William Chong

Director: Joe Wright. Producer: Tim Bevan. With James McAvoy, Saoirse Ronan, Ailidh Mackay, Keira Knightley.

Based on a 2001 novel by Ian McEwen, Atonement is very much a film about the power of the written word, allied with the impact of some beautifully presented cinematography.

Set in London in 1935, aspiring 13-year old writer Briony Tallis, through a series of misleading events, makes a decision that separates her sister Cecilia from her lover, named Robbie. The film then transitions into a moving war drama a la Saving Private Ryan, as the story follows Robbie’s conscription into the army. Retreating to the beaches in France and awaiting evacuation, we see some tough and realistic scenes of British soldiers involved in the famous Dunkirk evacuation. Cecilia and Briony end up working as hospital nurses for different reasons: Briony in particular seeks atonement for her childhood mistake that ultimately resulted in tragedy.

The most fascinating part of this movie would have been the wittiness of the film – the opening half-hour is a collection of mis-interpretations, half-truths and a near-sitcom like narrative (albeit set in pre-war England). The acting is impeccable, and Briony especially shines so much that one can almost see her fanciful imagination running riot in the story. The various changes of tone from whodunnit to war drama to psychological thriller seem intriguing, but the pay-off is that much sweeter once you realise their purpose.

The cinematography is masterfully crafted – one scene in particular sweeping across the war-torn beach in France tied around Robbie’s search for water, and showed various aspects of living conditions before the evacuation all in one take. This was shot beautifully and was my favourite scene. Another creative plot line showed Briony playing the fiction game in going along with a wounded Frenchman’s dying testimony – subtle plot details emerge and you realise his banter about having met her in France stems from a brain injury, and their conversation is (once again) a work of fiction.

The question the film poses tests the very nature of fiction – what is its purpose? Can a writer, in his or her mind, really change the past?

Anyways. Very clever, A.

I’d firstly like to say that I enjoyed the first two Spiderman movies. So I expected to watch a decent movie last night.

Now that I got that out of the way… I didn’t like Spiderman 3. Here’s a couple of standout points from the movie:

• a lot of plot points were explained by 30-second scenes.
• Peter Parker doesn’t go evil, he goes emo (no, they’re not the same).
• MJ (Kirsten Dunst) suddenly becomes frail and vulnerable in Spiderman 3. Yet again has to portray the “damsel-in-distress”. I know it’s a comic-book story, but please.
• Eyeliner on Toby Maguire. ‘Nuff said.
• Cliche. Cut and paste answers to conflicts.
• Though I’m glad they resolved Peter Parker’s inner conflict re: his uncle’s murder. That means there’ll be nothing to base another Spiderman movie off.

I’d say at least half of the story arose from very deus ex machina circumstances (e.g. James Franco becoming a good guy because his butler suddenly speaks up). Director Sam Raimi seemed to enjoy putting in action sequences, which were very polished.

One of the main things I was looking forward to was to see Toby Maguire actually act evil. In the story a symbiote (poorly explained plot point) binds to him and should’ve caused his character to be evil. However, all you got was a emo-haircut, cringe-worthy playboy antics and showing MJ up by playing on the piano. Perhaps it was intentional to make the point that nerdy people can’t turn evil… but then again, Raimi had the potential to really craft out a vicious side of Spiderman/Peter Parker. The end result was more comedy and cheese. I’m not sure whether it’s the script or the directing, but one/both of them definitely needed improving.

I’d rate the cringe-ness of some scenes to be nearly as bad as Legally Blonde 2, the Family Stone and anything from the Wayan Brothers. For a 2 1/2 hour film, there was a good 5 minutes of Peter Parker doing hip-thrusts in the streets of NYC; really long-winded sympathy-seeking expositions for the main villains; 10 minutes of “will-she, won’t she” scenes where a lot of time was wasted with shots of MJ looking out the window, Peter looking in, turning away, looking back and forth, etc etc; cheesy lines like “this pie tastes goooooood”. And a swinging Spiderman into his final battle suddenly does so past a huge American flag. Intense patriotism? ech.

Lots of things not up to scratch… so not very happy even though it cost $10 to watch it. Spiderman 3 would be about the same as Batman and Robin, in terms of depth and campiness. The first two were more concise and resonant.

Anyways. I appreciated other films more. C-.