance. Here, it is just filler (as is at least half the movie.) There's no story, just a set up - McAvoy and Keira are separated...and we get to see what McAvoy does in the meantime...meander about the French countryside, find bodies, tour the beach, wonder where any German soldiers are (no wait, that was me wondering). Nothing going on in this movie. Seriously overrated.
-
Proof that the stereotype (live in mom's basement, never had a date or girlfriend) is true: Atonement is likely a great date movie. As was Enchanted. That these movies might get them laid seems lost on these pinheads.
-
If you need Atonement to get laid then you've really got no game.
-
Capone, that was awesome. Don't know if I'll see this one or not, but that line cracked me up.
-
Like Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men, Ian McEwan's Atonement has a definite ending that hopefully the filmmakers have respected (and it sounds like they have.) If it isn't there, people would justifably be ticked. Sure, movies aren't under any obligation to keep *everything* as written -- look at Darabont's The Mist, which featured a new and interesting twist ending to the short story (but was otherwise a lousy film), or Beowulf, which is 2/3rds absolutely different from where the poem goes. Still, if a book ends a certain way, the film should usually respect the source material enough to do it justice. I say this now in particular because I just got out of The Golden Compass, where the ending was COMPLETELY ^&%@ING DISEMBOWLED.
-
It really does appear that for you guys WWII didn't start until December 1941 did it? The scene on the beach is NOT the aftermath of the Invasion of Normandy but is Dunkirk in 1940, this was a major point in the early part of the war where following the German invasion of France the English troops sent over to aid the French were pushed back and forced to evacuate just before the German front reached them (this scene is based around the interminable wait that took place over several days as the thousands of troops massed waiting for the rescue boats to arrive from across the channel), it's felt by many to be a major turning point, the British were on the backfoot, the push from the East looked unstoppable with many thinking this would be the start of the planned Invasion of Britain, but the rescue was largely successful (in many cases by simple fishing boats) and allowed the British to regroup. This by the way to the talkbacker above is why there are no Germans about, they hadn't got there yet!
-
I didn't even notice that Capone called it "the aftermath of the invasion of Normandy." DUNKIRK, yo. That's worse that not knowing the end of the book.
-
Here's almost the sum total of agreementI have with Capone's review: we both think it was a good movie. I'm glad other people recognised the evacuation scene as being Dunkirk (1940) rather than the 'aftermath' of the storming of Normandy (1944) but I have to wonder how closely Capone was watching if he confused "we have to get out of here" with "here we come!" The scene with Briony throwing herself in the water is much, much later in the film than is suggested here (in chronological order it's the earliest scene, but in the film it's about two-thirds through). The tracking shot is spectacular, yes, but it's a fairly empty "look at what a setpiece I can put on! OSCAR PLEASE!" scene that is there for the sake of itself. Which doesn't mean it isn't excellent on its own terms. And if you think the ending (an excellent cinematic equivalent to the novel's coda) is a letdown then (I can't believe I'm going to use this most hackneyed of phrases) you just "didn't get it". The book is about (among other things) writing and fiction as a way of ordering the chaos of reality, the coda is where the reader finds that what he or she THOUGHT was being presented objectively was in fact the subjective writing of an unreliable narrator who has rewritten their life to 'atone' for what they did in reality. That is, it's the whole point of the bloody story. Even on a purely emotional level, the revisionist ending gave the audience I saw it with a punch in the guts when it revealed the real fates of the characters, a punch that wouldn't have been felt if it was a straight forward 'weepie' structure and ending. Usually I love Capone's pieces, so I'll assume he was having a bad day when he either saw this or wrote this.
-
Just go interview Anna Sophia Robb or whoever and realize what you're here for.
-
I realize there wasn't supposed to be Germans on the beach. But there were Germans in France. (Hence, the British retreat, the dead bodies, etc.) The thing I'm complaining about is that all we get to see in the movie is, as you put it, the "interminable wait". Making the movie interminably boring.
-
The word "cunt," like "motherfucker" or "cocksucker," automatically guarantees an R-rating. As well, the violence/gore in both the war sequences and the hospital helped earn the rating. It's not a mystery or anything.
-
As they stumble on the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940, rather than the invasion of France I believe the answer is that I am not sure he was watching the movie. Was your Nintendo DS making funny noises when the film was on?
-
...Capone cmon man, you're supposed to be one of the good guys. What movie were you watching??? Robbie is heading back to Normandy to be transported back to London. The jeopardy element is whether the German advance will get to them before the evacuation is completed.
Dunkirk was May 1940. D-Day was Jun 1944. -
And I thought it was very good, including the ending. One aspect that really got me floored was the way the second half of the movie, because it came so suddenly, felt like some parallel reality; like a judgment for a crime that was instigated by misplaced emotions and prejudices, but ultimately befell upon these characters with the weight of divine punishment. And yet, despite the injustice, the errors were instigated by simple human nature. But there is no such thing as innocence (another theme in the movie), which ultimately is also possible of corrupting itself (represented by Briony, her promiscuous friend, and the dead girls Robbie comes across). This is what really got to me during that one long take; as a spectator, it felt both surreal and life-affirming (a choreographed dans macabre, including choir!), but watching Robbie slowly lose his grip... reminded me how fragile we ultimately are. And the ending... at first I must say that I was taken very much by it, though I still do think that the atoning for something of this magnitude, under these circumstances, cannot be a public affair. However, how does one atone for war if not by creating something beautiful out of the ashes? I felt that the book by Briony and the film (book) itself mirrored each other, for they both were not interested in collecting the pieces that broke and shattered, and then glue them back together; as if such a mechanical act could result in the fair representation of what had come before. Instead, both created something anew which respects that which was lost, but without absolving the errors with excuses. In this sense, the movie is about taking responsibility for one's actions - even if committed in ignorance - by confronting the consequences. Accordingly, one does not atone for one's mistakes in public, which is a superficial speech rehearsed for a particular audience, or at most a prelude for what can only be done in private. The only reason why I don't consider that Briony's interview at the end of the movie contradicts this is because – to risk stating the obvious - Briony too is a fictional character. She, like the rest of the movie, has been crafted in order to exist within a literary world (which is what narrative movies after all are). The movie itself uses the sound of the typewriter throughout the movie as a reminder. Hence, Briony practically serves as a voice of consciousness reminding us of the pieces that still lay scattered around us, and the need to confront that which has transpired. But just as Briony had learned about the insufficiency of mere facts meant to mirror real lives forever lost, one does not atone for the past through mere history books, or "faithful adaptations" of historical events. That is something that can only be accounted for by oneself. And that she comes forward at the moment that she does, when she still can remember, seems to me like a plea not to forget WWII by thinking that our books and movies are enough to preserve what was lost.
-
An ultra-violent, ear-splitting drama that exudes a peculiarly obnoxious kind of aggressive stupidity. The three small heroines - test-tube children who have been endowed by their scientist "father" with extraordinary powers - are intolerable. The story is neither cute nor exciting. 123 minutes have rarely passed more slowly.
-
Hellooooooo NURSE!
-
sounds like a movie for people who liked to dress up like Larry Warchowski. So I am watching Event Horizon and and did anyone else notice that the CGI looked liked it was meant to be 3-D? And it starts off like Spere?
-
that Ted from the Bill and Ted works of Shakespeare directs Jimmy Kimmels, and like Bobcat is one of the head hanchos over on that show. Did anyone else see Bob's directorial movie? Its not half bad, don't know why its not on CC.
-
sTay tuned fOr more info Please yoU must BeLIeve Can you. FOR U read My vid to follow.... 7:18 monday TDK hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
-
I guess it just didn't work for you. As a fan of the novel and film, I could not disagree more. And this ending is completely transformed and adapted, not just adopted, from the novel. I usually agree with your reviews but I think you really missed it on this one.
-
I don't care if it's Oscar bait. The novel was one of the most incredible books I've ever read. Really curious to see how it's been adapted.
-
...only if...SPOILER >>>>>>...and an analogy for geeks: if you left Lord of the Rings thinking, "wouldn't it have been much better if at the end of Return of the King, we cut to Galadriel 50 years later and she says 'I wish all that you just saw really happened, but I just wanted to give you a happy ending. In fact, Frodo and everyone died in the Shire two movies ago during the first attack by the Black Riders and Sauron got the ring. But don't you feel good that I made up the rest of the story for you?'" Ugh.
-
Before that I never completely connected with the film and couldn't figure out the point of telling this story. Until that great ending that brought everything home with a very emotional punch. Lifted all that came before in my opinion.
-
There is a big problem here. If he thinks that that scene is set in the closing months of the Second World War, and if he thinks that it is the D-Day invasion rather than Operation Dynamo, then he very clearly cannot have actually seen the film.
Cue AICN fake review scandal. -
Don't just tell the story of the movie. Seriously, Capone. Could you not have talked about the film's strengths or failings without just telling the story from beginning to end? I know this book well, I'm looking forward to the film, and you've already given away WAY too much of the film's plot. I've come to expect better from you.
-
SPOILERS
I'm with Capone on the ending. All it did for me is prove she was still a selfish brat, who had really done nothing but convince herself she had atoned. Yet it was presented as some great gift.
The only other flaw I felt with the film was how they dealt with the question of who raped the girl. It was half presented as a mystery even though it was very obvious, so when she flashes back to the reveal later on it had no power. -
(and this may sound a but high falutin' so I apologize guys) was more about the nature of narrative and even art as a medium for being able or not being able to reflect experiences and to alleviate sins of the past, not so much about culpability. The thing is, I think she thinks that it may not work and is still very guilty even with the "death bed" admission. I can totally see how someone might think she's still a spoiled brat but it worked for me.
-
As Ben Gazzara (lol) said, don't just tell us the story in full, Capone. Anyway, it's a sucky movie. A rubbish tacked on ending (movies dont need to follow the book ending EVER. There are much smarter ways to say the same thing without parachuting in some awful TV interview scene 'so here's what really happened folks' kind of bullshit hack ending). As for Dunkirk, it was shelled and strafed repeatedly by the Germans who were some five miles away and closing. But is this in the movie? No. Not a shell or plane strafes the beaches while our hero is there. Lame lame lame. Sure, McAvoy and even Knightley are good in this, apart from the stupid laid on thick upper class cut glass accents. It's a deeply flawed, showy, tries too hard movie. Not a classic by a long way.
-
because it's the totally wrong way to do it. Suddenly we're in 1968 (sorry, I dont have my pirated DVD to recall the actual date since I actually pay to see movies). It's jarring and about as wrong as blancmange and mincemeat pie. And as for that tracking shot, well if that's what you measure how good a film is, you mustn't be that bothered about the actual storytelling side of things. Atonement is a deeply flawed movie and it's a shame because it could have been so much more with a mature director with sensitivity rather than someone trying to constantly show off visually as if they have something to prove.
-
I find some of the interpretations of the ending of the film (and therefore book) fascinating. McEwan's characters are often unlikable people with few if any redeemable qualities (see Amsterdam for a particularly good example of this). I always found the point of the title this--the Briony presented in the "fake" ending has actually changed. She takes steps to atone for her wrongdoings, tries to reconcile with her family, and shows a general recognition of the fact that she committed a horrific crime against innocent people. When the real ending comes around, we find out that Briony never did any of these things except in her own supposedly thinly-veiled novel. She never exonerates Robbie's name and she never apologizes to Cecilia. (Granted, they die in "real life," but the point remains how she handles her atonement.) Instead, she writes a book that details the events, writes what SHOULD have happened, and considers herself to have atoned, even though she never exposed the truth or open acknowledged her culpability. The point of the title is that the REAL Briony never changes--her version of atonement is a fantasy-world version that matches up with the kinds of selfish and self-absorbed fantasy behavior she exhibited her entire life. Briony only ever atones to the satisfaction of her own perceptions, which are always presented as clearly skewed, and considers that to be the truth. Much the same way that the identity of Robbie as rapist was a "truth."
And yeah, Capone, it's frickin' Dunkirk. Pay attention. -
I don't recall suggesting that I was responding to your post, asshat. On the other hand, my mistake for not prefacing my comment with a "Spoilers" notice.
-
I'd still do it of course.
-
If Capone was any type of reviewer he would have apologised for the giant mistake he made in his review. I dont know how Americans feel but for Brits its sort of like getting Paul Revere and Benedict Arnold mixed up - ie you sound like a knob.
-
From your post, we'd infer that Keanu Reeves does so.
Remember: Bill S. Preston, Esq. and Ted Theodore Logan! Yeeeeehawwwww! -
Un-fucking-forgivable that you would be that specific about the film's big reveal, right down to the Robbie & Cecilia part. Was it your goal back in the day to make sure everyone in line knew Bruce Willis was a ghost and Pitt & Norton were the same guy? Holy christ, man. Are you the enemy of the moviegoing experience? Is it because you're some kind of jaded insider who sits at home and watches insider-only DVD screeners and forgets that there's such a thing as the general public? You're an idiot.
-
Capone watched the Bizarro-World Photo-Negative version, with a scene "she believes to be a passionate exchange between Robbie and her older sister Cecilia (Keira Knightley), when in fact the moment is more of an argument." Uh, no, it's pretty much exactly the other way around. As is pretty-much every thing else he says - like how the movie's pretty spectacular if you take away the ending. Take away the ending and you've got...nothing!
-
To quote QT on merchant ivory, which applies here: Safe geriatric coffee table dogshit. Great acting, great camera work. Lousy story, horrible snobby brit upper class twit characters, impossible stroy turns, dull, boring. Also, all brit men were drafted in WW II, so a central character would have been at Dunkirk regardless of his legal troubles. The ten minute tracking shot was technically great, but felt total show off. Hollywood pumps out so many dumb popcorn flicks for 12 year olds, when a serious adult film comes along, critics may wildly overpraise it, which I think is what happened here. safe noble boring oscar bait masterpiece of shit theatre.
-
Erm seeing as how the film hasn't been released on DVD yet, it's all I can conclude. Ot maybe you're one of those wannabe BAFTA members who gets the DVD screeners, I dunno and honestly don't care. And for the record, I've been on more sets than you've had hot dinners. I know how difficult that shot is to pull off and exactly technically what it would take to do it. It's still no reason to do it. It adds nothing to the story, which should always be a film makers primary concern rather than showing off 'ooh look how good a director I am' (not). Still a shame that you couldn't be bothered paying to see it though, huh asshat? I think Richard Eyre, who was due to direct this (correct me if I am wrong) would have made a better, more mature job of it. BadLT - great quote :)
-
..."Remains of the Day" is still absolute film perfection all across the board.
-
The day that Quentin Tarantino directs a film as moving as THE REMAINS OF THE DAY or as entrancing as HOWARDS END is the day I'll give a flying frak what he has to say about Merchant-Ivory movies.
-
Yeah, I screwed up royally on that, as I acknowledged. If we could EDIT our posts, I'd go back and remove details, or at least put a "Spoiler" comment at the front. My apologies to everyone.
-
So was that a Tarantino quote? I feel dirty now! Ew.
-
until Capone decided to spoil the ending of the movie. You're supposed to review the film not tell us how it ends, and make it pointless for us to see it.
-
Yes... All British men were at Dunkirk. All of them...
-
Well I think virtually the entire British Army that was sent to France was in fact evacuated at Dunkirk. And all able bodied males of his age would have been drafted, so my point was that is likely he would have been in the army, and at dunkirk or the battle of the bulge or elsewhere, regardless of his legal troubles. right? Also the tarntino quote on Merchant-Ivory films is from True Romance - "safe geriatric coffee table dogshit." Everything else, for better or worse, is mine.
-
had he been enlisted as an officer, it's unlikely he'd be wandering around as a grunt with a shrapnel wound in chicken barns. He'd probably have been in charge of a battalion, or safely at home decoding messages.
-
Glad you liked it - but your review was certainly not useful nor accurate (as many have pointed out).
I hate to sound elitist(but can't help it) but I don't look to this site for reviews of films such as this, because I have to say I doubt you really understood the theme and exploration of the concept of 'atonement' this work represents - sorry, but from your review alone that seems clear... love the talkback though, more mad comments please! -
banana banana banana.
-
GAZZARA SMASH!!!!
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 273 total posts 271 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 92 total posts 92 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 69 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 151 total posts 63 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 67 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 60 total posts 57 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 484 total posts 49 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 69 total posts 42 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 120 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 183 total posts 24 posts