Atonement Review

You just hate to see that happen.

You hate to see a movie with all of the ingredients to be really good (or at least all the ingredients to win a boat load of awards) mostly undermine itself by having a major plot point ring completely false.

Unfortunately, this happened for me with "Atonement"

The story begins in 1935 in an English mansion, where we meet the Briony Tallis (Saoirse Ronan), a 13-year-old fledgling writer with a vivid imagination, and her sister Cecilia (Keira Knightley). We also meet Robbie Turner, the educated son of the Tallis' housekeeper, who Briony has a crush on and is around the same age as Cecilia.

Obviously, I don't want to give too much of the story away, but what follows is a series of accidents and misunderstandings culminating in Briony wrongfully accusing Robbie of doing something horrific and, in the process, changing the three main characters' lives forever.

The movie then jumps (somewhat jarringly) five years to 1940, with Robbie as a soldier of the British Royal Army in France, desperately trying to get back to Cecilia (kinda like in "Cold Mountain").

It certainly seems shapes up like a classic love story where a great obstacle is overcome. So, one thing I did like was that the movie, based on Ian McEwan's novel of the same name, was interested being more than an exquisitely photographed big screen romance (which it is) and sought to explore deeper themes, such as forgiveness and redemption.

The only problem is that the major, life-altering plot point — Briony's accusation of Robbie — could easily be negated if any of the characters on screen exercised a shred of common sense. No one seemed interested in hearing Robbie's side of the story, the victim is hardly consulted, and there appears to be no evidence other than a little girl's word. Since when do people in movies believe what little kids have to say? Usually it's the other way around with kids telling the truth and no one listening to them. I mean, I'm not even COMPLETELY mad at the little girl for what she did — I'm mad at everyone else (except Cecilia) for blindly believing it.

I don't know how it went down in the book (and I don't care, since I'm reviewing the movie) and I get that Robbie is supposed to be poor, but up until his fateful day, he appears to be someone who is well thought of. Also, while, I don't have an intimate understanding of the British criminal justice system in the 1930s (I'll get right on that), the guy must've had the worst lawyer ever. And if he didn't have a lawyer, you would've thought he'd scratch for one since he was innocent. I'm not saying we needed a full-blown courtroom sequence, but just a minute or two of how he could possibly be sent away on such flimsy charges would be nice.

In "The Shawshank Redemption", for example, we get two minutes at the very beginning of how an innocent man can be sent to prison due to bad timing and worse luck, but in this movie, it's just generally accepted that the kindly groundskeeper is a criminal.

Needless to say, it took me right out of the movie — which is a shame because there's plenty to like.

The movie is basically presented in two acts — Act I in the English mansion, Act II set during the war. For me, the movie got off to a bit of a slow start. That's partly due to my confusion because I couldn't understand everything the actors were saying (especially Knightley).

But it's also due to director Joe Wright ("Pride and Prejudice") and screenwriter Christopher Hampton, who are mostly successful when they play around with shifting points of view. (Mostly, my confusion was probably due to me not being very smart.)

In fact, Wright does plenty to try to liven up what could otherwise become one of those stiff British costume dramas. I REALLY enjoyed Dario Marianelli's score (especially the typewriter-driven bits), as well as Wright's attempts to liven up certain scenes with fancy camerawork by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey, highlighted by an impressive (if slightly indulgent) four-and-a-half-minute tracking shot in a bombed-out beach in France.

The performances were solid all around, especially Ronan, an impressive and expressive young actress, Juno Temple, as Briony's visiting cousin, and McAvoy, who conveyed the charisma and passion necessary for the role. I just wish he'd had a little more chemistry with his love interest in the film. Knightley is ok (not really Oscar worthy, I think) — she looks like she's acting in a Chanel commercial too much of the time, and she was definitely better in "Pride and Prejudice", her previous collaboration with director Wright.

Better yet, the film has something a lot of other recent movies don't — a knockout of an ending. There's no way I'm going to spoil ANY of it for you, but I'll just say that Vanessa Redgrave — as an older version of Briony — is absolutely good enough to earn the Oscar buzz she's been getting, despite being on screen for about six minutes.

It just makes me wish the movie hadn't mostly sabotaged itself halfway through.

Atonement...B-