That’s what I thought. I guess I’m used to the “bad guys” getting it in the end, and in this film the protagonist was the one who lived and prospered. It’s as if the camera is merely observing her life which is magically beyond the hands of Hollywood storywriters. 
Read the book. It all becomes clear.
ETA: posted in error
…but…but…didn’t you notice the great tracking shot?!
[/film geek]
(I agree that this was a mediocre movie at best. But throw in an elaborate tracking shot and Serious Students of Film go wild.)
OK, just watched it.
At the risk of sounding like A.A. Gill, I found it… pedestrian. A typical British costume piece, with all the inherent limited creativity.
Major complaints:
The crucial chapter is the opening scene. This is what Ian McEwan does: an immensely significant day, or limited series of incidents, that are the fulcrum for the whole of the character development. But when you’re watching a movie, this is the time when you’re settling down. You’re not paying massive attention, and you’re going to pick up on the sublteties that will inflect the rest of the narrative when it’s presented in such a way. If shit is significant, and it’s in the first two minutes of the movie, then the director had damn well better make sure the audience knows it.
The dialogue was difficult to follow in parts. I knew what they were saying because of the book, but I can’t imagine anyone who hadn’t would know what all those clipped syllables were on about.
Robbie’s growing illness while in France was not given the significance required to allow the audience to foreshadow his eventual death.
The interview conceit: shit, that was awful. Though Vanessa Redgrave’s performance was pretty bloody good, the significance of the fabrication of the final scene was almost glossed over. ETA: particularly with almost nil character development around Briony, who in the book is the main protagonist, because she is the narrator for the last third of it.
Minor complaints:
The wrong letter being put in the envelope: would someone have realised that this had happened without prior knowledge?
It was clear from the book that Lola had been assaulted by Marshall in the house, prior to him raping her. This was, again, glossed over.
A black British soldier at Dunkirk? And nobody calls him “coon” or “jungle bunny”, beats him up, or even remarks on his colour? It’s not even like his character was given anything much to do. Strikes me there was some sort of quota the casting agent needed to fulfil.
Praise:
I agree with Kytheria that Romola Garai was fantastic. The scene with the dying French soldier was very moving.
A lot of the visualisation was absolutely as I had imagined it: the house, the fountain, Dunkirk, the scene in Balham.
Kiera Knightley is just ethereally beautiful. It’s mind-boggling how gorgeous her face is - can’t take my eyes off her when she’s on screen.
But all in all I agree: no way was that Best Picture material.
Those complaints you had mainly seemed to focus on what people who hadn’t read the book might think. I hadn’t read the book, and it was all perfectly clear to me. Also, I do pay attention to the very beginning of a movie. I know enough to know that often crucial information is given at the start. If people who take 15 minutes to situate themselves miss out on something, it’s not the movie’s fault.
I knew the second he put the cunt letter down that, uh oh, he’s gonna give the kid the wrong one and she’s gonna read it (ok, I had seen the trailer numerous times, so it was easy to figure).
I knew that something had happened between Lola and the creepy guy prior to the rape(?). It was kinda telegraphed at the dinner table.
I didn’t have any trouble hearing the dialogue.
I don’t want to defend this movie tooo much, it’s not important to me. I liked it very much the first time I saw it, not as much the second time, but I do think it’s a good movie and worthy of Awards attention (just please don’t win, just please don’t win, just please please PLEASE don’t win unless it’s between you and Juno over TWBB and NCfOM, then please win, please win, please please PLEASE win over Juno because it won’t be anywhere near as embarrassing in years to come).
I just find it funny (and a bit irritating) when people who’ve “read the book” (this or Lord of the Rings or whatever) start complaining and worrying about what people who haven’t read the book think. If someone hasn’t read the book and miss specific plot points that were in the movie, screw 'em. It’s their own damn fault for not paying attention. If the movie works well enough but just had to cut out peripheral things because of time constraits, then they can go read the book if they want extra details.
Nothing substantial to add as I haven’t seen any of the other nominated films, but I just realized that the actor who plays Robbie is James McAvoy and not Gregory Smith. For a while there I was very impressed with Ephram’s range.
Everyone tries to act like proper citizens but no one can really pull it off.
Cecilla tries to hold back her feelings for Robbie at first because she has to uphold some sort of social standard. Robbie too tries to hold back his feelings and act respectable, but he messes up badly with the letter. They end up saying the hell with social standards and screw in the library.
Then there was the hospital that Briony worked for as a nurse. She maintained her composure when the hospital had no soldiers in it, but when the soldiers came she fell apart.
That is what I meant by the characters trying to act sophisticated. They all try or pretend to act like upper class British citizens, but none of them pull it off.
I don’t see how Robbie’s mental break down during the war or Briony’s loss of composure in the hospital ties in with the movie’s point about atonement. A lot of the movie just didn’t seem necessary.
I’m waiting for the DVD.
A friend of mine saw it recently and, although she normally loves period pieces (and quite enjoyed Sweeney Todd), she said this one was a lame story masquerading as a sweeping epic.
I suspect this may be true. Still, I will rent it and probably read the book at some point.
This is a reasonable opinion. Unfortunately, I cannot view the movie from any other viewpoint than as someone who’s read the book. I’m absolutely no fanboy: I accept there are going to be different ways of presenting the story as a movie, and I’m not biased against that (The English Patient for example, took great liberties, but was a wonderful movie all the same).
However, if you read other threads on the movie, you’ll find a great deal of mystification from other dopers about certain aspects of the plot - that are completely understandable in the context of the book. Briony’s character is the greatest example of this, IMO. I think that this movie fell between two stools: it tried for extreme faithfulness to the detail, while neglecting major character arcs. (The scriptwriter is an eminent British playwright, who also wrote Dangerous Liaisons too, so he should know what he’s doing.)
Amazingly, I have also actually seen all the nominees this year.
To be quite honest, I wasn’t blown away by any of them.
Sure, they were all decent films, but I really don’t have a favorite.
No Country for Old Men (good film but like many have said, I too hated the ending.)
Juno (way over-rated, mildly amusing)
Michael Clayton (liked it while I was watching it, but have forgotten the story since)
There Will Be Blood (nice, but certainly plodded along slowly and the ending was so-so)
Atonement (a daytime soap opera in period costume)
This is a hard year to predict the winner - but based on the average age of Oscar voters being somewhere between 84 and dead, I would think Michael Clayton or Atonement will probably win.
Actually, I think Gone Baby Gone, Charlie Wilson’s War, Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead, The Savages, Lars and the Real Girl and Sweeney Todd were all better films than those nominated.
I finally forced myself to finish watching Atonement today. It was a chore.
All kinds of things felt wrong to me: Robbie’s obscenity in an early draft of his note, and we’re made to look at the c-word several times later as if we didn’t get it the first time; Ce’s interpretation of this note as somehow romantic; the lack of chemistry between Knightley and McEvoy; the use of a typewriter as part of the soundtrack at times; the incredibly long and unnecessary tracking shot of the beach; the way they’d show you part of a scene, then stop and restart it and then let you see the rest of it (unnecessary semi-flashbacks, I’d call them).
I just didn’t give a care about anyone or anything in it.