kitellis-98121
I have, in the past, been somewhat harsh in my criticisms of Joe Wright's films. After my first viewing of Atonement, I found myself rather badly "triggered" by its ending (which I still hate), and that certainly affected my appraisal of the film overall, leaving me with the lingering impression that I'd hated the whole thing. After seeing Hanna, which I found almost unwatchable, I may have allowed my thought's about Wright's directorial style to become unfairly negative. (I'd also seen Pride and Prejudice, and found it aesthetically pleasing but otherwise somewhat limp).So when I recently watched Darkest Hour, and found myself breathless and giddy with enthusiasm, and loudly proclaiming it a cinematic masterpiece, it dawned on me that I should perhaps give Wright's films another chance. So, with gritted teeth I sat down to revisit Atonement. And was blown away!From the very first moment I was captivated. The cinematography was stunning. Literally every shot was lit and composed in such a way that you could take any random frame from the movie, print it, and hang it in an art gallery! The early scenes perfectly evoked the bucolic charms of an English country estate in the 1930s, with all the elegance, opulence, and sexual undercurrents that form the set-up for a darkly troubling story. Every aspect of the period detail was beautifully done, with gorgeous wardrobe, immaculate art-direction, and a jarringly bold and original music score. The writing was sublime, as were every one of the performances; filled with depth, nuance, and truthfulness. The spellbinding, icily assured performance from Saoirse Ronan, deftly directed by Wright, holds the whole first act together, portraying a complex miasma of innocence, jealousy, and repressed sexuality, which forms the foundation upon which the rest of the film is built.The second act lurches jarringly out of the picturesque countryside into epic scenes of World War II, depicted with bombastic realism and cinematic flair, including the famous and much celebrated 5-minute tracking shot on the Dunkirk beach. Again the art-direction and cinematography are sensational. Here, Wright shows his skill at going LARGE. Every scene, be it in France or in London, is filled with thousands of milling extras, period vehicles, and superbly choreographed activity, all captured with sweeping camera moves and lit entirely for artistic effect rather than mere illumination. It is a visual feast. Every shot resembles a painting.The third act is also very well made. But it is here that the film falls down - at least for me. And it is ENTIRELY the fault of the novel upon which the film is based. I just hate where the story goes. I can stick with it right up to the point that Vanessa Redgrave appears. The shocking reveal in her interview ruins everything. It pulls the rug out from under me. As a viewer, it is like a slap in the face. It cruelly mocks me for being gullible and romantic....--------------------SPOILER WARNING--------------------If it had just shown the deaths when they actually occurred, it would have been a tragic film, but a beautiful one, and I could have lived with that. But to give them a fake happy ending, and then say "Ha, Ha, only kidding. They died really!" was cruel and unkind to the audience. And then, to suggest that by making up a fake happy ending it served as "atonement" because it "gave them their happiness" (to paraphrase) really added insult to injury. It served only to make the wrongdoer feel better. The people whose lives she ruined died without ever finding their happiness. And now the audience must suffer the same fate! Thanks a bunch! (Ooops, I may be getting triggered again!)So, I hate the ending. But this time round, forearmed with the knowledge of what was going to happen, I was able to view the film more objectively, and endure the lousy ending without it eclipsing the preceding masterpiece. For which I am most grateful.I am not one of those shallow, unsophisticated people who requires happy endings, or for things to be tied up neatly with pretty bows. I just strongly object to the very specific and particular way that Atonement went about its ending.But I no longer blame Joe Wright. Which is nice, since I have fond memories of him from when we were kids. He is a master filmmaker, and despite still not loving ALL of his work, I hold him in the highest respect, and consider at least two of his films to be bona fide masterpieces.
merelyaninnuendo
AtonementWithin few minutes you will fall in this world i.e. so beautiful and horrific at the same time with the help of probably one of the best background score of all time (it may remind you of Birdman's background music). Atonement is the perfect mixture of two antonyms for when there is beauty in it one feels full of hope but when it gets dark, it may get difficult to digest the practicality of it. Hats off to Joe Wright, in its such a beautiful depiction of love, pettiness and consequences of ones action, by justifying each and every frame and character of it with a mild but dark tone. James McAvoy and Keira Knightly oozes vulnerability and strength at the same time, doing some of their best work with the help of brilliant supporting cast like Saoirse Ronan. Atonement steals the show in excellent execution, brilliant writing and stellar performances all wrapped up in one of the most dreadful and heartbreaking love story ever.
maddysmother
Looks like I'm one of the few out there that was not a fan of the movie. While I think the acting was superb, the sets and locations were stunning and visually appealing, the sound track was wonderful, the style of the movie was not to my liking. The movie is written in snippets, telling a story, then back filling it in. It continues to do this throughout the entire length of the movie, and I found it at times hard to follow and cumbersome. I don't believe the actual story line made itself known until about and 1 1/2 hours into the movie, and I was disappointed in how it wrapped itself up. I didn't hate it, but won't be keeping it on my list of movies to re-watch.
