David O'Connell
Why I Hate Atonement
January 8th 2008 22:39
Well, here's the part where I explain the reasons behind my anger. First, I should mention that it seems that most people love this movie. Most of my friends, audience members I overheard after the screening, the general consensus on the internet - it's all overwhelmingly positive.
Second, I've never read the book, so I'll try and comment only on aspects of the film that I have a problem with.
I apologize for the length of this post, but length is needed to defend my position, I think.
The novel, Atonement, was written by Ian McEwan and was shortlisted for the Booker in 2001. The plot of the movie, I have no problem with. It's sufficiently interesting, and the ending has the potential to be quite moving. I imagine the book is quite a exhaustively emotional read.
The film, directed by Joe Wright, on the other hand, is such a cascade of obvious ploys to fawn towards the Academy Awards, in my mind. Let's start, shall we?
The movie opens with a young girl tapping away at a typewriter... the typewriter audio is then woven seamlessly into the score of the film, apparently to indicate how the core of this film is about the written word. It's a wonderful audio effect, and we'll hear this theme throughout the movie, but without purpose. It's there so make you go 'Ah, writing' as you pat yourself on the back, but the theme doesn't illustrate anything. Compare this to Sergio Leone's "Once Upon A Time in the West" where every character is introduced with a distinguishable audio theme, and when characters meet, these themes twist around each other.
Still, it's a nice musical effect. It didn't bother me that much.
Wright gives us long shot lengths, to show us how much control and poise he has with the camera. Every scene is meticulously framed, the colours are perfectly matched and the actors stand on marks as if they're posing for a photograph.
What is the point of this? It seems to be Wright saying 'I is good with the camera', using the long shot length for the sake of having it. Notable Chinese director Jia Zhang Ke uses a long shot length to indicate something: his characters live in a reality so grim and sincere that the camera cannot cut away to save them from it. His extended takes make us uncomfortable because we're not used to seeing our characters struggle futilely or walking out of the frame. This style has been echoed by several other upcoming Chinese directors and it's done with such style and flair.
"Atonement", on the other hand, gives us long takes of Keira Knightley, standing around, trying to look pensive and, perhaps, elegant. I'll admit - I'm not a fan of Knightley, whose face reminds me of a bored fish. I don't think she can act, except for a type of pseudo acting, which I'll mention a little later.
So, we get to look at Knightley. In my mind, she doesn't pull it off at all... remember Robert de Niro in "Goodfellas", the camera slowly tracking into his face as he ponders murdering his friend. The shot lasts for about 30 seconds, but de Niro holds us with the sheer power of his personality. We don't need to see the Mark of the Beast to see what Jimmy Conway is.
Wright's "Atonement" is essentially broken into three pieces that are three different time periods. The movie is so heavily skewed towards the first section, which is all English country manor, fancy dresses and upper-class twiddling, though, that the last section of the movie feels rushed.
While the novel moves chronologically, apparently (from what I can infer from Wikipedia), the screenplay is written in a non-linear fashion, so that we see one scene, then jump to a scene that occured before.
Oh, how wretched is this? It's the latest cliche to come out of modern cinema... and it's getting nauseating. It was faintly irritating in "La Vie En Rose", though the haunting music and tragic story made up for it, and I was impressed by the technique in "Pulp Fiction", when I was in high school.
Since then, only "Memento" and "Irreversible" have used the idea of a non-linear script to mean something... "Memento" focused on a man with no short term memory, making every scene the beginning of a movie to him. "Irreversible" reversed the order of the movie to show us a story that gets more painful and tragic the further away we move from the horror.
In "Atonement", the non-linear script is a cheap, gimmicky method of creating false drama.
At roughly the halfway point, past my tolerance for this movie, there's a scene that most of the reviewers are trumpeting as the height of the film, a 5-minute uninterrupted tracking shot over the beach at Dunkirk, with thousands of English soldiers waiting to be rescued.
Yes, it's visually stunning and a testament to Wright's patience and planning. What did it feel like?
From the review on Boston.com:
"The shot screams look at me. Wright is a born moviemaker but he doesn't yet have the directorial maturity to make a show-off moment like this organic to the narrative: You're forced out of the film into frank admiration of technique. The director seems too momentarily seduced by his big-budget toys to attend to the humans."
Amen. Wright is obviously talented at filmmaking, and he has a skilled crew and a knowledge of cinema history. He wants so desperately to be considered a filmmaker that he tries to impress us with a fancy chocolate-coated cake.
This movie is one of the few where I disagreed with Roger Ebert, who illustrates another one of my problems with the film:
"Cecilia, as played by Knightley with stunning style, speaks rapidly in that upper-class accent that sounds like performance art. When I hear it, I despair that we Americans will ever approach such style with our words, which march out like baked potatoes."
Here we have it. Ebert is impressed with Knightely's posh English accent.
I think this is a common ailment of both American and Australian reviewers. For some reason, us colonists have a love-hate relationship with Mother England, wanting to tear ourselves from her slippery nipple but, at the same time, fawning over anything that leaves the Isles.
Knightley speaks with a fancy accent, and that's considered acting. It involves saying "Not at all" as "Naw tat awhl" and using phrases like "it's in the room, next to the nuhserry". This is the extent of her talent; the accent in combination with her face and thin figure seem to make her a star.
The other actors do their best, but Wright's inability to make his actors seem human hampers them. The children are awful, everyone else is a shadow of a two dimensional character. Only James McAvoy gets enough screen time to have an effect.
And of the end scene, with Vanessa Redgrave? This is supposed to be the most powerful act of the film, and Redgrave handles it with confidence, but it's thrown so fast at the audience that the weight of the scene is lost on us, in my opinion.
And in truth, when I read the favourable reviews from reviewers that know their stuff, they criticize the film on similar points, only to end with a 'go see it' sentiment. From SeattlePi.com:
"But, truth be told, the journey to this satisfying coda is not nearly as enthralling as it wants to be. The characters are not hugely compelling, the performances never completely grab us, and much of the story, while visually arresting, is dramatically tedious."
Are you kidding me? With a paragraph like that, how can this be a favourable review?
It seems that, yes, this movie is likely to win Oscars for Knightley, McAvoy, the costumes and screenplay. And it seems that I stand (nearly) alone in despising it. While, naturally, it's not as thoroughly awful as some of the mindless comedies and action movies that make it into the cineplexes, it has a sinister element. It's a movie, devoid of substance, dressed up like a peacock, using beauty and aesthetics to numb you into thinking that you've seen a great work of art.
Don't believe the hype.
If you've got a conflicting opinion, or would like to point something out, feel free to do so in the comments below! My memory of "Atonement" is, thankfully, fading, and I'll never sit through it again, so remind me of key scenes that I missed!
| 187 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by AmyHuang
Project Job Search
Travel Debate
Travel String
Love Adventures
Comment by Aimzster
Reality TV
The Jeepney Stop
First Time Mum
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Aimzster, strong sentiments! It seems as though most Orblers haven't enjoyed the movie...
Comment by Paul Martin
I pretty much agree with every one of your criticisms, with some slight differences. I also felt like I was a lone dissenting voice with this film.
I found the typewriting them excrutiatingly painful. I thought it was a little contrived at the start but could have lived with it, if it didn't repeat itself. But it did, as if it were a curtain call at the end of each scene. It reminded me of the snow falling at the end of each scene in Coeurs, which also irritated me. It added to the appearance of the film as a pseudo stage performance. It was too gimmicky, too cute, too clever, too show-offy. It was too self-conscious and thus detracted from the cinema medium.
In one of my posts the At The Movies message board, I mentioned transparency. Too many devices in this film draw attention to themselves so that you notice them, rather than being drawn emotionally into the story (which No Country For Old Men does so well).
Another diffference with our critiques is James McAvoy. I find his acting just as wooden and contrived as Keira Knightly's. I agree with you about Knightly's toff accent - it wasn't a fatal flaw, but it was a constant irritant - but I found both characters to be cardboard cutouts without any substance. I liked The Last King of Scotland, in spite of McAvoy, whose performance was similarly disappointing in that film.
When I saw the Dunkirk scene, I thought it was really well done, but the longer it progressed, the more its choreography distracted me. It just seemed too gimmicky, too show-offy. There comes a point where technical expertise just doesn't impress any more. Just like the best of CGI doesn't impress, rather it is how it is used. Better to use less trickery and more competent story-telling.
None of the characters engaged me. And for me, that's what cinema is about, being engaged by a story, losing yourself for those 90 or more minutes and experiencing another world. I felt I was sitting there watching actors, director and other crew members assembling a production. I think Atonement is a textbook example of how NOT to make a film.
Comment by Anonymous
P.S "Next to the 'nursherry'''. Brilliant.
Comment by Miswanderlust
Killer Beats
Ramble On
Hipnotherapy
Thought you might be interested in this quick review of the movie from one of my favorite websites "Rotten Tomatoes Website Rotten tomatoes where 85% of reviewers liked the film. Here is one review that shared your sentiment
Variagate Review
Mis
Will definetly skip it in theatres.
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by dane chatani
the chef and the kid
100% muriel
Although I haven't seen the film ...well I must say now I most certainly won't.
It harkens back to when I saw Titanic in the states...a young girl sitting beside me was mouthing all the words verbatim..she'd seen it 12 times. My god I was very worried for the state of USA's mental health. It was so very impressed with itself and yet delivered only one dimensional depth. It wasn't until the ship broke in half and the perfection was broken that I thought thank god some relief from the director 's vanity.
Yes your thorough description only brings back that stiffling god awful film.
Thanks for saving me the exercise in frustration and a few bucks
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Cos if you did.
damn you.
Comment by dane chatani
the chef and the kid
100% muriel
Comment by JD
I loathed this film and thought Keira Knightley's performance was so tedious. Why on earth did Robbie love her? was it because she could smoke so many cigarettes in such a short space of time? she has one expression - sour pouting and her accent annoyed hell out of me.
Whilst I thought it was a visually beautiful film this was not enough to make up for the weak story line and characters. I may have to go to see it again with friends and will definitely be taking in a glass of alcohol to take the edge off!
Comment by KylieW
Celebrity Obsession
The reason I hated Atonement.......Keira Knightly.
Why do critics love her so much? I don't get it. She only has one facial expression!
I'm about to read the book, but there's no way I could sit through two hours of Keira, so I doubt I'll ever watch the movie.
Also, I'm so glad I read this post. I've always thought I was alone in my hatred of The English Patient!!!!
Comment by Louie
randomthoughts
Phil's Wellness Tips
Comment by Mike Crowl
Webitz
Work Report
Atonement. Haven't seen it, and now you've confirmed what I've read elsewhere. Annoying and irritating and beautifully done, but lacking some vital ingredient. Certainly the critics have been very extreme about it; I don't think the English critics were quite so keen, at least from what I remember. (I was still in England when it came out).
Well, one relief: it wasn't the only film showing on the plane over the Pacific!
Comment by Sandy Kumskov
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Atonement won Best Drama at the Golden Globes this week!
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
In related news: Atonement gets 14 BAFTA nominations.
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by evan
Comment by evan
Comment by Anonymous
I fall into the category of those who "trumpet" how wonderful this film is, though I hope I do not 'trumpet', since I thought it was excellent, but you appear to know more about film than I do. I say "know more", but I mean "have watched more", or perhaps, have watched more with sustenance, than I have. I should like to respond though, if I may, as someone from the other side - since the comments so far don't seem to have many disagreements, just people blindly following your advice.
I would recommend reading the book. If only because I think few films which are adaptations of books are successful, and actually alter the book as opposed to being a separate entity. Harry Potter films, for instance, I enjoyed them very much (bar the 3rd), but I wouldn't have said they were particularly good adaptations. They were just entertaining, which I suppose in the end is what they are supposed to be. 'Atonement', the book, is a superb book which I read and studied in great detail for my A-levels a few years back, and when I heard it was for the cinema I was shocked - McEwan has such command of his writing I thought no director could possibly get the tone of his book right; oddly enough, this director succeeded.
I will admit that when I went to watch the film, I was desperate to like it, and I really hoped it would not disappoint me, or worse, taint my reading of the book. I was not disappointed, but left the cinema feeling somewhat... unsatisfied, but I could not explain why.
It has been several months since I watched it, but I have since read the book, and in that period I have realised that actually, it wasn't half bad.
A few specific points I would like to contest:
The acting - well, this is always going to be a difficult subject matter, oddly enough one which has no forseeable resolution, because acting is entirely subjective. Some people think Daniel Radcliffe is a shockingly awful Harry Potter, believe he cannot act to save his life. However, when they watch 'My Boy Jack', or 'Equus', they realise that this young lad is very talented, and perhaps it is not his acting which stinks, but their acceptance of it. To say that Keira Knightley "can't act" is both crass and ridiculous; of course she can act, to act is to take on the role of a dramatic persona, it is to pretend to be somebody else. What most people mean to say is "Keira Knightley is not a talented actress", which is an opinion through and through, and not a basis upon which one should recommend a trip to the cinema or a fervent avoidance. When a film receives "hype", that which we are in this comment encouraged to disbelieve, it primarily means that the press core attached to the film are very successful, and secondly, that the ratio of people who felt the acting either agreeable or not a problem to those who felt the acting disagreeable or did have a problem is favourable to the former. I would have said people should make their own minds up to join one camp or the other, and not suffer instructions to disbelieve the facts.
James McAvoy's acting again falls under this same category, as does the acting of the children and all others in the film whom you might have disliked. The only significant response to that again relates to the book. I was most surprised by the actress who played Lola. She was the character I had the most trouble with in the book, she seemed to me to be one I did not understand - not because I could not empathise with various aspects of her character or situation (not that I think that necessary, but it doesn't hurt) - but because she was just an enigma to me. Why she should marry Paul Marshall was beyond me. I simply didn't get it. And yet in the film, the Lola I was offered portrayed exactly the kind of girl she was, or at least, exactly the Lola I had pictured. But more than that, she also filled in the gaps of the character for me, and that is my way of explaining the statement that a good adaptation ought to alter one's reading of the book, somehow. It was this which I felt was the film's strongest point; that the characters played by the actors were perfectly captured.
Cecilia is supposed to be annoying. She is supposed to be up-herself; the whole reason she doesn't talk to Robbie (well, not the whole reason but the brunt thereof) when they return for the summer is because she is jealous of him, that he did so well and yet is so beneath her. She doesn't *really* think that, or at least, if she does, Robbie is somewhat different, an exception to that rule. Either way, there is a fierce independence for Cecilia, who is uncomfortable with Robbie, but is not sure why. As for her accent, I notice nobody makes comment of James McAvoy's accent, which was equally, if not more clipped. I wonder if people are not determined to dislike all and everything Keira Knightley does? Her accent seemed appropriate to me; the film production included dialect coaches, who taught the actors exactly how to achieve the accent of the period - Keira Knightley saying "not at all" in that manner (and I think your phonetic version is pretty spot on), was exactly how they would have talked. Everything about the era was clipped and reserved, that is why Robbie and Cecilia are so uncomfortable with each other, and why their eventual explosion of tension is so explosive. Annoying? Perhaps; but if you found her annoying, that's most likely because you were meant to.
The film-making aspect is probably the part I know the least about. I have not studied film making, and to be truthful, when I watch a film it is not generally the film making which leaps out at me. I will admit I have seen "Kill Bill" and there are moments which are quite original, similarly with "300", similarly with "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly". This had some really nice filming, very beautiful, as everybody says. But beauty doesn't make a film what it is, and I wonder, that long scene on Dunkirk. I heard about that scene long before I watched the film, everybody was talking about this one special scene. I wonder whether, if nobody had talked about it, would everyone be saying he only put that scene in for an Oscar? Personally, I think if this director has the opportunity to be called a director, the opportunity to be given a large chunk of cash and an all-star-cast, he isn't going to be thinking "now, what would be the most groundbreaking scene which could get me an Oscar? No, Billy.. It's not long enough, it must be longer! With no breaks! Nobody has ever done a scene like that before! Why, they'll call me Alfred Hitchcock!"
I think rather that he wanted people to look at that scene with wider eyes. There are a few moments in some films where the director realises that it's an hour into the film and chances are many people's attention will be wavering. So they throw in a scene to make you sit up and pay attention, and remember why you're watching their film in the first place. I think that might one reason he put it in... Maybe another is because it looks so darn beautiful, and he was trying to make the best film he could. Production companies may be trying to make money; directors, I think, are trying to do their best. That scene was amazing, it almost makes you keep your eyes open without blinking right until the end. It was helped along by the music, poignant in the extreme, and it's important to remember why that scene should have been emphasized - it's Wilfred Owen on the silver screen.
As for the rushing aspect; well... Maybe. Maybe that's what left me unsettled. But I don't think so. I don't think it was rushed, I think the ending - with Briony on a television show explaining what had happened, was the best way they could have ended the book. It is not the way McEwan ended it, and it is not as good, but they could not have ended it the way the book did. It simply wouldn't have been feasible. Which is fair, and I read the end of the book with a new look at Briony, having seen Vanessa Redgrave's portrayal. I will still always despise Briony a little bit, especially for the ambiguity in the book, which was removed for this film - something I did not like. But I understand why it was done. And I really didn't mind... I think this film was a great adaptation of an even better book. As long as there are production companies, good books will always be made into films, and I think this is a rare gem of a film which gets it very, very right. It's beautiful, some might say too beautiful, some might say it's crassly trying to prove something, but I have a much more optimistic view of the world, a view which says someone walked into a production company boardroom and said, "hey, I read this great book..."
That's all, folks
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
I'd like to respond to a few of your points, which are well-thought out.
- you've read the book and I haven't. You mentioned that you wanted desperately to like the adaptation, and I know what you mean, having been in the same situation for other adaptations. I wonder if reading the book gave you a deeper insight to the characters, allowing you to flesh out the movie beyond what was on the screen?
It also raises the question: should the film stand on its own? Certainly, it should... but should it be augmented by reading the book? Perhaps...
- I do despise Keira Knightley - now... I wanted to like her because I thought she was really, really pretty, but I've never enjoyed any of her roles, and I don't think she's pretty anymore.
- my issue with the accent is not how real it is... certainly, as far as I can tell, the actors all do a wonderful job of sounding aristocratic... my issue is with American, Canadian and Australian critics praising the movie because the accent sounds good. That's not a worthy reason for compliments, I think.
- the Dunkirk scene... it certainly is impressive, technically. I read an interview with the director and he said, the reason for that long continuous shot was they were running out of money and had to wrap up filming. Filming over several days was going to be a hassle to get the lighting to be consistent, etc, so they had the idea to do it all at once. While the end result is appealing, it doesn't carry the weight of long, continuous shots from other movies. The hallway scene from "Oldboy", or the steadicam shot in the restaurant in "Goodfellas", for example.
-you're absolutely right about acting being subjective... I state that I didn't enjoy the actors, but other people certainly did. And I hope I didn't say that Knightley can't act - you're right... of course she can, it's a question of whether she's talented or not.
thanks again for your comment, Anonymous!
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Anonymous
I tried to read the book a few months ago - after hearing the rave reviews - and hated it so much that I could not get past page 60. So some snotty little kid tells a lie. Wow. Get on with it and throw something interesting into the mix...
So, I tried the movie last night - after hearing rave reviews and being told it was better than the book. I figured it must be better - condensed into 2 hours (give or take) - it must move quicker than the horror show of the novel. Not so.
My biggest beef with Atonement is the complete lack of plot. I just find it empty and so incredibly basic that it reminds me of something that a day dreaming adolescent could come up with for English class. A lie is told, they grow up, war happens, a lie is realized, she gets old and writes a book. Holy cow, how clever.
I found the movie indulgent - to the point of being silly, and Keira Knightly irritating, as usual. There is something about that actress that I just can't stomach. There is almost a self conciousness about her - like "aren't I beautiful - of course I am, that's why I am so famous right now...so I will act as melodramatic as humanly possible!"
I don't know which awards Atonement was up for, but I don't understand. I suppose it could be the old "visually stunning" argument, which would make the most sense. Because, certainly, the story was terrible and the acting mediocre.
So, thank-you for your post! I was glad to find somebody who shared the opinion, since everyone around me seems to think this film was amazing...
Comment by Anonymous
I'm glad others had issues with this overrated Oscar-baiting film.
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
To the last commenter, interesting point. Atonement does remind one of a Three's Company episode, but without the silliness. Well, a little silly.
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
basically i really liked the film, so i picked apart a few of the scenes and gimmicky elements and tried to give a different perspective of what i thought the purpose was and why
im glad i read your review before i watched it, there was much to think about!
Comment by Selene
Comment by Damo Melb
Cibbuano i could not agree more with your review. I kept getting distracted by the pointless cutbacks, which then reduced the impact of the dramatic scenes.
The scene at Dunkirk could have been so much more powerful - they were only a few km apart and yet they would never see each other again - but the film did not convey it, Also the scene with the dead children in the field did not have the impact either - the viewer was detached not immersed in the film.
I think Joe Wright was trying too hard and forgot about how to immerse the audience.
Comment by Theogonies
Well, what I really hate is the ham-handed manipulative thriller (for instance) but that this film does it with a very arty touch does not redeem it, they have got a kind a verisimilitude mixed dreadfully with the ability of the film itself to tell a story honestly, without trix or prevarication...well, sorry. This one's ABOUT lies, trix, and being manhandled by the unseen (and acclaimed) author, who is nonetheless as complicit in the larger deception of the production house and the ruling class as ever. All this, and I found that it also depressed me miserably for days.
Thanks for a good, forthright, honest review.
Comment by Anonymous
Atonement is a thinking movie, so if you’re like most of the general public, who likes movies with a fue laughs and no great impact, it isn’t for you.
Atonement is about the idea of the mind and of agonising love.
Comment by Anonymous
While I am most certainly not a film critic, there were a few not-so-subtle motifs in the film that bothered me: the typing and, to a much larger degree, the water. By the end of the film Robbie’s “mother” was bathing his feet, and Cecelia was floating Christ-like in a flooded London tube station. I just can’t figure out why either character is worthy of this apotheosis.
Nevertheless, I couldn’t pinpoint what I disliked most – until I saw it here: the long shot lengths. This movie could easily have been a half an hour shorter without them.
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Anonymous
your comments are empty and follow false knowledge.
the book for instance follows no chronological order,
in fact it is even less linear than the movie.
Its true the movie doesn't uphold the essence of the novel,
but i can assure you there is no narcissism portrayed in wright's camera angles. As for the music, you would understand; and ill say it again, if you READ THE BOOK!
This would have to be the worst critique of a movie i have ever read, based on ignorance, and misinterpretation, backed by nothing but the worlds most unreliable information source; Wikipedia.
Thanks for nothing
Comment by Anonymous
yet again, Thanks for nothing
Comment by Anonymous
Let me explain something before I go off on my tirade. I am for story. I love story and I feel that if a film hasn't got a good one, there's no reason for it to be made. This film is to period dramas as Eraser is for action films. All flash, no substance. And the flash was boring as hell. It was like reading a self glorified work of poetry.
Keira jumping into the fountain. How deep was that pool? To me, this was the biggest "let's show off some great cinematography and win some awards" moment. She didn't have to submerge. She just had to reach her hand in... but that wouldn't have been award winning.
I hated this film from beginning to end, and so did my girlfriend (who I was with in the Theatre).
I am so happy to read a sensible review of this film. I am thrilled with one point you made in particular. Americans are intoxicated by the British accent. Let me add a second point. This films falls into what I like to call "The Emperor's New Clothes" niche. That is, because of its somewhat enigmatic nature, and the dignified look and feel that it attempts, some audience members assume that there is something great about it that they missed. I mean, if a film is this well shot, and this slow and self glorified, there must be something great about it, right? Let me answer this riddle for you now, you didn't miss anything. There just wasn't anything there.
The enigmatic nature of the film is produced by a senseless, dire story that doesn't tug at the heart strings because it takes itself way too seriously. You never love any of the characters. They're all cold and distant. We learn nothing endearing about any of them. We learn little about any of them whatsoever.
The other reason it might be popular is that the only people who went to see it read and really liked the book. I love that you, Mr. Reviewer, didn't read the book. I think it makes for a purer critique of the film. A film maker shouldn't adapt a novel assuming that his audience has read it, because they haven't. If they're of the philosophy that everyone should have read the novel, they have no place making films for a mass audience. They should be making videos for book clubs or PBS.
On a side note, I'm a huge Kiera Knightly fan, an anglophile, and hold a degree in English Literature and I still hate this film. Kiera Knightly is not a great actress. It's as the man said, she's gorgeous and has a nice voice. That's it.
SPOILER:
The absolute worst bit was the ending. They end on a happy, yet realistic note, and then reveal that the woman who wrote the book (the little girl) changed the ending because she felt guilty, and that really, everybody died like some overly dramatic Shakespearean tragedy. Yes, it's a twist, but it's the worst kind. The unreliable narrator is rarely a good ploy because basically its the writer lying to you, and then say, "oh, I tricked you! Ha ha!" It's a worse ploy than puns. If you were looking for your keys and someone said "I know where they are. They're outside in your car," and you spent 15 min. looking for them only to walk back inside to them laughing at you and saying, "Just kidding. They're on the dresser." You'd be pretty pissed off. So why do people like this movie? WHY? I don't get it.
Comment by Anonymous
loved the Dunkirk-scene, but I'm the sentimental type.