Personally, I liked the film - found the wartime scenes to be overblown and melodramatic, but of course, it turns out that was the point.
What I found really interesting was, after seeing the film, reading
this article on the AV Club website comparing the book with the film. Both the film and the book are clearly about the idea of misinterpretation of another person's actions, and it wasn't until I read the article that I learned that I had myself misinterpreted Briony's pivotal actons. I thought that she had been jealous of her sister and upset with Robbie after discovering the two of them together, and that her accusation was a deliberate lie made out of anger. But apparently, in the book it is clearly stated that she believes Robbie is attacking her sister in the library, and when she states that it was Robbie, she actually believes she is telling the truth. Which is interesting.
Also interesting - the writer of that article seems to believe that the incident between Paul and Lola really was a rape, where I thought, at least from the movie, that it was consensual sex (albeit with an underage girl, so statutory rape, but certainly not forced intercourse). I thought this was why she never corrected Briony's accusation (having been caught having sex, better to go with the "I was raped" story than admit to what she had actually done. This then was borne out in the wedding - if it was rape, why would she marry the guy? And why did she have such trouble looking Briony n the face).
In any case, I really liked the film, and reading that article really made it clear that, while the film is as close to the book as you could realistically film, the two really are wildly different. Which interests me. I might have to seek out the book.
