VividSimon Simply Perfect

Crwthod A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

lavatch "On Chesil Beach" is primarily set in the year 1962. But by all indications, the action should really be taking place in 1862 at the height of the morally repressive era in Victorian England. In the guise of being a romance, the film develops the story of a young British couple, Florence Ponting and Edward Mayhew, who fall in love, but their relationship falls apart with a disastrous wedding night that culminates in a long conversation in the idyllic, pebbly setting of Chesil Beach. Again, the story sounds like that of a frustrated married couple out of a Henrik Ibsen play like "A Doll's House."In the bonus track of the DVD, there was a lengthy segment where the writer, director, producer, and actors attempted to offer a rationale for this strange film. Here is a digest of their remarks:(1) The leading actress described the film as being "about two lovers." That statement is difficult to understand, based on a relationship that was never consummated.(2) The screenwriter described the theme of the young couple "crossing the line" from "innocence" to "experience." With vague generalities, the writer was avoiding the main subject matter of the film: the frigidity of Florence Ponting.(3) The screenwriter made another unsubstantiated claim that the conflict between Flo and Edward was based on "emotional understanding running ahead of physical understanding." But if that were the case, it was difficult to believe that their "problem" was not identified much earlier in the lengthy period of courtship, as opposed to the single, shocking revelation on their wedding night. (4) The film was described as "a love story" and "a tragedy." But the break-up of the couple due to a case of frigidity was hardly the subject matter of a love story. The cringeworthy subject matter was closer to pathos than tragedy. One of the film's producers made the jaw-dropping observation that "many people will identify with the relationship of Edward and Florence." Without any support for her contention, the producer then went on to assert that the film is "universal" in its implications! (5) The filmmakers boasted of how the film reveals the "internal life" of the characters. But in the crucial scene where Florence meets with her local vicar, all we see is that she is bottled up emotionally. We never learn much of Flo's internal life until the climactic conversation on Chisel Beach. There might have been more empathy for Flo's character if she had opened up to the vicar with the truth.Contrary to the objective of the film artists, "On Chesil Beach" was not about "internal life," but about the suppression of that life.SPOILER ALERT: At the close of the film, we fast forward from 1962 to 1975 and finally to 2007. During this sequence, it is revealed that Flo married and had children with Charles Morrell, the male member of her string ensemble. But it is never explained how that relationship was successfully consummated or how Flo had changed over time from her disastrous experience with Edward. There is an inherent dishonesty in a film that makes a bold claim for universality, yet refuses to explain character development and how people change over time. Specifically, what happened to Flo between the wedding night at Chesil when she described her bedroom experience with Edward as "revolting" and the time when she evidently discovered conjugal bliss with Charles Morrell? Most assuredly, Edward Mayhew has to be wondering what happened behind closed doors between Florence Ponting and Charles Morrell that was different from his experience with Flo at the Chesil Beach hotel.

w-bogdan The movie doesn't do justice to the book, it's a more vulgar approach to the subject.

lyhendy A true love film including; love, lust, anguish and sadness.Superbly acted by all involved.

Nathan I was extremely put off by this movie.The writer/producer McEwan was able to get one of the most talented actresses of the day in Ronan and the director Dominic Cooke basically spent half the movie with the camera on her legs, in various stages of near undress, with a large portion of the movie fixated on filming an intimate scene in a hotel room to consummate her marriage to the awkward actor.The director also found it somehow relevant to film two nude scenes involving the main actor's mother which go nowhere in developing the story.I found the director to be quite cynical and formulaic in the way he went about his business.To me, this was a cheap skin flick masquerading as some type of coming-of-age film set in the early 60's. This is totally amateur-hour. I was tempted to walk out of the theater several times if not for my admiration for Ronan.They try to piece it all together in the end by fast-forwarding briefly to the 70's in a scene that makes little sense and then to the present day with a calculated ironic moment which is supposed to make the viewer emotional.However, that opportunity was lost when the director tried to make us believe that a woman would run out of a hotel room half naked yelling at her new husband after making love for the first time with him.Truly pathetic. I can't believe somebody put up millions of dollars to make this movie.What an insult.