Notable structural problems

Rating: 7/10 (28 January 2008)

Very mild spoilers in this review.
This was sadly another movie that was lesser than the sum of its parts. I really loved the cinematography. I actually really liked all the scenes too. But the story as a whole didn't work, because of the ending.
It's the "but it was all a dream" ending again. Just one scene was a "dream" (i.e. fiction) of course, but a very important scene. I can't figure out why screenwriters think it works to trick the audience into thinking that one thing happens, and then yank the mat out from under them and say, "But that's not really what happened after all!" It's like the old Briony said, it wouldn't be a very good story if it had been told straight like it happened (i.e. showing what really happened to the two lovers and then ended it). The same applies to this movie, which means that the story, the "real" story, in itself is not a strong one. But it certainly didn't turn into a better story by adding a scene as a deceit and having the old Briony explain what it all meant in the end. This movie really showed me how incredibly difficult it is to write a good *story*.
Just to clarify, I don't mind dream sequences (or even fictitious scenes as told by a character) in movies if it fits with the tone, and the audience either knows it's a dream or isn't entirely sure. But don't use it in a movie where every other scene has shown reality and the tone doesn't begin to suggest that this scene wouldn't also be real. In Atonement it's clearly meant to deceive the audience into thinking it was real. In what world is that a clever or poetic trick to use? Well I guess it's "clever," in a calculating way.
Better to show a fictitious scene from Briony's book (and say that that's what it is) *after* we have seen what really happened. But that would be a totally different movie and the scene would have to be totally different. And I don't think it would have helped the story of what really happened; it still wouldn't have worked to show it straight before we get to the fiction.
I get that Atonement is about writing; maybe that's the problem. It's about writing all right, but at the expense of everything else: since the characters aren't real anymore (in certain key scenes), they're actually *characters*; their misery or sadness ultimately doesn't matter. It's all a conceit. There is a right way of doing it though; The comic book The Sandman was about storytelling without sacrificing the characters or any of the other themes.
Atonement still gets a 7, because many things about it were incredibly well done. I think it could've been a 10 if the story had worked.