Customer Reviews
Missed opportunity - By: Tobymori, 06 Oct 2008 
All the ingredients are here for a great film but it just doesn't quite come off. The film is beautifully shot, with an interesting use of sound effects, but the romance, which is central the plot just doesn't convince or move, leaving what ought to be a heart-rendingly tragic tale falling flat. Keira Knightley's character of Cecilia is particularly exasperating, & Knightley just doesn't have the maturity or ability (at least for now) to convincein this role. The scenes of war were too long to serve any purpose & the ending abrupt & unsatisfactory.
Beautifully haunting, and hauntingly beautiful - By: Marlyly, 25 Sep 2008 
What is up with all these 1, & 2 star reviews!? Even if the film differs from the novel by Ian McEwan (which, I would not know as I have not read the book yet) at least take this film for what it is - a beautiful & haunting story of a love torn apart by a child's mistake, & stop making comparison's of how bad this film is compared to the book because it deserves to be judged on it's own right too. The story is gorgeous - James McAvoy & Keria Knightley play the lovers Robbie Turner & Cecilia Tallis, who, upon finally admitting their feelings for each other are torn apart as Robbie is sent to prison for allegedly raping the Tallis' cousin Lola Quincey. However, Robbie was not guilty, & was only thought so because Cecilia's younger sister, Briony Tallis, jumped to the wrong conclusion. The remainder of the film tells of what happens to Robbie, Cecilia, & Tallis years after this event, & ultimatley, whether the lovers ever managed to be together & have the happy ending they deserved.
This film is achingly sad - all about lost opportunities, what may have been contrasted to what was, & how a single mistake can rip apart a person's entire life. 3 people suffered greatly at the hands of the lie, & the film is about Briony's attempts to repair the wound she created, because, as she grew up, she realised how devastatingly wrong her actions were. The actingin this film is superb. I have always been a fan of James McAvoy & this is probably my favourite perfromance by him - McAvoy acts with such subtlety & intensity,in every scene you can feel his emotions, exactly what the character of Robbie is feeling, even when he doesn't say a single word. I've never been the biggest fan of Keira Knightley (actually, I believe her actingin the POTC films is quite simply, dreadful), but she blew me away as Cecilia Tallis - I don't know whether she felt more at home with this type of character, or whether her movie experiences since have improved her acting skills drastically, but she embodied the character of Cecilia perfectly, playing the party, very, very well. But, my favourite performance by far has to be from Saoirse Ronan (very unsual name) as the 13 year olf Briony Tallis - it is one of those instances where you don't even realise this is an actor playing a part - she was entirely believable & more than faultlessin her performance.
This is a beautiful film that I believe will be rememberedin many years to come. It thoroughly deserves every one of those 5 stars I have given it, & probably more. It is a subtle, intense, hanutingly beautiful film with brilliant acting, phenomenal direction, a very good script (though how much of that came staright out of the novel I do not know) & even a perfect soundtrack. Faultless. And beautiful. Watch it now.
Absolute tosh - By: Ian Fielden, 27 Aug 2008 
This film is boring & badly acted especially by Miss Knighty. The story not clear & missing vital information from the book well not so much missing but not making it clear.
I looked forward to taking my wife to this & wished I had not it was truly truly bad. She like myself had read the book at some time but seriously felt let down.
Would not recommend at all, stay at home with your feet up & watch paint drying its more fun honest!
A very strange film - By: J. Bassett, 26 Aug 2008 
This is a very strange film. Firstly, it is beautifully shot. There are some great performances, particularly from McAvoy. I even quite enjoyed it at times.
However,in the transference from book to film you are simply left with a bit of a mess. Parts of the plot (and there really isn't much of a plot so no chance of a spoiler) are examinedin great detail - & suffer accordingly. Other parts are entirely glossed over, presumably losing outin the move to film, leaving you somewhat confused.
Then there is the casting of Knightley. Whilst her figure may bein keeping with 30's waif-chic, casting someone who looks like a pre-pubescent boy as a romantic leading lady leads to some highly uncomfortable viewing as the love scenes between the two leads start to look like some weird, homo-erotic paedophilia!
The scene at Dunkirk is a perfect example of what went wrong. Nothing happens. Three men arrive at Dunkirk & are told boats are being sent for them. They then wander around for a bit. This gives the director ample chance to show the awe-inspiring re-creation of the beach at Dunkirk & the chaos of 300,000 soldiers. One particular pan, which seems to go on forever, is just jaw-dropping. However, it is clearly only so long BECAUSE of the expense that went into producing it. It adds nothing to the film. The earlier story of how our lead found himself to bein Francein the first place & how he came to be injured is entirely missing - one can only assume to make room for the expensive bit. A strange decision that goes some way to ruining a film that was already heading downhill!
We are then led into a bizarre final charadein which everyone suddenly starts acting entirely out of character & then you are left with a final shot of someone, entirely unsatisfactorily, explaining why.
It is worth renting for the cinematography & performances but don't try to think about it too much. It just doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny.
the slightest of tales - By: time I had some time alone, 26 Aug 2008 When Ian McEwan's Booker-prize nominated novel was released, there must have been an instant queue of British film producers waving options contracts at him. After all, Atonement contains all the elements for a successful British film. The country house location. The upper classes, cut glass accents, the period drama. The war! Even better. And so it came to pass, that the film of Atonement was praised by many critics & nominated for lots of awards.
But how does it play when I'm satin front of the TV on a Friday night? Therein lies the problem. I have not read the novel but I can see what the themes are, & the film is simply unable to carry them off. Without them, it is a very slight story,in which the characters are never developed fully enough for us to care what happens to them. Yes, it looks beautiful. The script is cleverly worked & tries valiantly to reproduce the effect of the multiple viewpoints of the novel. The actors, particularly the leads, are uniformly excellent, & the director has plenty of good ideas.
The big set piece scene set at Dunkirkin 1940 has attracted plenty of attention. It is certainly a tour de force & hats off to Joe Wright for pulling it off. I do feel it greatly dominates the entire film; nothing that precedes or succeeds it has anything like the same impact. Neither am I worried by its authenticity; it is ironic thatin a fictional piece which questions the reliability of the authorial voice that viewers have complained about what would or would not have happened.
Ultimately, the film fails to exert any kind of emotional pull. It is a pleasant enough way of spending a couple of hours, but will not live longin the memory.
