Customer Reviews

Enduring Love (Widescreen Edition)

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Whenever I've heard anyone discuss "Enduring Love," or read a review of it, there's always a vivid description of the first scene involved. And, usually there's mention of how the film was a letdown - not 100% of the time, of course, but often enough to take note. And people don't just say, "I didn't like this movie." - plain and simple. They use the words "letdown," and "disappointment," as if they had been expecting so much more. I read Ian McEwan's excellent novel, upon which the movie was based, and was certainly curious to see what one of my favorite directors, Roger Michell, ("Persuasion"), had done to bring the literary work to life. I so hate being one of the crowd....but:

It's a warm, windy summer day. There's a sunny meadow, surrounded by hedgerows - all green and earth tones. A couple, Joe, (Daniel Craig), and his girlfriend, Claire (Samantha Morton), are on a picnic. As he opens a bottle of "posh" champagne, she stares over his shoulder as a beautiful red-colored helium balloon floats by, low to the ground. Then there's a shout and it seems as if the balloon is out of control, tilting oddly, dragging. The beauty of the bright red contrasted against the pastoral greens and browns is suddenly gone. One feels jarred. Joe and Claire rush toward the balloon, as do four other men who seem to come from nowhere - laborers from nearby fields, people in a passing car. The men grab on to the balloon. The pilot catches his foot and hangs from the line. The only passenger, a boy, is too afraid to release the cord or jump out. The wind picks-up and the balloon ascends, the men still holding on. As it rises, all the men let go, all but one. He manages to hang on until it's too late to drop safely.

In the span of those few moments everything changes for Joe. The accident plagues him. It has become a terrible intrusion into his once happy existence. Filled with guilt and remorse, thinking that a life could have been saved if he had somehow acted otherwise, his behavior and perceptions become distorted. He sketches hot air balloons, cuts out photos of them, blow up small balloons for models. Enough already!! Joe doesn't understand what is happening to himself and refuses to seek help for post-traumatic stress, as live-in lover Claire suggests. His long-term relationship with her begins to deteriorate. And, oddly, one of the men who tried to help that day, one of the four strangers who attempted to weight down the red balloon, contacts Joe. Scruffy-looking Jed Parry, (Rhys Ifans), attaches himself to Joe and begins to demonstrate extremely obsessive behavior. Jed believes everything happens for a reason. He thinks the entire purpose of the balloon accident was for Joe and him to meet - that they're soul mates - connected in some deep, inevitable way. Is this a sexual attraction? Is Jed a religious zealot? He wanted to pray with Joe after the after the incident.

Whatever else he might be, Jed is a stalker. On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the level of Glenn Close's character in "Fatal Attraction," Jed is a perfect 10! He writes to Joe; shows up in his classroom; watches from the park across from Joe's and Claire's flat on sunny days and in downpours. At first Joe appears enraged, then sympathetic, but the psychology behind whatever is happening is obscure. What does Jed want? How far will he go to get it? And why in heaven's name doesn't Joe do something about it?? What does Joe want - what are his fantasies? Call the police, Joe?? Take a long vacation to Australia, New Zealand or Chile with Claire. How engaged is Joe in this warped relationship? It is never made clear. That's a problem.

I think the movie's initial scene is mentioned so frequently because it is so visually striking, and emotionally charged - really outstanding and unsettling. Unfortunately, the film, like the balloon, goes off course after that brief glimpse of brilliance. Director Michell promises so much in the first few minutes and does not deliver. The actors are outstanding. I must give them credit for making the most of what they were given. So, why does the film never live up to its potential? There's too much ambiguity. You need to read the book to understand what's going on in the movie. Isn't it usually the other way around? Jed's repetitive activity, along with Joe's repetitive passivity, are boring. And Joe's failure to act, even his seeming lack of clarity of purpose during a most critical scene at the end, is the film's failure.

At one point in "Enduring Love," Jed, a real madman, bangs his head against a wall repeatedly. That's exactly how I felt at that same moment, as a viewer. It would have been so easy to stop - just turn off the DVD player. But I kept waiting for some redeeming factor, something enlightening to happen to make sense of it all. Never happened. And the denouement came with a whimper, not a bang. There is no way I can recommend this film, in all honesty - unless you rent it for the first scene and fast forward to some other moments of pertinence before clicking off the remote. Sad.
JANA

Riding in a hot air balloon is completely different than all other forms of air transport, jets, helicopters, even props. Your view of the ground below is hypnotizing - it looks like a map - there's virtually no sound at all, and they're very stable. But what you notice most is the pace, hot air balloons move at such a lazy clip it's as though time itself is limitless. The entire effect is incredibly soothing.

The deliberate crawl of Enduring Love takes its cue from ballooning, as the ballooning tragedy that begins it defines what will happen. Joe, the protagonist, (played with convincing angst by Daniel Craig), is a professor who has embraced a profoundly nihilistic world view. In Jed, (brilliantly realized by Rhys Ifans), he must confront the totally other, something that falls well outside of his ability to impose rationality on the world.

As Jed throws himself into Joe's life with increasing passion, (for reasons none of us truly understand, including Jed), Joe's house of cards begins to fall. (Great to see Bill Nighy as Robin, one of Joe's friends, he is about as consistently good as an actor can be. Samantha Morton plays Joe's paramour with compelling feeling, her understated approach works much better here than it did in Code 46.) That Jed is not merely weird, but quite mad, only becomes evident incrementally. In this gradual process of revelation, Joe's own madness is forced to the surface.

Roger Michell directed Enduring Love with tremendous confidence; we drift into the inevitable conflict almost without noticing the scenery passing by. This restraint has a wonderful way of building tension and making it possible for us to care about Joe who, truth be told, is not the most charming bloke in town. But his sense of claustrophobia and mounting tension make us worry about him at least, if not root for him. The film is also admirable in its refusal to provide glib, saccharine answers to the thorny questions it asks. Bad title, excellent movie.

This is what you find in Roger Michell's `Enduring Love', filmed adaptation of Booker Prize winner Ian McEwan. 1), excellent acting from Daniel Craig (going to be the next James Bond). 2) The film's brilliantly constructed opening sequence. But you need to stop questioning about so many plot holes and incomprehensible and illogical behaviors from the protagonist, Joe, an academic living with a girlfriend.

After being involved in a suddne and terrible accident (of what, you may not believe, but it's a big balloon) which happened in the beautiful suburb of Oxford, Joe (Daniel Craig), university professor, starts to think about the possibility that something could have been done by him. While his girlfriend, sculptor Claire (Samantha Morton), perhaps rightly, thinks that Joe is thinking too much about his `guilt,' a stranger Joe met at the accident scene suddenly calls him.

He is Jed (Rhys Ifans), to whom the accident is more than an accident. To Jed, it is a divine power that made the two of them meet each other. With a fixed idea that gets clearer to Joe and us as the story goes on, Joe, now alienated from Claire, is driven to the edge of madness ... or is this madness after all?

Now, here is a simple question. You find a guy, who keeps showing up wherever you go; who stands outside your house even in the rain; who says something unsettling. And you have a kind, understanding friend by your side, and that friend happens to be Samantha Morton. What would you do? Listen to the guy? Or call the police? Simple question, isn't it?

Very slick editing and clever use of color notwithstanding, we are only puzzled, being unable to accept the logics of the story. We know too well that it is Joe who makes things complicated, doing what a normal person would not do. Even his sympathetic friends (played by Bill Nighy and Susan Lynch, both good) fail to persuade him to do what he should do, then, so what can we do?

To keep watching the mental journey of Joe is not without intriguing moments, thanks to Daniel Craig's credible acting. I am ready to admit that his acting talent is considerable. But the problem is his character. He doesn't seem to realize long enough the motive of this weird stranger, which is too obvious to us, and I couldn't understand why Joe misses every opportunity to do the right thing while he can continue making elaborate theories about love and relation. If Roger Michell and the filmmakers think that audiences can relate to the tormented teacher, they are utterly mistaken. On book, characters can keep thinking on and on in their brain, using words, words, words, even exchanging words and doing illogical discussions with imaginary friends. On film, they look either silly or boring. Or both, like this film.

If I remember correctly, similar things happened in `The Comfort of Strangers' which is also based on another McEwan novel. Probably you see the film in a different way, but I couldn't finally bring myself to share the viewpoint of Joe, despite the superb acting of all the players, good images, and first-rate editing. `Enduring Love' is not a bad film; only it's a bad thriller, or a decent film with a bad thriller format. And the ending is ... well, I know it's coming.

Watching this film is a bit like driving slowly past an accident and as disturbing as it is to see the destruction, you can't turn away. As everyone else has said, the opening scene is exciting and pulls you into the story. The acting is first rate, but the storyline meanders with several subplots concerning the man who died, the family he left behind and whether or not he was with someone who fled the scene when he died. The viewer may be left wondering, what really happened? This film reminds me of the original version of the film Blowup, with its trick of the eye mystery.
The synopsis says that the character who later becomes the stalker was the pilot of the air balloon, but if that was true, then what was his relationship with the boy in the balloon's basket? And why didn't Joe, who spent countless hours visiting the wife of the dead man and researching the causes of obsession, try to get information from the boy?
In spite of an uneven plot and an ending that still leaves one wondering exactly what happened, the movie is unique and worth viewing.

A sunlit summer day in a verdant English park. A man, a woman, a blanket on the grass, a bottle of champagne.

Director Roger Michell's "Enduring Love" begins with these props. The cozy setup and even cozier title together recall the final shot of Michell's romantic comedy "Notting Hill." An unsuspecting viewer -- that is, anyone who does not know this film is based on a haunting novel by the keen and bracingly unsentimental writer Ian McEwan -- might settle in for more of the same.

But before the man even can pop the champagne cork, "Enduring Love" abruptly changes its tune, going from light to dark in a jarring, dissonant moment.

A red hot-air balloon appears in the distance, hurtling along the ground. A man on the outside of the basket desperately hangs on. A boy inside the basket, alone, cries.

The man with the champagne sees it and runs to help; so do several other men. They catch the balloon, but a strong wind gusts, lifting the balloon and all of the men into the air. As it rises, the men lose their grip on the ropes and drop to the ground, one by one. But one man hangs on, and on, until he finally loses his grip and drops, too high now to survive the fall.

This stunning opening scene sets up the plot of "Enduring Love" and also offers a sustaining metaphor for its themes. How long do we hang on to love? Past the point where a rational person would let go? Is love ever rational?

And, of course, what is love? Joe (Daniel Craig), the man with the champagne, asks his university students this question, but he already has his own anti-romantic answer. He thinks love might be just a trick of evolution to spur reproduction. And life? "Life is a meaningless Darwinian existence," he says, "but humans struggle to give it meaning."

It can't be much fun to be this guy's girlfriend, and Claire (the incandescent Samantha Morton) has an even harder time after the balloon incident. The guilt-ridden Joe becomes obsessed with it, turning the events over and over, wondering if he was the first to let go.

The balloon obsession turns into something weirder, and more dangerous, when one of the other men who let go that day turns up at his house. Jed (Rhys Ifans), the sort of unhinged religious zealot cartoonists draw carrying a sign reading "The End Is Near," has developed a spiritual-sexual fixation on Joe. He thinks they're in love and that Joe just cannot admit it to himself.

As Jed's creepy stalking intensifies, and Joe's life with Claire unravels, Michell ramps up the suspense, leading to a full-blown thriller finale. Like the opening, it's a stunner -- and even more so when you realize that Michell and the excellent cast have taken a dense, interior novel of ideas and made it into a cracking, edge-of-your-seat movie.

To truly appreciate this movie, I think, is to see it as largely metaphorical. Those critics who dismissed it as typical--and not very interesting--stalker fare have completely missed the boat, and I daresay are not observant or imaginitive enough to be good at their jobs. For the central question the film poses reflects the double meaning in the title: Can real, emotional love be enduring, or is it merely something to be endured? Is love a cruel trick of basic animal biology, as unreliable and enexpected as a sudden gust of wind? What happens to us if we hang on too long (we risk destroying ourselves), or if we let go too soon (we are consumed by guilt, fantasy, and what-ifs)?

Jed and Joe meet as strangers when they both attempt to rescue a boy in a runaway hot air balloon, an attempt that results in the death of another would-be rescuer. Joe is plagued by survivor's guilt and clearly could use a good therapist. Jed, on the other hand, could use a whole TEAM of aggressive therapists. He quickly latches onto Joe quite obsessively, and lays out his theory to him: they were destined to meet and be together. Joe cannot handle this any more than he can handle his own self-doubt and hypocrisy. Is Joe just a nihilist and Jed a hopeless romantic?

I think the filmmakers want us to see a bigger picture, here. Joe is a college humanities professor who lectures on the folly--as he sees it--of basic human morals and ethics. Jed seems guided simply by his gut and his belief that everything happens for a reason. Perhaps inevitably, there is a final, violent confrontation between the two men (which, again, many critics dismissed as sloppily predictable) but to me it raises even more interesting questions about the nature of obsession, love, and the ways these nagging questions manifest themselves in our psyches and actions.

First off, I haven't read the book. Several of the reviews here seem to compare the two, but I can't offer that perspective, but if you're just looking for an opinion on the film, then I can help.

"Enduring Love" is a psychological thriller about a man being stalked. The novel aspect is that he is being stalked by another man, despite the fact that he is living with a woman. The two meet each other at the beginning of the film when they both witness a man dying in a ballooning accident.

I enjoyed the film. I personally always like Samantha Morton, though her role is small and toothless in this movie. Daniel Craig, the new Bond, does a great job of playing the victim, an intellectual type who's more accustomed to thinking about life as opposed to living it. The cinematography here is excellent, especially in the opening scene. The colors seem to explode off the screen. Like most everyone else, I think the film loses momentum after the beginning and it seems like the story falls short of conveying the actual mental state of the characters, but the movie is short and seems to move along quickly. The top-notch acting and direction makes up for lackluster dialog.

I promise, my review won't (ruin the plot) of this unexpected movie.

I saw this movie about a week ago and still find myself thinking about it. The characters are three dimensional and the plot is unexpected. A sign of a good movie is one where it isn't easy to categorize it into a genre. If I had to characterize this movie, I would say that it is deeply psychological, interested in the characters' inner worlds, theories, emotions, relationships. When watching this movie, it's easy to see parts where the writers, actors, and director could have taken the easy path and made a boring movie that I've already seen before. Instead, the relationships in the movie have real depth. A very original film with great performances.

Those unfamiliar with Daniel Craig prior to his brawny beefcake turn as 007 are in for a bit of a shock; like Daniel Day-Lewis, Mr. Craig molds his persona to suit each individual role and is unafraid to make extreme changes in his physical appearance to convey character. Here he plays Joe, a mild-mannered professor, whose placid domestic life with his girlfriend is disrupted by witnessing a freak accident. Joe's marriage proposal is ruined when a hot-air balloon comes crashing into the field where he's picnicking with his girlfriend, causing a tragic death and setting in motion a bizarre chain of events. Another man at the scene attempting to render aid becomes fixated on Joe and morphs into that most tenacious of creatures: the romantically-obsessed stalker. In the aftermath of the accident, as Joe struggles with guilt over having not helped enough and the unwelcome attentions of his new admirer, his formerly happy life rapidly unravels. Rhys Ifans, best known as Hugh Grant's slovenly roommate in "Notting Hill" plays the stalker, using his storklike frame and unconventional looks to chilling effect. Craig displays yet more of his multifaceted acting chops in a performance more delicate and human-sized than Bond. An unsettling little film you won't easily forget, but another solid entry in the Craig canon that proves Mr. Craig is the most nuanced actor to ever fill 007's shoes.

A hapless existentialist and random stalker make for the loony bin. The acting is decent, but as the mystery unravels, it becomes clear the plot was as poorly conceived as any other stalker movie (e.g. Scream II). The main character, the professor (the new Bond), never does what you want him to do, making him predictably annoying. The unwieldy camera effects and cliche or alternatively random dialogue do not help make the movie any more convincing.