Atonement, dir. Joe Wright (2007)

NIKKI says:
I wasn't sure what to expect with this movie as I had such a terrible time with the book a few years ago. My problem, from memory, had much to do with Ian McEwan's style, which I found quite dry and emotionless. I was also disappointed by the sort-of twist ending, something I feel has been done to death -- this happened, no wait, it was really this! -- and, therefore, felt more like an easy way out than an authentic conclusion, no matter how unquestionably sad the "real" ending is.

The movie was better. I was less bored, by any rate. Still, something didn't quite pull together for me. The story is compelling, and critics are right when they talk about how well it unfolds. But, we know the truth from the ery beginning, so it's not suspenseful, it's not a mystery, it's simply a waiting game to see the extent of the pain inflicted on these characters by one's misunderstanding of young romance between opposing classes.

That Briony takes so many years to realise her error and confront it is slightly unrealistic to me. She might be fanciful, but she's still human, and I would think she'd take steps to right her wrongs long before she eventually does. I also think, as with the book, the ending could have been different. I think the conclusion could have taken place in "real" time, with Briony at 18, rather than 70-odd. It could have been done.

Still, a good film, with some issues.

3/5

STEVE says:
Ricky Gervais is doing one of those "lateral thinking" puzzles with his friend Karl Pilkington. He says (and I'm paraphrasing, here), "A man walks into a pool of sharks, hungry, man-eating sharks, and comes out the other side, untouched. How?" Karl wracks his brain: "He's wearing armour?" "No." "He's crossing a bridge?" "No, in the pool with the sharks, soaking wet, comes out the other side." When Karl finally gives up, and asks Ricky what the answer is, Ricky's reply is, "I lied, there were no sharks."

That's how I felt about the end of this movie. If you're going to show me your story, and then tell me you just made that last bit up, but all the rest of it was true, couldn't you just leave the last bit out, maybe?

I was with this movie for the first 48 minutes. Intriguing, suspenseful, well-written and directed. But then we move onto the war scene that goes on and on for something like 25 minutes, only to find that the first 20 or so didn't matter so much. Great cinematography aside, when I have time to notice a Steadicam shot that runs for close to five minutes, my mind is clearly not being held by whatever the scene is meant to convey.

I'm giving it a 3/5, but that's mostly for the first 48 minutes and the promise of what could have been.

Amazing Grace, dir. Michael Apted (2006)

NIKKI says:
An historical drama about changing the world -- it's made for me, quite frankly. I don't know if I was tired, or had just eaten way too much over dinner with my parents, but I thought the film lacked the emotional resonance of others it brings to mind. I'm thinking of Iron-Jawed Angels, Glory, The Mission, movies about big events in history that present us with real heroes and remind us what others went through to make life better for us.

William Wilburforce is absolutely one of those people, and his struggle was honorable and compelling, but I wonder if this film's structure didn't let it down some? We jumped back and forth in time quite often, and I found some of the conversations about the issue at hand slightly repetitive. It's not hard to convince us that Wilburforce's mission is a good one, and yet much time was spent doing just that. Or perhaps he was convincing himself?

There was a lot of talking, a lot of reiteration of the key points -- costs of the slave trade, Parliament's reticence to end the trade, experiences of the slaves. There was little imagination here to make this film less lecture-like.

This was an interesting history lesson, but it lacked vigor. I didn't jump on my seat, fists pumping in the air, when it was all said and done. And I should have.

3/5

STEVE says:
It says much about the American education system that I hadn't heard the name William Wilburforce until watching Amazing Grace. We're taught that Abraham Lincoln was the great emancipator, but Wilburforce did his work during the American Revolution - nearly 100 years before Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862.

What I found interesting about the movie, apart from the history lesson, were the parallels drawn between the way Wilburforce and his crew were looked upon for trying to abolish the slave trade, and the way anyone who speaks out against the war in Iraq is looked upon today. Lines like “One can’t be seen opposing the king when the streets of Paris are running with blood,” and “When war comes, opposition will soon be called sedition" inarguably reflect Bush's America.

It was a good movie, but not a great one. You're with Wilburforce all the way, and want to see him come out on top, but how can you not? The moral deck is stacked in his favor.

3/5