Reviews & Ratings for
Enduring Love More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 9:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Index

87 reviews in total

---

59 out of 77 people found the following review useful:
Not easy viewing but interesting and engaging. Oh, and viewers calling it a 'Fatal Attraction rip off' are just missing the point, 4 December 2004
Author: bob the moo

Out in the country for a nice picnic, Joe and Claire get involved in a ballooning accident that leads to the death of one of the men who came to help. Joe seems to get over it but he does obsess over whether or not he could have done more. This obsession is fed when he begins being stalked by one of the men who was also involved in the accident – Jed, who appears to believe that Joe and him are close and belong together as a result of what they shared. As Jed continues to get close, Joe appears to be coming apart, putting a great deal of strain on his relationship with Claire.

When I went to see this film I had no idea whatsoever what it was about and the first four minutes of the film had as much of an impact on me as I'm told the start of the book did. With the accident (that is frighteningly convincing) the seeds are sown for a film that is about love, mental health and about a sort of Fatal Attraction vibe. I use the last description with reservations because I don't think this is comparable to Fatal Attraction because this has so much more to it than just the bunny boiler stuff. Instead the story mixes it with Joe's own sanity crumbling at the same time as Claire's 'enduring love' for him is put to the test. I have not read the book, but for my money the film did this pretty well, producing plenty of good dialogue that meant the film was more about the character of Joe than it was about Jed. This is not say it is totally perfect because it isn't; the fatal attraction thing easily takes the focus meaning that some parts of the audience may feel that this is the whole ball game and that all the 'talking' is what gets in the way. For me, I felt the other way, the fatal attraction thing weakened the film when it is the focus and, for this reason, I didn't like the extra ending during the credits because I felt that the open ending had done fine on its own.

The writing is good but the film relies very heavily on the performances and, luckily they are all good where they need to be. Craig is fast becoming someone who is headed for big things, not only does he have the body of a star but he can really act too. Here he is a convincing 'normal' person and his initial polite bemusement by Jed is realistic, as his gradual descent into instability himself. Morton may have less time but she is equally convincing and realistic in showing that love always has limits everywhere except in the movies. Ifans is good even though he has the roles of the religious fanatic, mentally ill, homosexual stalker to deal with. Whether or not it was wise to link all those aspects or not is one matter but Ifans still does well – never really resorting to showboating or easy 'mad man' stuff. I wasn't totally won over by him because Craig was my focus, but he still did well. Support from Nighy, Lynch etc is OK but really they are minor roles and not anywhere near the centre of the film.

Overall this is a strange film and anyone who dismisses it as being a rip off of Fatal Attraction has totally missed the point. Instead the film looks at love, at sanity and relationship all in a well-written script that is well delivered by a couple of very good actors in the lead roles. Not to everyone's tastes then and not the easiest one to really put into a nutshell but interesting, moving and satisfyingly lacking in gloss throughout.

---

40 out of 54 people found the following review useful:
"Gripping throughout with a great modern British cast.", 29 November 2004
Author: jamesraeburn2003 from Poole, Dorset

A freak balloon accident in the Oxfordshire countryside involving five men and a child results in the death of an Oxford GP. One of the men is a writer-teacher called Joe (Daniel Craig) who is obsessed with the fact that love may be a science and on top of that he is finding it hard to come to terms with what happened at the accident. This is causing tension between him and his sculptor girlfriend Claire (Samantha Morton) and the situation is worsened when he is contacted by one of the other men in the accident. The man is a loner called Jed (Rhys Ifans), a homosexual who believes that the accident was meant to bring him and Joe together and he begins stalking him wherever he goes with ultimately dangerous results.

ENDURING LOVE adapted from a novel by Ian McEwan is a long and complex thriller, but one that never fails to grip the audience with NOTTING HILL director Roger Michell skillfully blending the mixture of themes including Joe's obsessive theories about love (which are ultimately turned upside down), the impact of the stalking and how it affects the relationship between Claire and Joe and the latter's guilt about the accident. Michell is ably assisted by a first rate cast including Daniel Craig as Joe who was brilliant in this year's British gangster blockbuster LAYER CAKE and Rhys Ifans from NOTTING HILL is splendid as the gay stalker. Samantha Morton also deserves praise as Joe's lover and it is sad to know that ENDURING LOVE isn't likely to find an audience beyond the art-houses. It is well above the quality of some of the hopelessly pretentious offerings our country has turned out in recent years like TRAUMA and THE RATCATCHER.

---

33 out of 45 people found the following review useful:
Unusual, 9 May 2005

Author: Brandt Sponseller from New York City

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If I could sum up Enduring Love in a word, it would be "unusual". Not in the sense of "bizarre", but just very "unique"; it doesn't do many things the way a "normal" film does. The first highly unusual aspect is that it begins as a quirky "art-house drama" from which emerges a surreal, tragic event in the opening, and which gradually transforms into a thriller ala Brian De Palma, all while keeping one foot firmly planted in the art-house drama arena. If you know nothing of the plot beforehand (and that's the way I prefer to watch films, if possible), it's extremely difficult to predict where this one will go.

The focus of Enduring Love is Joe (Daniel Craig), a young professor who is courting a young sculptor, Claire (Samantha Morton). The opening images of the film are beautiful landscape shots of English farm country. Joe and Claire are about to enjoy a picnic when a hot air balloon comes almost "crashing" down in the field near them. A man is trying to stop the balloon by holding on to a rope attached to the basket. A young boy ends up in the basket alone. Joe runs to help, as do a number of other men who happen to be nearby. Just when they think they have the balloon under control, it takes off again, as if by a large gust of wind. They can't hold it down and everyone lets go except for a doctor who was driving by when he witnessed the beginnings of the incident. The boy is still in the basket, and the doctor hangs on until he's too high to let go. Eventually we see him fall to his death. Joe and Jed (Rhys Ifans) go to find the body, and Jed asks Joe to pray with him. Joe is uncomfortable with this, but finally acquiesces. After everyone's lives are getting back to "normal", Jed suddenly contacts Joe and says he needs to talk. He hints at Joe knowing what he wants to talk about, but won't say exactly what it is. Jed won't let up. Joe keeps running into him in odd places, day after day, but Jed won't just speak straight with him. What does Jed want, and what will Joe do about it?

Enduring Love is based on a novel by Ian McEwan, and many people have criticized the film for being "different than the book". I think that's a mistake (please see my "novel to film mini-rant", marked in bold red in my user profile). This is a fine film that should be judged on its own merits. It's not flawless in my opinion, but it commendable for its uniqueness, among many other assets.

Much of the film hinges on the mystery of what Jed wants, or what is "wrong" with Jed. One of the benefits of watching without any knowledge of the plot is that it opens up a wider field of possible answers for Jed. One of my favorite genres is "rubber reality" films, ala Mulholland Drive (2001), eXistenZ (1999) and so on. If you're acclimated to those films, there are strong intimations that maybe Jed is going to turn out to be Jesus, or a guardian angel, or the devil, or something similar, and metaphorically, perhaps he does turn out to be some of those things. On the one hand, it sometimes feels like substantial swaths of cryptic dialogue go on far too long in the film, but on the other hand, such dialogue is necessary to sustain a high level of suspense.

Director Roger Michell also keeps us somewhat in the dark about Joe. We can see that he's a professor of some sort, but it's not clear what he teaches. He could be a philosopher, a sociologist, a psychologist, or some other kind of scientist. We only know that he's written a book (naturally enough in the era of "publish or perish") and that he buys the basic tenets of sociobiology ala E.O. Wilson (Wilson is an entomologist often crediting with initiating sociobiology in his books, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, 1975, and On Human Nature, 1978). Scriptwriter Joe Penhall includes a lot of dialogue in the film, including Joe teaching, where he expresses a (somewhat naïve) sociobiological view of things like love and meaning. This is just one way that Michell sustains a subtext related to the title of the film. Other ways include the fact that most major characters are having some relationship problems, and of course the principal conflicts are related to the title. Joe can be somewhat cryptic in his emotional arcs--the point was probably to undermine the veracity of the sociobiological view. In any event, Craig does a great job with the character. Ifans is excellent, also, but that's to be expected.

Just as unusual as the plot is the cinematography. Director of photography Haris Zambarloukos provides consistently intriguing and varied visuals, from the expansive, bucolic landscape shots to an unusual, claustrophobic fish-eye with blurred edges sequence during one of the most crucial moments of the climax. The cinematography isn't usually "showy", but it is unusual nonetheless--you just have to pay more attention to it if you want to notice it.

I also loved Jeremy Sams' score, which had a Carter Burwell flavor. Sams is able to provide emotional momentum when the film otherwise cannot (see below), but it still perfectly fits the austere atmosphere. Like Burwell, Sams has a knack for unusual harmonies and disarming simplicity.

For me, the only real flaw to the film is that it is sometimes not very engaging. Perhaps it's ironically appropriate to the subtext/theme, but Michell often keeps the film a bit cold and aloof feeling. If Sams score wasn't in place during certain sections, they might feel almost leaden. But even with that flaw, Enduring Love is a good film, well worth watching if you're looking for something different.

---

49 out of 88 people found the following review useful:
Middle class people behaving unfeasibly, 27 April 2005

Author: sgreenan from United Kingdom

I am normally a fan of Ian McEwan's fiction, but have never got round to reading "Enduring Love", so came to this film with an open mind. It has its positive aspects: beautiful English countryside; quasi-Vaughan Williams soundtrack; some good cinematography, particularly in the excellent opening scene, which is by far the best part of the film. For the most part however it is a case of watching good actors wrestle with a dire script and an implausible plot. There are many weaknesses in the script, but the most obvious is its failure to give any of the characters any real sense of where they come from, what motivates them, and why they behave as they do. For example, Joe (the main character) is a university lecturer: I gather from what I've read about the film, that he is a science lecturer, but this is far from apparent from the short lecture sequences we see, in which he is seen talking about love, which he suggests is a matter of biology. He could be lecturing in English, sociology, psychology - there's no obvious scientific context to what he's saying. Although he was apparently about the propose to his partner, Clare, before the accident in the opening scene, there is some unspecified strain in their relationship which prevents her being at all supportive when his problems begin, but what this is remains completely obscure. There are numerous other glaring omissions of information. One of the most irritating things is the lack of any sense of timescale: it's not clear if the events take place over days, weeks or months.

Perhaps the plot worked better on the page. Joe witnesses a shocking balloon accident, following which he suffers nightmares and flashbacks, but neither he nor his partner nor his friends ever consider that he might be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and suggest counselling. They are all highly intelligent Guardian-reading types - surely one of them would have suggested he should get some help. He never sees Jed (the stalker) after the accident until Jed telephones him. But an unusual accident of this kind would undoubtedly be followed by an inquest at which evidence would be called: surely they would have met there? Joe becomes the victim of Jed's stalking, but never considers contacting the police, or seeing a solicitor. At one point, Jed is standing, late at night opposite Joe's house. He suggests that Clare look out of the window to see him: she just stays in bed. Even if she's is sceptical about Joe's tale of being stalked, surely she would have had a look?

Daniel Craig does his best with the part of Joe; Rhys Ifans is reasonably good as Jed (my experience (as a lawyer) of stalkers is that they not generally as obviously barmy as Jed, but that is the fault of the script, not the actor); there's a good performance in a minor role by Bill Nighy. Samantha Morton as Clare is quite shockingly poor: she delivers her lines in a stifled mutter and appears to have only two expressions - sullen and very sullen. Perhpas, with the lines she is given, you can hardly blame her.

Many years ago Ian McEwen wrote a play called "The Imitation Game" for the BBC. It was a subtle, thoughtful, sad and elegantly written piece about self-deceit and male attitudes to women. Twenty years later he is responsible (albeit with a co-author, the much praised playwright Joe Penhall) for this lazily-written film. In recent years he seems to have found a role as novelist to the middle classes - the message is: Look although we may appear to be comfortable and well-off, nasty things happen to us! People stalk us! We are menaced in the street by thugs (this is in his latest novel)! You shouldn't envy us - we really have a horrid time! Those of us who can remember his early novels and short stories (The Cement Garden, First Love, Last Rites) may feel that this is not progress.

---

21 out of 33 people found the following review useful:
Just misses out from being the sum of it's parts, 12 April 2005

Author: davideo-2 from United Kingdom

STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs

One day,novelist and science lecturer Joe (Daniel Craig) takes his girlfriend Claire (Samantha Morton) out for a picnic in the beautiful English countryside.He has an ulterior motive-he means to propose to her.But then,suddenly and completely without warning,their lives are changed irrevocably forever when a red hot air balloon falls from the sky and a desperate struggle ensues to save the people on board.A man is killed and Joe is plagued with feelings of guilt and failure for sometime after.After a while,he does his best to put the incident behind him and move on with his life.But there's one person for whom doing that obviously hasn't been so easy for-fellow rescuer Jed (Rhys Ifans) who begins obsessively following Joe everywhere,leading him down a nightmare path of fear and madness.

All of the cast do exceptionally well.Craig crafts a perfect portrayal of a retiring English gent desperately ill-at-ease with the troubling situation in front of him.This is the making of a promising new English talent we are seeing here,following on from his success in the lead role in Layer Cake.Ifans,usually a comedic actor (sometimes even in films where the tone is pretty serious),here successfully starts to broaden his range with an impressively unhinged portrayal of a man unable to let go and desperately trying to make sense of the demons burning inside him.Supporting players Morton and Bill Nighy are also very good back up to these two actors who are shining their socks off.

The film has an impressive use of the camera,with inventively flashy visuals here-and-there and still shots that skillfully add to the tension of the story.This is complimented with a clever use of soundtrack that further revs up the story some notches.

Sometimes the story doesn't come together that well,and the plotting goes a bit wavey.Also,some of the dialogue and delivery can't help but feel a little uninspiring.But for the most part,Brit director Roger Michell has crafted a film that hangs together very well and proves to be very intriguing,as well as further high-lighting some fine British talent that deserves to go much further.***

---

21 out of 35 people found the following review useful:
Not bad, had its moments, once again Daniel Craig is excellent, 10 January 2005

Author: tresdodge from London

A couple are about to open their Champagne and have a picnic in the beautiful Oxfordshire countryside when an out of control hot air balloon descends into their field, and, in so doing it perhaps disrupts or radically alters their lives forever.

After an extremely well shot and directed opening the film then never managed to live up to the expectations created by such a prolific beginning. The story became the study of the insane adoration of one man for another, as well as philosophical questions with regards to the nature of love and how we can understand this huge but largely overlooked phenomenon.

The acting by Daniel Craig was again impeccable, he really portrayed his part well of the University lecturer who becomes obsessed with being obsessed by, and is surely headed for the big time if he wants it. Samantha Morton was brilliant as Craig's artist girlfriend, but less convincing was Rhys Ifans who I can never really take seriously which was a problem with the character he played here.

The film techniques were impressive, the music was a little dramatic but good, and the editing was very well done. I did not mind the detached and at times hand held camera-work, it gave it a realistic and authentic quality. This was a strange but refreshing film that had great acting, an OK story and more or less maintained my attention throughout.

---

33 out of 59 people found the following review useful:
Second Impressions..., 13 September 2004

Author: jkownacki-1 (jkownacki@somethingtobedesired.com) from Pittsburgh, PA

(since antirealist already beat me to the first...)

Oddly, I happen to be the person who asked Michell why he chose to use a hand-held camera on Saturday, and his initial response ("Why not?") was a bit flippant, but at the same time, I'm guessing the filmmakers weren't intending to give anything other than glib answers to the puffball questions they were expecting. (When asked if they felt the film perpetuated the negative stereotype of the mentally ill being violent, director Michell dismissed the allegation out of hand before Rhys Ifans stepped in with a quick-hit one-liner about being "completely sane, but I'm feeling a bit violent about that question." That should do it for intelligent discourse at THIS Q&A, thank you...)

The camera-work is a bit distracting, not necessarily because it's hand-held but because the reason for it -- which Michell did say was to represent a first person POV -- is so obvious. In particular, there are a few scenes in which the camera sneaks around behind walls and windows to catch a better view of the characters that screams "you're being watched," which generally sums up my main concern about the film: it telegraphs almost everything.

For a psychological thriller, it isn't nearly as taut or unpredictable as it needs to be. It also lags notably between plot points, content to bleed off any steam it may have picked up from a previous scene. Part of this problem could be caused by the trailer's reliance on exposing nearly every twist in the film, and part of it could be on the film's overuse of "thriller music" that, in the cut I saw, nearly overpowered all five senses every time it appeared in the mix.

However, the acting is generally impressive, yet understated. Daniel Craig does a wonderful job at portraying the complexities of a rational man who comes unhinged in the aftermath of a bizarre accident and the resultant stalker he's burdened with. And there was at least one twist that made me jump, so all is not lost on the tension front.

Last thought: I was stunned by the film's equation of homosexuality, theology and mental illness. I'm not sure what exact conclusion it (or the book) is trying to come to, but I'm guessing the post-screening Q&A wasn't the place to bring it up...

---

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Fatal Attraction this certainly is NOT, 19 June 2005
Author: Harry T. Yung (harry_tk_yung@yahoo.com) from Hong Kong

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Let me take care of the plot in the most economical way and move on to explore what the movie (have not read the book) is really about. In a freak and traumatic accident, one of a few strangers trying to rescue a boy falls to a grotesque death while the boy ended up being unharmed. One of the survivors Jed, an obviously mentally disturbed character starts stalking another, Joseph, a professor, leading to a critical turning point of the latter's life.

Many, including professional critics, make the superficial association of this movie with Fatal Attraction. They cannot be more wrong. The movie is very little about the neurotic threat posed by Jed, and still less about homosexuality, despite the male kiss scene at the end. The focus of the movie is on the relationship between Joseph and his girlfriend Claire. Otherwise, why would you need an actress in the calibre of Samantha Morton. Jed the stalker is merely a catalyst, a tool – has to be, in view of the degree of transparency and predictability of this cliché of a character.

Much more for the attentive audience to chew on is the relationship between Joseph and Claire. Right from the opening picnic scene, we notice the awkward, somewhat impersonal relationship between the lovers who would have been living together for some time. During the candle light dinner with some other people right after the accident, Claire's care and concern is reciprocated with impatience and annoyance. Best however is the birthday dinner in which director Roger Michell ("Notting Hill") lets the silence and nuances do the talking. This has to be one of the best scenes on such situations, something that Hollywood will not (maybe cannot?) give you. I am reminded immediately of another British movie "Young Adam".

The use of silence if quite noticeable, especially in the first scene. Even when I had read about the plot and was anticipating the accident, I was quite shaken. On reflection, I realise that not the best crafted piece of music or top-notch sound effect can produce the sense of trauma the way this movie did, through silence.

With the title of "Enduring love" the movie challenges you to contemplate various meanings of the story and the sub-texts. There is first of all the battle with one's own sense of guilt, on the "who let go first" question. There is also the consuming jealousy of the dead man's wife that turned out to be a façade. There is of course the twisted obsession of Jed. The movie does not give an answer. The simplest love, between Joe and Claire, does not stand the trial and when Claire can stand far away enough to be able to sculpture Joes's face, we know it's over, even if she had not made it so obvious by announcing it.

Rhys Ifans deserves the praise he gets for portraying the neurotic-turned-psychopath, but such roles are usually easy for a capable actor. Much more difficult is Samantha Morton's, a normal person without eccentricities. She has to be right on with her emotions and timing to get the part just right. This reminds me of another nothing-to-sink-your-teeth-into character, played by Minnie Driver in "Owning Mahowny". Both are first class acting jobs. Daniel Craig who played the husband in "Sylvia" (a similar academic character) is generally praised and deservedly so. Although outwardly absolutely "normal", Joseph is, on one level, just as disturbed as Jed, fighting his own demons. The accident is just a catalyse exposing his fragility. Finally, while only in a minor support role, I really love seeing Bill Naughy, a versatile actor who never failed to give me pleasure to watch, from the flamboyant singer in "Love Actually", to the monstrous vampire in "Underworld", to most recently the engineer in "The Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy".

---

8 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Tough Unusual Love, 5 May 2008
Author: Chrysanthepop from Fraggle Rock

'Enduring Love' manages to be grip the viewers attention right from the very beginning. We are given some wonderful shots of the beautiful British landscape at the centre of which there is couple on a picnic. However a hot-air balloon appears to be on the loose and what follows is a terrible accident that effects their lives. 'Enduring Love' is visually impressive mostly due to the excellent cinematography and the background score contributing to the scenes. Penhall's writing is very good (sharp dialogues, unfolding events, well-defined characters) but in the middle it gets a bit slow-paced. The stalker subplot could have been done with less focus (that extra scene during the rolling credits wasn't necessary and the film may have been stronger without it) as it was working better as a movie about Joe and his fragile relationship with Claire. The movie is pretty much character driven and it heavily relies on the performances. Fortunately, this is where 'Enduring Love' scores high. Daniel Craig breathes into a role that seems made for him. He portrays Joe's guilt, confusion, patience and determination with amazing skill. Samantha Morton has less screen time but she is just as good while she gives a beautifully understated performance. Rhys Ifans springs a surprise in remarkably playing a homosexual stalker with Clerambault's syndrome. Bill Nighy and Susan Lynch are adequate in their tiny roles. For me 'Enduring Love' has been a strange movie watching experience but as I thought more about it, I grew to understand and appreciate it more. It does have its flaws as mentioned earlier but it's a good character study and visually interesting.

---

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
A thought-provoking and perfectly performed piece of work., 29 December 2007
Author: Graham Greene from United Kingdom

Having never read Ian McEwan's original novel from which this film is based, I can't rightly judge whether or not this was a successful adaptation. However, I can say that as a standalone work, Enduring Love is one of the more interesting films to be released within the last couple of years and, as a successful British film, is one to rank alongside other recent UK successes like Dead Man's Shoes and Vera Drake. Having watched the film a couple of times, I was left with the urge to go away and discover McEwan's original novel (as was the case when I saw the film adaptation of his other key-work, The Cement Garden), as the film, although highly interesting and emotionally engaging, certainly left me asking a lot of questions.

The opening scene really sets the mood and pace (and of course, the plot) for the rest of the film... not to mention standing as one of the most exciting, engaging and downright jaw-dropping moments of visceral, cinematic tension-building that I've seen in a long time. Here, director Roger Michell juxtaposes the lush greenery of the Oxfordshire countryside - with it's rolling hills and vast, ocean-like sky - with a billowing, blood red, hot-air-balloon, waving as dangerously as the frantic, hand-held cameras that capture the action. The editing is punchy and creates a rhythm that works towards heightening the confusion felt by the characters, as the quiet, countryside picnic of writer/professor Joe and his sculptress girlfriend Claire is disrupted by the sight of the balloon, and the appalling tragedy to come. As the story progresses, the couple try to put the event to the back of their minds and carry on as normal with their comfortable, bourgeois lives of luncheons, dinner-parties & work-related accolades, however, when another one of the witnesses to the event contacts Joe out of the blue, we see the beginnings of a bizarre and dangerous relationship that will push all three protagonists beyond the regular boundaries of reason.

Some have likened the film to something like Fatal Attraction, with the idea of obsession and guilt both featuring as central to both... however, for me, Enduring Love was much more of a treatise on the nature of love, and the whys and wherefores of such. For example, it is important to note that Joe is a professor who studies the nature of love, and the human qualities one would require to endure love, when, in reality, it is the unhinged and unwanted fellow witness Jed that really understands the true sense of blind obsession, so central to such feelings.

The style of the film manages to be both low-key and visually distinctive, with Michell employing a style similar to his previous film, The Mother, with hand-held cameras that offer a reality - but also, manage to convey the wavering uncertainty and voyeuristic intrusion so central to the plot - coupled with staccato editing, optical filters, rich composition and an extraordinary use of locations (all captured in glorious 2:35.1 widescreen). The performances are of an extremely high calibre as well, with Daniel Craig bringing a smug-pomposity, but also a vulnerability to his role of the logical professor pushed to an illogical limit, whilst Samantha Morton offers support as the bewildered Claire, who has to question Joe's mental stability as he begins obsessing about the accident and his newly acquired "friend". However, much more impressive, if only for the fact that he delivers a performance completely against every other role I've ever seen him attempt, is Rhys Ifans, who embodies the lonely and perhaps somewhat disturbed Jed with a quiet, contemplative spirit that goes against the kind of melodramatic, raving lunatics found in similar, Hollywood endeavours.

The interplay between the three characters is wonderfully handled by Michell, who paces the film deliberately, so that the relationships only becomes truly apparent over a gradual period of time. Now, this may infuriate some viewers who expect a much quicker film that gets straight to the point, but I for one admired the gradual build and felt that it made the relationship between Joe and Jed much more metaphysical (bringing up all kinds of questions about fragmented personalities, two-halves of the same soul, repressed guilt, angst, sexual frustration and schizophrenia), whilst also forcing us to question who is really insane? This is just one question that the film left me with as the credits began to roll, with Michell and screenwriter Joe Penhall leaving a lot of minor-details unresolved, thus, allowing the audience to fill in the blanks. Again, this may annoy some viewers... and I must admit, I myself was left scratching my head on a number of occasions (not least, the scene that takes place after the final credits), but having gone back and watched the film a second time you realise that so much of the emotional background and the character motivation is there in those great performances.

It's certainly a film that will leave you with something to think about, if not only the relationship between the characters, then certainly the rationality of them leading up to that tense, edge-of-the-seat final. For me, Enduring Love was a great film that kept me interested throughout and left me with a lot of questions that have been running through my mind over the last couple of weeks. I appreciate the fact that a lot of viewers seek some kind of emotional resolution from a film, but I feel that people who don't necessarily expect every single loose end to be neatly tucked away by the end credits - or those that enjoy thinking about both the characters and the story once the film has come to a close - will certainly enjoy and appreciate this.

---

---

Page 1 of 9:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Parents Guide
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user reviews	Your vote history