Wells to Nick J.: I haven't read the book, but the ending seems fairly meta to me....but let me read the book before saying anything more on this point.

I thought Wright's P&P was a nice surprise. Looking forward to this one.

Will McAvoy's nose garner Academy consideration?

Nick, perhaps I'm just being overly hopeful, but it seems to me that the film would almost HAVE to be faithful to the ending of this novel (for reasons obvious to those who have read the book) or otherwise there would be a pretty tremendous outcry from the book's fans (of which there are many). Now, having said that, I am curious as to just how the filmmakers pulled off an ending which to me almost seemed to "literary" to work in a cinematic setting.

Jeff--it sounds like it's faithful, then. Definitely read the book; it's at least as extraordinary as your description makes the film sound.

Mark--I agree, but as we all know in principle it's better to be pessimistic about the fidelity of adaptations... God knows what a hack determined to make this novel more "cinematic" could do to it.

"I'm sorry for having suspected that Variety's Derek Elley was perhaps being just a tad gung-ho-Britain in his Venice Film Festival review (he wasn't), I now feel that a piece I wrote two years ago about Knightley not having "it" is out of date (Atonement shows that she's found it and then some since, and without resorting to any of her old tricks) , and I'm sorry for having taken a cheap shot at McAvoy also. I've seen the light and am trying to make up as best I can."

Atonement indeed.

Contrition is a new look for Jeff, and I like it. Perhaps the recent humbling has served him well.

"However good Wright's new film may turn out to be, McAvoy is more or less "over" -- he had his fifteen minutes in '06, and the world has moved on.

I wrote Knightley off two years ago as an overpraised and under-talented actress who has that flirty thing down but lacks an essential inner aliveness, that river-of- feeling quality that all good actresses have."

Just wanted to put up there for the record.

Jeff, a piece of advice? It's okay to have opinions. It's okay to not like actors or actresses-- okay even to have a visceral hatred of them. It's okay to say "I'm scared of this film because the previews/script/vibes push the wrong buttons in me, and while I will see it because I'm a professional with a job to do, my early impressions are negative."

It's perfectly okay to do that. In fact, we'd expect nothing less from you, it's your style.

That said. . .

Hyperbole ain't just a city in India, Jeff. You may think an actor or actress is "over", but remember that they're only as over as their last bomb. Good actors and actresses get stuck in crap, bad actors and actresses luck out in good stuff, and sometimes, good actors and actresses luck out and catch a break that reveals something in them that was heretofore hidden, or more than likely, undeveloped.

Personally, I have never liked Knightley, and I've found McAvoy merely serviceable. This movie looks like the worst parts of the English Patient. I'm personally as scared of it as you were.

But I know better to pronounce bad ill on something like this without seeing it. This ain't Rob Zombie's Halloween, man. It deserves a chance, and I'm willing to give it one, and I'm very interested in it now precisely because you rave about it, Jeff.

Anyway, I'm just sayin'-- cool off on the hyperbole, it'll only help you as a writer.

Cheers,
Dave

Awesome to hear Jeff. I'm seeing it in a few weeks at the VIFF. Can't wait. :D

Hmmmm......can't wait! Sounds as if this is "THE ONE" to me or at least the kind of film that the academy falls fastly and completely in love with. Especially if it hits pay dirt with the older over 30 viewer. Yup, you can't have them giving their statues to another over the edge flick twice in a row. YIPPEE....

Way WAY too early about talking "the one." It could end up being one of the five but there is a long season ahead and anything can happen. This film is very likely going to peak too early, especially with write-ups like this. But we'll see.

I can only begin to imagine all the great reviews for this film that will mention The English Patient in an unflattering light. Too bad, as it's one of 2 or 3 deserving best picture winners in the last 25 years, and directed with more artistry than 99% of the fodder that shows up during the awards season. I wonder if people dislike this film objectively or because of Harvey Weinstein baggage.

Is anyone worried that the title "Atonement" is going to keep away a lot of mainstream viewers? This isn't a commonly used word, and I imagine it's one that the majority of our undereducated country doesn't know the meaning of.

Are people likely to see a film with a title they don't understand?

"Are people likely to see a film with a title they don't understand?"

Yeah, probably so. I don't remember the masses lining up to see Road to Perdition.

Wells to lazarus, Mark B.: Wait...people "don't understand" what "atonement" means? Jesus wept...you're serious? The magniicent education standards we have in this country has truly come home to roost.

Come on Wells, when do you ever hear people using that word? Jews might know of it more because Yom Kippur is considered the "day of atonement", but other than that...I don't know.

I wouldn't hold out much hope for De Palma's Redacted on the same basis.

Why way too early to talk "the one"? We all should know the type of thing the Academy tends to like or do we? If this is anything like Wells is describing and mindful of others who have gone gaga for this, I'm thinking it's exactly that. And this coming from someone (Wells) who totally kept finding every reason (some a little preposterous to me) not to like it.

Right well go ahead and think it if you want to. At worst you'll be wrong at the end of the year and in the grand scheme of things, that's not so bad right? I can think of a couple of good reasons off the top that it will have a hard time being "the one." Right at the top of the list is that it's a foreign story, British, without being particularly universal. The English Patient (with Harvey Weinstein pushing it) being one notable exception, though one could argue that it was a universal-enough story to fit. If Atonement is to win it will follow that track, sans Harvey.

Usually a tough sell for American-inclined (for best pic anyway) AMPAS voters, a la The Queen last year.

Atonement sounds like it's headed for a nomination, though. Everything else will have to fall flat and nothing else emerge for it to succeed. And now there is no surprise element attached to its win, which means it probably won't win.

PS, but you never know - Chariots of Fire was one that did surprise everyone and win and Atonement could be this year's Chariots of Fire I suppose.

Now this post brought a smile to my face. I'm proud of you, Jeff.

lib·er·al (lĭb'ər-əl, lĭb'rəl) adj.

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Jeff, how is Romola Garai?

I like how lazarus is now the go-to-guy for his encyclopedic, researched knowledge about what the American people know.

I think most Americans know the word "atonement". This is a very Christian country. They know it.

And the problem most Americans will have with this film sure as shit won't be the title - it's the fact that it appeals to "over-30 women". That's a death knell for just about every other demographic. Like Bill Maher, most American men (which is a demographic that doesn't include Jeffrey Wells) have natural aversions to things that "make women nod".

Hence all of the early leakage of Keira Knightley naked, in hopes of drawing all of that brain-challenged money demo to the table.

David Poland is lukewarm, with a sort of muted, underminey response that slaps the movie for its ambition; Wells is over-the-moon, & contrite about previously slamming the film sight unseen. The source material kills, an unbearably lovely book. I'm getting a really great feeling about this.

I loved the first 45 minutes but thought it went downhill fast when McAvoy went to France and hit a low with that Children of Men shot which was just pointless and belonged in a different movie. Shame as the first act was 10/10 stuff.

Bit unfair to leave out that it recovered in the final act - Redgrave was indeed very good.

So, judging from the photo, this movie is about W.C. Fields in WWI?

I heard the next James Bond movie is called "License Redacted."