movie: "Atonement"

[Skybird]

This film will be launched in germany soon. I saw a trailer twice, and thought "OMG, candy-sweet Schnulze, sentimental suffering, melodrama as kitschig as 'Gone with the wind'".

But the critics are going orbital over it. Ingeniuous adaptation, they call it. A novel that could not be filmed - has been successfully turned into a film. The best movie of the decade.

Well, I do not know book and author.

Anyone knowing the movie? What did you think? Recommended? Is there something special about it (beside a said to be highly impressive camera flight over the beach at Dunkirchen)? I mean, one scene alone does not make a good movie.


http://www.atonementthemovie.co.uk/site/site.html

[Chock]

Not seen it myself, but I followed your link to the official site Skybird, and read the synopsis of the film, and that was enough. It said: 'The film opens in 1935. Under the looming shadow of World War Two.'

What? The looming shadow of WW2, in 1935? That's a pretty long shadow! Even the Spanish Civil War hadn't started at that point, and the Supermarine Spitfire hadn't been designed in 1935, let alone built. So that's got the 'reality alert' alarm bells ringing right from the start.

Reading that, sort of reminded me of that other travesty of a film set in WW2, The English Patient. Critics lauded all over that, and accordingly, I took my mum to see it when it came out. We, and indeed many others in the cinema, were actually laughing out loud at how bad it was, right from the supposedly dramatic opening scene, the one where the nurse sees her friend's vehicle hit a mine, and then spots her glasses on the road from about quarter of a mile away; a scene which elicited the comment from a girl sat in front of me: 'F*cking hell, she's got good eyesight!'.

As noted, I can recall lots of people in the cinema who were literally falling off their chairs laughing at the preposterous storyline and ridiclulous errors in it, but I was more bothered about how anyone could make a film and have Fiennes doing his usual simpering weed character in the main role, when they had an actor of Willem Dafoe's skill and quality at their disposal too. So I hope it isn't another one of those.

I suspect it will be though, but I'll reserve judgement until I've actually seen it.

:D Chock

[Skybird]

:-j Help me hell - here comes the realism freak! :lol:

English Patient - I found it extremely kitschig.

However, I cannot follow your quarrel with 1935 being labelled as a time of looming shadows of WW2. It actually was, if you look at internal historic events in Germany since 1933. In germany, usually the whole time from 1933 to 1939 is referred to as "Vorkriegszeit" (pre war era).

[Chock]

Yup, that's true in hindsight, but in 1935, Hitler was still good buddies with the English royal family for instance, diplomatic relations with most nations and Germany were still okay at that time, for example even Charles Lindbergh, and numerous US army officers were invited to Germany in order to fly their latest bf109, and the majority came back saying what great bunch of guys they all were, and that was well after 1935. Britain was still four years away from even its appeasement overtures prior to WW2, with the Luftwaffe and the RAF often having exchange visits and discussions, even on such sensitive subjects as the development of radio telephony and radar. The Olympics had not yet been hosted in Berlin at that point either, and I seem to recall reading that most nations turned up for that. Yes it was a grim time in Germany in many ways, but it was hardly a world under a shadow elsewhere.

In addition to which, I'm fairly certain that even the most pessimistic of forecasters would not have guessed in 1935 that a few years later Germany, Italy, Japan, China, America, Poland, Slovakia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, France, Belgium etc, etc would all be involved in a war that would cost an estimated 70 million lives, and span virtually every continent! So to write some dramatic love story from the standpoint of knowing about all that to come, at a time when nobody could have, seems rather silly to me, but as I say, I'll check it out, it might still be a good movie even so.

:D Chock

[kurtz]

, for example even Charles Lindbergh, and numerous US army officers were invited to Germany in order to fly their latest bf109, and the majority came back saying what great bunch of guys they all were, and that was well after 1935.
:D Chock

Lindbergh is, perhaps not a good example. Here's a link to a new scientist article http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19526221.700-review-ithe-immortalistsi-by-david-m-friedman.html

I'm afraid you'd have to subscribe to read it all but there's further reading in wikipedia.
I think a voluntary boycott of germany's shipping lines and trade began fairly early on, but I'm away from my books right now.

Finally if it's got keira knightely in it'll be rubbish.

[Tchocky]

It's based on Ian McEwan's novel, which I strongly recommend :)

But yeah, it's got X actor in it, so it must be terrible. Films don't have directors, producers, writers, or even other cast members. :roll:

Chock, the novel's narrative spans from 1935 to the middle of the war, so there's an case to be made (a weak one) for the "looming" comment.

Anyways, film websites are usually studio managed promo spots, and hardly indicative of the film itself.

[Prof]

Reading that, sort of reminded me of that other travesty of a film set in WW2, The English Patient.When it was on TV a few years ago, my mum watched it and was videoing it at the same time. I kept coming into the room and seeing Nazis everywhere, planes crashing and stuff blowing up and I thought "This looks like a great film!". I was very disappointed when I watched the whole thing...it turned out that I'd walked in on all the exciting bits...the rest was rubbish!

Finally if it's got keira knightely in it'll be rubbish.I beg to differ ;)

[STEED]

It's based on Ian McEwan's novel, which I strongly recommend :)

To read?

As we all know when a book becomes a film something goes missing. :yep:

[Skybird]

It's based on Ian McEwan's novel, which I strongly recommend :)

But yeah, it's got X actor in it, so it must be terrible. Films don't have directors, producers, writers, or even other cast members. :roll:

Chock, the novel's narrative spans from 1935 to the middle of the war, so there's an case to be made (a weak one) for the "looming" comment.

Anyways, film websites are usually studio managed promo spots, and hardly indicative of the film itself.
I gave the studio weblink intentionally, to help people learn what it is if they do not have heared of the movie, what could very well be the case.

We have plenty of critic's essay on it in germany currently, I assume it has been not different in the US, and Britain.

So, nobody has seen it so far, yes? the novel seem to be of not little fame only.