Atonement

Atonement Review



Overall 3.87 of 5 view all 47 reviews
 




2008 Advisor
Telpher
San Francisco, CA
A bad soap opera disguised as a classy drama
2 star rating

Film buff
Pros

    Beautifully filmed

Cons
    Implausible, slow-moving, Keira Knightly needs a meal, stat!, Boring, Ridiculously manipulative soundtrack, Tries to be a fine drama

JAN
17
2008

Atonement — 

I went to see Atonement with an open mind. Actually, that's not true. I went expecting a decent film. Some of the cast memebers are actors I really like. I could tell, from the previews and ads, that it had been beautifully filmed. The subject matter sounded interesting. It looked as if it would be a solid, engaging, serious drama. Instead, I found myself sitting through two hours of bad soap opera disguised as a fine film.

I have nothing agianst soap opera. In fact, I love the genre (ask me about The Young and the Restless or Knts Landing, and it's on.) What I don't like is the feeble attempts on the part of some film makers to try and hide the fact that they're producing classic soap opera  material, and to present their work as somewhat better or higher or more refined than what airs on daytime television. I have nothing against a sow's ear - just don't try and convince me it's a silk purse. This is exactly what Atonement is: a somewhat tacky, inplausible, manipulative soap opera that, because it refuses to embrace what it is, and insists on trying to be something more refined, fails miserably.

In a nutshell, the movie is about a misunderstanding, followed by a lie, which results in disasterous consequences. The classic stuff of soap opera. There's doomed love. Sexual tension. Wartime heartbreak. Family strife. Yadda, yadda, yadda. But it's all treated as REFINED DRAMA. Yawn.

One of the problems with this movie is that it centers around a young man who is desperately in love with a young woman played by Keira Knightly. Unfortunately, the Keira Knightly character is so haughty, nasty, obnoxious, narcissistic and obnoxious (except for about three minutes, when she seems almost human) that I couldn't get into the spirit of rooting for them as a couple.  In fact, most of the characters in this movie are completely unlikable. When the characters in a movie whose success hinges on the viewer's having an emotional stake in its outome are completely unlikable, the movie is doomed to failure. And this is why it's a mistake for a writer or director to refuse to embrace the nature of their material.

Soap operas, when they work, work because the writers are able to create characters that the audience can relate to, like, hate, feel for, care about. Even it means that you, as a viewer, love to hate a character, there's got to be some sort of real passion. There's no chance for that sort of passion to develop in Atonement, because most of the characters are just nasty and annoying, without any of the juice that makes hating them so much fun. Think back to Larry Hagman's portrayal of J.R. Ewing. Viewers loved to hate him because he was evil, but deliciously evil. He sometimes said and did things that we all secretly wish we could get away with. And he had a few qualities that made him even lovable, in some ways. The characters in Atonement behave badly just for the sake of behaving badly and, by and large, there's not enough of a balance, in terms of redeemable behavior. Keira Knightly's character is just awful for most of the film, then has about five minutes of material that's supposed to be her redmption. I didn't buy it, and I never shook off the feeling that this was the same woman who spent the entire first hour of the movie being about as abrasive and annoying as humanly possible.

In the end, I didn't really care what happened, except that I finally got to go home.

The only reason it's getting two stars, instead of one, is that it's beautifully filmed.



I_thumb_down Atonement is not recommended by Telpher

5
helpful
votes
Did you find this review helpful?
 
 
 




I_comment_shdw24 Comments about Telpher’s Review

 


wasoobi wrote on Feb 1, 2009 at 4:26PM

Although I respect your opinions, I highly disagree with you. I think that a movie is ruined when you set expectations at their highest. You become always expectant of something more, something different than what is actually on the screen. As for the "manipulative soundtrack," that's what soundtracks are for, to entertain you along with the story. Imagine your utmost favorite movie without any music whatsoever. Total crap, right? I'm not saying you should keep your expectations low for every movie, but I generally enjoy a movie I only scarcly heard about because it comes as more of a surprise.

And I agree with Chadch. You should be able to exchange ideas on the internet. I can understand your point of view, but that means you should also be able to look past your own dense bubble into other people's point of view. Don't take every disagreement as some kind of personal attack.

Telpher wrote on Dec 2, 2008 at 3:31PM

In response to Chadch's comment from Dec 2, 2008 at 3:22PM:

For someone so smug and bent on being right, your grammar is horrendous.
Am not interested in your highly personalized and reactionary diatribe. Do us both a favor and stop writing to me.

Chadch wrote on Dec 2, 2008 at 3:23PM

In response to Telpher's comment from Dec 2, 2008 at 2:45PM:

(PART 2 OF RESPONSE)
Despite its popular appear, I think most will agree it's rather hard to compare Shakespearean theatre to modern Soap operas. Anyone who has read and studied Shakespeare more in depth will agree that there is meta-theatrical and textual genius in Elizabethan plays that surpasses some of the greatest literature, theatre, and films today - let alone shitty soap operas on TV.
You're right in saying that "It hardly gets soapier than a man killing his own brother in order to marry his widow!", however this is plot, and this kind of plot is present in all forms and qualities of story-telling, from Greek tragedy, through biblical stories, Elizabethan theatre, Romantic Literature, you name it. There is only so many kinds of stories out there. Soap Opera is just a genre which peels away anything else like good acting, good directing, good music intelligent and meaningful dialogue, leaving only the plot and the very basic, simple emotions presented in an efficient but poor format.
As for the rest of my argumentation, it is developed in my other post. I think my argumentation is more valid than yours, that's my opinion, you have yours, let the readers on your page decide which one they prefer. You chose to criticize a cultural piece online, I chose to defend that cultural piece. Both are subjective opinions backed by whatever knowledge and tastes we have, neither is right or wrong - that's why art is so great.

Chadch wrote on Dec 2, 2008 at 3:22PM

In response to Telpher's comment from Dec 2, 2008 at 2:45PM:

I should not answer to this, but what the heck, after this comment I won't write anything.
You didn't ask or invite a recommendation, but you wrote your review on a website that offers the chance to comment on your review. I took the opportunity to write back because I didn't agree with you. That's how internet works, you can write back and create a discussion.
If you took my comment as a personal attack on your skills as an on-line reviewer, then I'm sorry, my intention was simply to participate in the aforementioned discussion. You wrote your review on a vitriolic tone - I answered back using that same tone because you commented negatively on a movie that I liked, and that made me react. If it was unsolicited on your part, then stop reading the comments on your page.
You're right in saying that Shakespeare's plays were originally a form a base entertainment, with singing, dancing, and often raunchy scenes and strong sexual connotation. However, Shakespeare wrote in a historical context that made it one of the ONLY forms of entertainment, and despite being condemned by the puritan religious authorities and forced to played outside the city walls, Shakespeare's troupe was also a form of entertainment deemed worthy of the royal court of England, and was supported financially by Elizabeth I.
>>continued

Telpher wrote on Dec 2, 2008 at 2:45PM

In response to Chadch's comment from Dec 2, 2008 at 11:15AM:

I really disliked this movie and you found it to be a masterpiece. Big deal. I wrote a review - I didn't ask or invite your recommendation. While we're handing out unsolicited advice, I'll suggest you learn to agree to disagree.

A sidebar : In point of fact, in his day, Sakespeare's drama was indeed entertainment for the masses, which roughly held the stature that soap operas hold today. It may be highbrow theatre today, but that was certainly not the case when it was contemporary, and among the lowest professions was that of the actor. It hardly gets soapier than a man killing his own brother in order to marry his widow!

Chadch wrote on Dec 2, 2008 at 11:15AM

I disagree entirely with everything you just said. I'm a straight guy and I hate emotional love drama movies, this was one of the most touching films I have ever seen. All of the actors are incredible - take for instance the breathtaking performance of Vanessa Redgrave at the end of the movie, devoid of all artifice - the music is stunning, the direction is beautiful and meaningful (it is full of symbols: the fountain of water when Cecilia plunges into her femininity, the beautiful love scene in the library, the constant sound of a typewriter, Briony constantly surrounded by flowers and dressed in white to represent the outside innocence) and of course the story itself, originally a great novel by Ian McEwan, is absolutely amazing, with a twist at the end that will leave you breathless. The movie itself is a masterpiece.
You defend in you review that it is only a soap opera in disguise because it deals with themes like "doomed love. Sexual tension. Wartime heartbreak. Family strife". Those aren't soap opera themes, they're artistic themes that appear in soap opera, but also in so-called refined drama, greek tragedy, classic works of literature, and the most famous paintings. Would you consider Hamlet, one of the most studied texts of the English language with Paradise Lost and The Bible, to be a vulgar soap opera? Hamlet deals with sexual tension between the protagonist and Ophelia, war-drama with the invasion of Denmark by Fortinbras, and family strife with the murder of Hamlet's father by Claudius, and the new king's marriage with Gertrude.
What differentiates soap operas from real, good art is symbolism, a finely wrought plot, aesthetic appeal, etc... If you're unable to appreciate universal artistic themes presented with quality, then I recommend you go back to watching your soap operas.

Telpher wrote on Sep 27, 2008 at 10:59PM

In response to bringTheFIRExx's comment from Sep 27, 2008 at 10:33PM:

Not only do I not need to watch it again, I think I might become physically ill. It's corny and contrived, and not a single character is likable. It's a bad soap opera dressed up as Masterpiece Theater.

bringTheFIRExx wrote on Sep 27, 2008 at 10:33PM

this movie is insanely amazing and i think i have to disagree with just about everything you said. maybe you should try watching it again because it's just ridiculously beautiful. and not just in the way it was filmed, but as a whole work.

CrystaBush wrote on Apr 1, 2008 at 2:32PM

Wow..I loved this movie!!
Sorry you didn't. ;(

BubleFan1 wrote on Mar 29, 2008 at 12:08PM

Yes!!! I couldn't have said it better!! I expected soooo much more.

GeorgeChabot wrote on Jan 17, 2008 at 3:39PM

Too bad. Movies today are not what they used to be. ;>