The New York Post's review of Atonement calls it
the most achingly romantic movie since "Titanic"
Now I'm afraid to see it without a blood glucose monitor and Wilfred Brimley.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I wouldn't call it romantic. I saw it in a preview screening and I think a better description would be heartbreakingly sad.
All the reviews have indicated they stuck pretty close to the book on this, so I wouldn't think it would be at all like the uber-sappy Titanic. Heartbreakingly sad just about covers it. I could barely read the last ten pages because I was crying so hard.
This is a movie where there is absolutely no chance, no way, no prayer that it can be as good as the book. The NY Post just helped me to decide against seeing it...ever.
It just can't be a shovel-the-schmaltz-fest, even if it's not any good-- which I suspect it won't be, because it's a very booky book. The things that make it seem suitable for adaptation (ooh, we can shoot in fancy English estates!) are very far from what makes the book interesting. But, no, however bitter the taste Atonement leaves in your mouth, it's not the bitterness of Titanic's artificial sweetener overdose.
Megan,
I can't see how anyone who's read the book would be worried about that.
The WSJ's Pulitzer-winning reviewer Joe Morgenstern gave the film an excellent review, by the way. I'm looking forward to seeing it.
Finally, there are some good (maybe great) movies out in theaters (this, and the "Golden Compass" come to mind).
I seem to have arrived late to the party, but let me offer:
Don't worry, saccharine doesn't raise your blood glucose.