Home Rating: - A very strange film
This is a very strange film. Firstly, it is beautifully shot. There are some great performances, particularly from McAvoy. I even quite enjoyed it at times.

However, in the transference from book to film you are simply left with a bit of a mess. Parts of the plot (and there really isn't much of a plot so no chance of a spoiler) are examined in great detail - and suffer accordingly. Other parts are entirely glossed over, presumably losing out in the move to film, leaving you somewhat confused.

Then there is the casting of Knightley. Whilst her figure may be in keeping with 30's waif-chic, casting someone who looks like a pre-pubescent boy as a romantic leading lady leads to some highly uncomfortable viewing as the love scenes between the two leads start to look like some weird, homo-erotic paedophilia!

The scene at Dunkirk is a perfect example of what went wrong. Nothing happens. Three men arrive at Dunkirk and are told boats are being sent for them. They then wander around for a bit. This gives the director ample chance to show the awe-inspiring re-creation of the beach at Dunkirk and the chaos of 300,000 soldiers. One particular pan, which seems to go on forever, is just jaw-dropping. However, it is clearly only so long BECAUSE of the expense that went into producing it. It adds nothing to the film. The earlier story of how our lead found himself to be in France in the first place and how he came to be injured is entirely missing - one can only assume to make room for the expensive bit. A strange decision that goes some way to ruining a film that was already heading downhill!

We are then led into a bizarre final charade in which everyone suddenly starts acting entirely out of character and then you are left with a final shot of someone, entirely unsatisfactorily, explaining why.

It is worth renting for the cinematography and performances but don't try to think about it too much. It just doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

---

Rating: - the slightest of tales
When Ian McEwan's Booker-prize nominated novel was released, there must have been an instant queue of British film producers waving options contracts at him. After all, Atonement contains all the elements for a successful British film. The country house location. The upper classes, cut glass accents, the period drama. The war! Even better. And so it came to pass, that the film of Atonement was praised by many critics and nominated for lots of awards.

But how does it play when I'm sat in front of the TV on a Friday night? Therein lies the problem. I have not read the novel but I can see what the themes are, and the film is simply unable to carry them off. Without them, it is a very slight story, in which the characters are never developed fully enough for us to care what happens to them. Yes, it looks beautiful. The script is cleverly worked and tries valiantly to reproduce the effect of the multiple viewpoints of the novel. The actors, particularly the leads, are uniformly excellent, and the director has plenty of good ideas.

The big set piece scene set at Dunkirk in 1940 has attracted plenty of attention. It is certainly a tour de force and hats off to Joe Wright for pulling it off. I do feel it greatly dominates the entire film; nothing that precedes or succeeds it has anything like the same impact. Neither am I worried by its authenticity; it is ironic that in a fictional piece which questions the reliability of the authorial voice that viewers have complained about what would or would not have happened.

Ultimately, the film fails to exert any kind of emotional pull. It is a pleasant enough way of spending a couple of hours, but will not live long in the memory.

---

Rating: - I SHALL TOP MYSELF NOW SHALL I
IF YOU WANT A WONDERFUL ROMANTIC NIGHT IN WHERE AFTERWARDS YOU FEEL A WARM SUMMERY MEADOW OF AAAAHHH ALL OVER YOU...DONT GO ANYWHERE NEAR THIS.
THIS IS THE SEBASTIAN FLYTE IN MORROCCO MIXED IN WITH LEGENDS OF THE FALL,YES THE PRODUCTION IS BEAUTIFUL,YES THE ACTORS ARE WONDERFUL...BUT AND ITS A BIG BUT...BE PREPARED TO GO UP THE WOODEN STAIRS TO BEDFORDSHIRE JUST MUTTERING THE WORDS WHY OH WHY DID I WATCH THAT....DAYS LATER..WHY..YOU WILL MEET OTHERS AND TRY TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU ARE SO DOWN...BUT THEY DONT UNDERSTAND,BECAUSE THEY HAVENT WATCHED THE PURE BUCKET OF SADNESS THAT IS ATONEMENT...I AM STILL GETTING FLASHBACKS.TRUST ME DONT DO IT TO YOUR BRAIN, IT WILL BE LIKE GIVING A PUPPY TO A DRUNK SKINHEAD CALLED DOGKILLER.

---

Rating: - Lovely
Loved it, another example of me reading the book before i see the film. this worked well because the book covered elements of the plot which i thought were important which the film missed, and the film made the ending clearer because at this point i was bored of the book and just skimmed it. it was a lovely pleasant sad film.

---

Rating: - Somewhat disappointing
Despite the critical accolades and awards, I found this movie quite disappointing. Based on a novel by Ian McEwan, and directed by Joe Wright (who had filmed the latest movie version of Pride and Prejudice, much inferior to the BBC miniseries), the bulk of the movie occurs in a British country house during one day in the mid 1930s, in which a crime might have happened of might have just been the figment of the imagination of a fevered child. The main characters will feel for years the consequences of what happened that day. Since I'm totally uninterested on the life of England's upper classes, I was quite bored during a lot of the movie. And as if that wasn't enough, the final twist of the movie (in which Vanessa Redgrave has a cameo role) is totally insulting, and makes the viewer feels cheated. The engaging presence of Keira Knightley and newcomer Saoirse Ronan are among the movie's few assets. On the other hand, the much praised scene set during the evacuation at Dunkirk is very show-offy in my opinion.