I am usually a sucker for British period dramas. I am a romance fool. I love to love/hate really well-developed villains. I love a sentimental story that rips my guts out. I love all the usual tropes that fill these types of dramas (enemies-to-lovers, some event keeps lovers apart, etc.), and sometimes the right ending is not the glowing, happy one, but this movie didn't deliver any of those things with satisfaction.
I appreciate artsy academy-bait films when they deliver all that is promised. I hate them when they are artsy for the sake of being artsy or edgy. That just makes them pretentious. This is probably the most overrated film I have ever seen.
Here are my top issues: 1. Costumes: gorgeous but historically inaccurate. It felt like they blurred the style lines between WW1 and WW2 on purpose. You've got Edwardian-dressed nurses in WW2 and a modern bias-cut 30's throwback dress that would have gotten you arrested in the actual 30's. Don't filmmakers know the type of dorks who enjoy period pieces will know better?
2. Keira Knightley: gorgeous but historically inaccurate. She is Modern Gorgeous, but she is not a Classic Beauty. She would have been straight-up body-shamed in all the eras of every period drama she has acted in. The men of that era would not have found her build appealing. Why do they keep trying to pass her off as the female archetype for eras that would have dismissed her as underfed and yes, ugly. They can't even make her look historically "right" with the hair and make-up. And don't think I'm a KK hater. I adore her and think she's stunning--just not right for costume roles. Don't filmmakers know the type of dorks who enjoy costume dramas will know better?
3. War scenes: gorgeous but historically inaccurate. Many examples have been given in other reviews. Don't filmmakers know the type of dorks who enjoy war movies will know better? And also, the barrage of scenes of McAvoy tromping through various settings to really get the point across that war sucks and to remind us his life was ruined and he shouldn't have been in those circumstances, etc., were totally unnecessary and tedious. Reminded me of that Peanuts cartoon special where Snoopy's Red Baron plane got shot down and he had to make his way back to Charlie Brown through all kinds of different settings and backdrops, and you're 8 and like, "OMG is Snoopy going to make it home?" Literally, could have been taken from the same storyboard, only you don't care if McAvoy makes it home.
4. Pacing: good God, this made me angry. There's scenes that replay themselves immediately right after we just saw it, as when the younger sister walks in on . We're supposed to be seeing this through Brionny's "fanciful" perception but when it's replayed, it's exactly the same with no nuance or other person's differing perception, like with The Last Duel.
5. Chemistry: I saw zero reason why the two main characters would be so in love it would endure through a scandal and years of separation. Cecelia seemed to be more into her brother than Robby, based on their flirty scenes. Don't filmmakers know the type of dorks who enjoy romance will know better?
6. Disappointing Twist #1: Were we supposed to seriously not be able to guess the rapist was Benedict Cumberbatch? They didn't show his face as if it was supposed to be some mystery but there was clear foreshadowing that he was a perv and making designs on the redhead girl. Also, that sure was a garbage investigation. They must have known that since they didn't show hardly any of it or the prosecution. None of the other men were considered and interrogated? Don't filmmakers know the type of dorks who enjoy crime dramas will know better?
7. Disappointing Twist #2: So half the trash you made us sit through didn't even happen and was just the product of Old Brionny's writing? This is not a twist, it's a lie.
8. "Atonement": I don't think that means what you think it does. No atonement can be made when the injured parties are already dead.
9. Brionny: I hated her as a kid. I hated her as an adult. The writers couldn't even keep her story straight. She later blames what happened on not understanding what she saw, but we knew the whole time she clearly lied. Good villains have at least one thing that makes them sympathetic or redeemable or ambiguous. I think they tried to make her ambiguous with the whole WAS IT A CHILD'S MISUNDERSTANDING OR IS SHE JUST A MANIPULATIVE LIAR? But they failed.
10. Consequences: Remember when the old movie censorship codes required people who did something wrong to face consequences on screen? Not here. The liar who ruined people's lives is free to die at an old age, presumably after becoming a successful writer. And the rapist? He gets to marry his victim (we assume, unless Old Brionny made that up too). We suffer from bad people not being punished in real life every day. We want some satisfactory resolution in our movies to have hope.
So yeah, I'd say this was an ambitious movie that tried a fresh, edgy take on old tropes but would have been better off embracing them. I don't see how everyone loved this movie, but after seeing all the glowing reviews for Sanditon, which is clearly a trash retake on old tropes and fails under the weight of modern sensibilities, I am not surprised.
I appreciate artsy academy-bait films when they deliver all that is promised. I hate them when they are artsy for the sake of being artsy or edgy. That just makes them pretentious. This is probably the most overrated film I have ever seen.
Here are my top issues: 1. Costumes: gorgeous but historically inaccurate. It felt like they blurred the style lines between WW1 and WW2 on purpose. You've got Edwardian-dressed nurses in WW2 and a modern bias-cut 30's throwback dress that would have gotten you arrested in the actual 30's. Don't filmmakers know the type of dorks who enjoy period pieces will know better?
2. Keira Knightley: gorgeous but historically inaccurate. She is Modern Gorgeous, but she is not a Classic Beauty. She would have been straight-up body-shamed in all the eras of every period drama she has acted in. The men of that era would not have found her build appealing. Why do they keep trying to pass her off as the female archetype for eras that would have dismissed her as underfed and yes, ugly. They can't even make her look historically "right" with the hair and make-up. And don't think I'm a KK hater. I adore her and think she's stunning--just not right for costume roles. Don't filmmakers know the type of dorks who enjoy costume dramas will know better?
3. War scenes: gorgeous but historically inaccurate. Many examples have been given in other reviews. Don't filmmakers know the type of dorks who enjoy war movies will know better? And also, the barrage of scenes of McAvoy tromping through various settings to really get the point across that war sucks and to remind us his life was ruined and he shouldn't have been in those circumstances, etc., were totally unnecessary and tedious. Reminded me of that Peanuts cartoon special where Snoopy's Red Baron plane got shot down and he had to make his way back to Charlie Brown through all kinds of different settings and backdrops, and you're 8 and like, "OMG is Snoopy going to make it home?" Literally, could have been taken from the same storyboard, only you don't care if McAvoy makes it home.
4. Pacing: good God, this made me angry. There's scenes that replay themselves immediately right after we just saw it, as when the younger sister walks in on . We're supposed to be seeing this through Brionny's "fanciful" perception but when it's replayed, it's exactly the same with no nuance or other person's differing perception, like with The Last Duel.
5. Chemistry: I saw zero reason why the two main characters would be so in love it would endure through a scandal and years of separation. Cecelia seemed to be more into her brother than Robby, based on their flirty scenes. Don't filmmakers know the type of dorks who enjoy romance will know better?
6. Disappointing Twist #1: Were we supposed to seriously not be able to guess the rapist was Benedict Cumberbatch? They didn't show his face as if it was supposed to be some mystery but there was clear foreshadowing that he was a perv and making designs on the redhead girl. Also, that sure was a garbage investigation. They must have known that since they didn't show hardly any of it or the prosecution. None of the other men were considered and interrogated? Don't filmmakers know the type of dorks who enjoy crime dramas will know better?
7. Disappointing Twist #2: So half the trash you made us sit through didn't even happen and was just the product of Old Brionny's writing? This is not a twist, it's a lie.
8. "Atonement": I don't think that means what you think it does. No atonement can be made when the injured parties are already dead.
9. Brionny: I hated her as a kid. I hated her as an adult. The writers couldn't even keep her story straight. She later blames what happened on not understanding what she saw, but we knew the whole time she clearly lied. Good villains have at least one thing that makes them sympathetic or redeemable or ambiguous. I think they tried to make her ambiguous with the whole WAS IT A CHILD'S MISUNDERSTANDING OR IS SHE JUST A MANIPULATIVE LIAR? But they failed.
10. Consequences: Remember when the old movie censorship codes required people who did something wrong to face consequences on screen? Not here. The liar who ruined people's lives is free to die at an old age, presumably after becoming a successful writer. And the rapist? He gets to marry his victim (we assume, unless Old Brionny made that up too). We suffer from bad people not being punished in real life every day. We want some satisfactory resolution in our movies to have hope.
So yeah, I'd say this was an ambitious movie that tried a fresh, edgy take on old tropes but would have been better off embracing them. I don't see how everyone loved this movie, but after seeing all the glowing reviews for Sanditon, which is clearly a trash retake on old tropes and fails under the weight of modern sensibilities, I am not surprised.
Tell Your Friends