Page 1 of 1
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:37 pm
by Hustler
I found Ronan´s work so magic, so mysterious. Am I the one and only who thinks that way?
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:59 am
by flipp525
--Big Magilla wrote:A secondary problem was the way the Briony character was presented. In the first act she's a confused adolescent who does something bad out of her confusion, but she is not really a bad person. It's all really much ado about nothing. The Go-Between did basically the same thing better 37 years ago.
You should probably read the book. The character of Briony is one of the most well-etched characters in all of post-2000 literature and her intentions, while diverse in their origins and tempered by an adolescent immaturity, are carefully thought out in the first section of the novel. As time and the character both progress throughout the rest of the novel, Briony's sense of purpose, both thematically and inwardly to the character herself, is very clear.
The comparison to The Go-Between is sort of facile to me; it reduces the plot of McEwan's story to a series of episodes in order to make sense.
Besides the obvious themes of guilt, morality and, to a certain extent, the de-mystification of sexuality during adolescene, at the end of the day, Atonement is really about the act of writing and the idea that one revises history the second he/she puts it down on paper.
Edited By OscarGuy on 1260394146
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:56 pm
by Big Magilla
My problem with it was the lack of transition between the three acts. There was indication that the McAvoy and Knightley characters were pining away for each other while apart from the first to second act. Then there was all taht time - about 60 years - that elapses between the second and third acts with no real indication of what happened in all that time.
A secondary problem was the way the Briony character was presented. In the first act she's a confused adolescent who does something bad out of her confusion, but she is not really a bad person. It's all really much ado about nothing. The Go-Between did basically the same thing better 37 years ago.
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 11:41 am
by rudeboy
--Okri wrote:Wow. My biggest complaint about the film is that it moved too fast (particularly the first act). The whole thing could've been about 30 minutes longer, and the film likely would've improved a lot more.
Maybe it was a mood thing... at the cinema the first act flew by for me, while at home it seemed never to get going...
Edited By OscarGuy on 1260394153
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 10:57 am
by Okri
Wow. My biggest complaint about the film is that it moved too fast (particularly the first act). The whole thing could've been about 30 minutes longer, and the film likely would've improved a lot more.
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:08 am
by rudeboy
I watched Atonement again on DVD and was a little disappointed. Much of it moved at a snail's pace, the cinematography seemed muddy and unimaginative and it felt a lot longer than the little over two hours it was, and the score was more overbearing than I remembered. Still, the performances hold up very well indeed, not least Ronan. But Romola Garai impressed me most, and she deserved the nomination.
Still haven't seen Gone Baby Gone (the Madeleine McCann disappearence has held up release until April), American Gangster (not interested - althouth Dee's entire performance is on Youtube) or I'm Not There - but Ronan did not deserve an oscar nod ahead of the wonderful Keener.
Edited By rudeboy on 1203329360
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:27 am
by Hustler
Out of question. Ruby Dee´s inclusion didn´t allow to recognize a better performance by Keener.
Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:26 am
by Akash
Kenner deserved a nomination over Dee, Ronan and Swinton. That being said, none of these are horrible and is already a huge 180 degree improvement over last year where Jennifer Hudson's undeserving win was mitigated by the realization of how awful her fellow nominees were as well. Last year there was no safe place to rest your vote. This year, you feel bad just having to choose one!
But anyway I went with Ronan. Though I'll take her over that annoying child last year.
Edited By Akash on 1201699639
Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:50 pm
by Steph2
There's no "worst" inclusion here, Sabin is right. For once, both supporting categories are full of deserving performances. But for leaving out Catherine Keener, I'm going to have to vote for one of these and yup, it's Ruby Dee. Not because she's bad but because the others are so much better.
Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:39 pm
by flipp525
Sabin wrote:Ruby Dee's performance is basically one good scene but it's a great one.
Agreed. Here's da Slap.
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:58 pm
by Sabin
No correct answer. Ruby Dee's performance is basically one good scene but it's a great one. Tilda Swinton has been far better in the past but she certainly takes a role somebody else would've stunk up and did little wonders.
Null vote.
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:32 pm
by OscarGuy
Which film do you think was the worst film included in for this category.