This movie garnered a lot of praise, but I'm not sure why. I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on any aspect of the adaptation. I suspect people like it for its setting: pre-war, super-wealthy Britain — a vast estate with beautiful gardens, lush interiors and gorgeously bored inhabitants — then wartime Britain and France with all the somber hues and pathos. That's all quite appealing. But the story — a young man ruined by a child's false accusation of rape — doesn't really grab, at least not the way it's told. It has initial interest and a lot of potential, but then the film's pacing slows way down and seems to focus on the wrong things. Plus there's a trick ending that seems rather clunkily tacked on. Has anyone seen/read this? Care to comment?
(DW, there's a drawn-out scene on the evacuation of Dunkirk, which I remember from your Proust Questionnaire was the military event in history that most impressed you.)
18 comments:
I'm more interested in reading the novel.
I loved Keira Knightly in the latest "Pride & Prejudice" adaptation. The trailers for "Atonement" looked almost identical to those for P&P. I'd imagine that was part of the draw.
"I suspect people like it for its setting: pre-war, super-wealthy Britain — a vast estate with beautiful gardens, lush interiors and gorgeously bored inhabitants."
Yes, sadly, I will watch those movies.
A little off-topic, but has Oscar buzz ever actually turned you off from a film instead of making it a must-see? For me, maybe it's about having to read the reviews for Friday's section and usually hearing a detailed recap by Jon, but with all the press and TV as well, I get to a point where I just don't want to hear any more about it. I've skipped some good films as a result.
Keira Knightley is really good in this. She's a talented actress and definitely has the look for that era — dark-haired alabaster beauty, half innocent, half sophisticated, and — wow — can make a cigarette speak volumes.
She was definitely part of the draw.
I'm a sucker for those films, too, cl, and maybe, as you hinted, I would have liked it more if there hadn't been so much hype.
Less hype and more Masterpiece Theater-ish, you know?
Knightley! My bad.
Oh, and I forgot to watch the start of "Cranford" -- that Masterpiece Theatre series with Judi Dench, queen of tea and peevishness! Looks like next Sunday's storyline concerns a stolen leg of mutton.
So, kc, are you watching the Best Picture nominees? Is this your break from Shakespeare?
Hmm. I don’t know anything about this movie so I cannot help there. As for the Oscar’s, most years at least one good film gets nominated, but the winner is almost always decidedly not a top quality film and sometimes not even a good one. The types of shortcomings are consistent and I could spell them out if I wanted to. Easier than that would be to do a web search and find an article where somebody else has argued my points. Even easier than that would be assuming you know the argument already. You do, don’t you?
So what is it that makes the eye-candy of these Masterpiece Theater-ish settings of bored British toffs on their country estates so appealing even if the movie doesn’t have much more than that going on?
Crap! I forgot about "Cranford," too!
No breaks from Shakespeare! He's like heroin. I just finished "As you Like It" and am deep into "The Comedy of Errors" now.
No Best Picture plan. Just a coincidence.
But speaking of "MT," I saw a great film on there about Rudyard Kipling called "My Boy Jack," about how his son was killed in WWI. With Kim Cattrall as the mom. Very, very good.
DW, I think it's just fantasy material. I'd like to spend a month (not a lifetime) dwelling at a vast estate, filling my days with long walks, cozy tea conversation, perfecting some little-needed but aesthetically satisfying artistic endeavor and working on long correspondences to my friends.
(I think I'm describing a vacation.)
I'd like the Oscar theory, told your way. May I presume that money, marketing and the makeup of the academy membership are partly to blame?
Oh yeah, total fantasy. I think for a lot of us, maybe just those of us steeped in a little too much lit, the lifestyle of the pre-war British aristocracy was the ultimate. They lived on ancient, romantic estates, with vast libraries (with those rolling ladders!) and antique art collections and fresh flowers and sexy motorcars and nothing but leisure time. What isn't appealing about that?
Oh! I just saw that there's a new "Brideshead Revisited" coming out.
Yes, let's hear the Oscar theory, DW.
OK, I found this, which is fairly amusing:
Oscar voters like to use their hearts rather than their brains when they vote. If you want an Oscar, don't make a comedy or a science-fiction film - and for God's sake, never make something smart and witty. No westerns either - unless you're Clint Eastwood. In that case, you can fart your way to an Oscar nomination.
Almost every film that wins the Best Picture Oscar is either one of the following: an emotional whopper, an "important message" film, an epic, a musical or a biopic. Any combination of the above gets your film bonus points with the Academy.
If you're up for Best Actor at the Oscars, odds are good if your leading man is mentally or physically challenged, a real life person, a villain or a larger-than-life character. Bids are doubled if any of them die tragically.
In the last 15 years alone, physically/mentally handicapped or sick characters have won seven times. Out of the other eight, four have been villains, two have been tragic, larger-than-life characters and the other two have been Holocaust victims (always a plus with the Academy!).
On the other hand, if you're female and want to win a Best Actress Oscar, going ugly is the best way to go. Either that, or of course, go with a historical figure.
For the supporting actor/ actress categories, it also helps if you scream, cry or play the long-suffering wife. Being a cute kid helps, too.
Yeah, that's funny. Even non-film buffs are starting to notice that stuff.
"Atonement" was certainly beautiful to look at, and the acting was good. But I agree with Kim about the story and the pacing and the seemingly misplaced focus. I do wonder whether the book has the same problems. I had wanted to read it, but now I'm not so hot on it.
Oh, also: I apologize for dropping the ball so horribly on the last movie pick. For anyone who actually watched "Hotel Rwanda," I hope it was enjoyable at least and not a total waste of your time.
Erin, I never did watch it ... sorry about that.
I watched it. It was good. The lead actor was pretty amazing and the story very compelling.
Don't apologize! I didn't watch it either. I actually still have it sitting in my living room, collecting dust.
Post a Comment