Atonement (2007)

[penfold]

Well, I finally got to see it today (Cheaper on Tuesdays) and I thought it was tremendous...Knightley was impressive, but McAvoy a revelation. If I tell you much about it I'd give the whole thing away, so I won't ....I'll just recommend it.
It's a pity Peter Jackson isn't apparently backing a Dambusters remake...McAvoy would be excellent casting as Gibson.

[orpheum]

Well given its very poor showing in cinemas you may as well give it away as it isnt going to be seen much longer.Seems that the great british public shares my view of this filmic disaster.

[midnight sheep]

I enjoyed the film but Keira Knightly, though beautiful, is scrawny and lacks star quality.The male lead was far more impressive in his, admittedly showier role..
I thought the long tracking sequence at Dunkirk was outstanding.The camera moves along slowly taking in all the action,(not a battle scene).If it was all one take it was amazing..

[Marky B]

The only reason why I would watch it is the scenes shot at Redcar,but it seems a waste of money to fork out for a fraction of the film time.
Ta Ta
Marky B

[orpheum]

the scenes at Dunkirk were a nonsense and complete waste of time not to say inaccurate.

[dylan]

Originally Posted by orpheum the scenes at Dunkirk were a nonsense and complete waste of time not to say inaccurate.

This only makes sense given the ending - no spoilers here. I half guessed what was coming in the scene with the French soldier in the hospital when nothing he says seems to make sense. Although it was manipulative, I found the film entertaining.

D.

[Mr Dean]

Originally Posted by orpheum Well given its very poor showing in cinemas you may as well give it away as it isnt going to be seen much longer.Seems that the great british public shares my view of this filmic disaster.

Sorry, Orpheum you are completely wrong about 'the very poor showing' for Atonement in cinemas. Its second week on the box office chart showed only a 16% fall on the previous week. This is the mark of box office winners, with word of mouth bringing in new audiences (probably older audiences). It isn't a mainstream film, although it has been distributed as one, so I think that the nearly $9 million at the box office so far is probably a sign of success.

I was impressed with Joe Wright's direction and the cinematography by Seamus McGarvey. The visuals are superb and so is the sound design. This is a film to see in the cinema on the largest screen possible. I assume that Wright decided against CinemaScope in order to keep a 1930s feel. The performances are generally very good, although I agree with the view that somebody should feed Keira Knightley. She is a beautiful young woman with qualities the camera loves, but she doesn't have much 'body' in every sense of that term. Still, compared to Pirates, this was a great improvement.

The real problem with the film is, for me, McEwan's story. I was moved by everything filmic but rather distanced by most of the narrative ideas. Wright and Hampton have produced something which reminds me at times of expressionist films of the 1920s and perhaps also French cinema of the 1930s in odd ways. I assume that it is the old Regent Cinema at Redcar in which we see a clip from Marcel Carné's Le Quai des brumes? Overall. it is not meant to be a realist representation of the war, so I don't think the 'inaccuracies' matter. In many ways the Dunkirk sequence reminded me of Oh! What a Lovely War.

[orpheum]

I beg to differ.In its first weekend it managed £1.65 well behind Run Fatboy.Given that the |UK is one of the biggest foreign markets for the US then its hopes of netting $90million are non existant.So by every calculator this film is a flop.

[Mr Dean]

Originally Posted by orpheum I beg to differ.In its first weekend it managed £1.65 well behind Run Fatboy.Given that the |UK is one of the biggest foreign markets for the US then its hopes of netting $90million are non existant.So by every calculator this film is a flop.

Only a fool would claim to be able to predict the exact box office results for any film and I'm not going to do that. I'm simply relating what the charts show. Any film that has a second week drop of less than 40% is already showing signs of a long stay in cinemas. Next week might show I am wrong.

I'm not sure where your $90 million comes from. The only budget figures I can find suggest a production budget of $30-35 million plus a relatively large P&A spend. On that basis Atonement needs around $70-80 million worldwide to provide a good chance of profit in the DVD and PPV markets. These days it takes forever before anyone sees any profits, but I should think that Working Title are awaiting the North American release with at least some confidence. Pride and Prejudice, the previous Joe Wright film with Keira Knightley is listed as making $121 million worldwide against a production budget of $28 million on The Numbers.

[bertie]

This is obviously a film which provokes wide ranging opinions. Although I have not read the book I saw the film in the Cinema and was very impressed with it. I was particularly interested in the earlier comments about the Dunkirk images having some comparison with 'Oh What a Lovely War' and I think I would agree with that. But to criticise this depiction is, I think, to miss the point. Surely it was to give an impression and a background to the story. Whether others were looking for something more realistic I don't know, but even the original Dunkirk film (1958) - excellent though it was - could not recreate this momentous event as anyone who has seen newsreel film will know.

It has also divided the critics. The Independent critic seemed to like it while the Sunday Times clearly didn't.

However, as an impressive piece of cinema it should be applauded.

[orpheum]

Originally Posted by Mr Dean Only a fool would claim to be able to predict the exact box office results for any film and I'm not going to do that. I'm simply relating what the charts show. Any film that has a second week drop of less than 40% is already showing signs of a long stay in cinemas. Next week might show I am wrong. I'm not sure where your $90 million comes from. The only budget figures I can find suggest a production budget of $30-35 million plus a relatively large P&A spend. On that basis Atonement needs around $70-80 million worldwide to provide a good chance of profit in the DVD and PPV markets. These days it takes forever before anyone sees any profits, but I should think that Working Title are awaiting the North American release with at least some confidence. Pride and Prejudice, the previous Joe Wright film with Keira Knightley is listed as making $121 million worldwide against a production budget of $28 million on The Numbers.

In order to return a profit to the actual producers a film has to net around 2 3/4 its production costs.If you find this difficult to accept by all means check with any trade association.Remember only 1 in 10 films ever makes a profit.I will be interested to see what happens in the US market.I am sceptical that it will do well.As for the Dunkirk scenes i take exception to what i see as a gross distortion of events.

[Mr Dean]

Originally Posted by orpheum In order to return a profit to the actual producers a film has to net around 2 3/4 its production costs.If you find this difficult to accept by all means check with any trade association.Remember only 1 in 10 films ever makes a profit.I will be interested to see what happens in the US market.

I don't disagree at all. Those are the figures I use as well, but there have been two major changes over the last ten years. The international market is now bigger than North America and profits are generally made from the DVD release. So, a poor showing in the US can be balanced by success in other markets. The whole question of who actually gets the money, and, in particular, who gets the first cut, is another matter altogether, but just in terms of overall income being greater than expenditure, I suspect that the 1 in 10 is slightly better now given the secondary markets.

[penfold]

Originally Posted by orpheum .As for the Dunkirk scenes i take exception to what i see as a gross distortion of events.

SPOILER ALERT


Isn't that the point?? The film is about the unreliability of witnesses...and in particular the varying testimony of the girl/novelist, both in the 30's and in the present....we are seeing the events not of history but of her autobiographical novel, and she specifically says she had to rely on other witnesses and her imagination for scenes she did not herself witness...like Dunkirk. We are watching her version of Dunkirk, not necessarily the real one....and as is revealed in her interview, she can't help tinkering with reality to suit her own selfish purpose....now, as she had in the 30's.

[colonel32]

Not a patch on the book, and the ending is rather mangled, but otherwise I thought they did a pretty good job.

[thirdlady]

I'm hoping to see it one day!

I've not see it yet