Dave Calhoun resumed us the history like "The first hour of ‘Atonement’ is an electric experience" . It's the best defination that I have read. I feel the same sensation, but not only in the first hour, I feel it all the movie."An epic, grandiose and inmensely sad film" Is other definition that I like it."It's an extremetly well crafted" say the same person, still writting that the actor who interprets Robbie is the same actor who interprets a character in "The last king of Scotland" the film has two parts, the first, a romance in England between Cecilia and Robbie and the second, a horror of the Second World War, the last part of this critique speak about the great, huge, best escene of the movie, It features a mesmerizing tracking shot set on Dunkirk (France) beach, which contains thousands of extras and small touches of CGI (no doubt) to enhance the effect. The script has a few too many holes to keep the plot afloat Im not agreement with this critique because I think that this person is not an "expert" about movies, this is the worst critique that I have read.
"Like Joe Wright’s other films, this movie looks great" a lot of goods critiques are written about Joe Wright in my opinion there critiques are justificated, Joe Wright has constructed a moving, portrait of love through war.
Finally I would like to comment the critique that it surprised more than other critiques.
"Focused solidly on character and theme, "Atonement's" strength is also its weakness. It's dealing with very tricky subject matter, like trying to grasp smoke, and it slips and slides through Wright and screenwriter Christopher Hampton's ("Dangerous Liaisons") fingers. Is atonement even possible, the film wonders, or is it merely a different perception of reality, a mask to cover up inevitable guilt? These are hard questions, and "Atonement" the film is not always up to fully engaging them. "
This critique (written by Joshua Starnes) speaks about the character and theme, Atonement strenght is also it's weakness.
