Finally managed to see 'Atonement' on DVD last night.
I really liked it.
I thought, if one viewed it as a three act story (four acts, really I think). Then the first act was blindingly good but the second act lagged quite heavily.
That first act set up a series of small events with devastating consequences which were beautifully observed by the screenwriter Christopher Hampton.
(God, I remember Les Liasons Dangereuses in London years ago... wow!).
It was also brilliantly presented to the screen in terms of design and photography.
The second act was realised in similarly blinding fashion.
It contains what must be one of the most impressive single sequences we hae ever seen, where the soldiers gather at Dunkirk.
Didn't the story largely go away in Act 2? And didn't it stay away for just a bit too long?
One can argue that this war-torn diversion served to set up a gripping-third-act return to the story and I can't disagree - I wouldn't have known how to do it differently myself. But the film damn near left me stranded in Dunkirk. And that would have been a shame, given how very very good the overall effect is.
And, because this is intended to be an earnest comment about a very good film. I just won't get into Keira Knightley coming up out of that fountain in her little semi-trasparent pink shift.
Damn, I got into it there for a moment, didn't I?