Far from Perfect, Far from Terrible

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

The opening scene of this film alone makes it worth watching - a stunningly photographed piece that sets the tone of domestic horror that will give the film its dramatic impetus. Like the serenely drifting balloon that belies the tragedy to come, the cinematography drives the film calmly yet compellingly towards its brutal climax.This is a film that has the courage of its conviction in terms of narrative pacing - there are some stiflingly slow scenes that never feel the need to speed up, instead taking pleasure in winding our nerves ever tighter round the characters' distressing situations.Daniel Craig arguably has more presence in this film with only a pair of spectacles than he would ever come to have whilst hidden behind bulging muscles and snappy cars as James Bond. Rhys Ifans works best in roles where he has the opportunity to have more of a tongue-in-cheek attitude to the character he is playing. Watching him in this film without any sense of his cutting irony, therefore, is unfortunately a slightly bland experience. At some moments, however, he does manage to display the kind of pitiable yet violent behaviour required for the role.This film's star turn is down to the people behind the character. Unfortunately, the best moments of the film are in the first five minutes - the film always struggles to live up to these chillingly enchanting opening moments.James Gill (Twitter @jg8608)

Without getting into supreme spoilers, Enduring Love opens so well and exhilaratingly I doubted if the movie could live up to it's superb beginning subsequently. The disappointing answer is - it didn't - not quite. There's a bit of stale air in the derangement and lost sanity of the main character. (spoiler) This is in no small part thanks to a clichéd stalker-esquire mood that grows tiresome. Why cant the main character simply goto the police and report the weirdo? Guess that must be too logical. Some of the better parts of the movie though involve the dialog and how it examines love and/or how the main character looks at it vs. his tormentor, lover, and class. Daniel Craig is an excellent actor and holds the picture together pretty well. The acting of the support is satisfactory. At the conclusion, you may feel a bit disappointed, but you can help wipe that away by recalling the first 15 min of the film - that alone makes the movie more than average fare.

The film starts on a hillside where a couple begin to have a picnic, but it quickly turns into a nightmare as a hot air balloon sails past, clearly in trouble. Despite the efforts of Joe, the protagonist, and others in the area, a man dies. This begins to affect Joe badly, especially as it seems that one of those who tried to help with the balloon, Jed, has now developed an obsession with Joe. All in all, problems are piling up! Well, to be quite honest, particularly in comparison with Atonement which did the novel perfect justice, this film completely ruined the book. What was subtle and ambiguous, has here the subtlety of a man smashing up another man's dingy flat. It all just worked so much better when Jed was a well-off liberal, rather than a man who seems tantamount to being a vagrant, when Claire was a poetry enthusiast, when the audience was actually left in doubt, like Claire, about the state of Joe's mental health. Here, it is virtually impossible to sympathise with Claire: isn't it obvious that Jed is following Joe around, singing 'God only knows'? That poor man: what is he still doing with someone who so clearly does not understand him! When reading the pages, I flew smoothly through the pages, feeling shocked, anticipating, interested, while the film just left me feeling vaguely sick. To say that it made for difficult watching is an understatement. I never want to see it again. In fact, I have taped over it. I could easily, however, read the book again.

In contrast to the comments Tresdodge's featured on these pages, I found Enduring Love compelling viewing. I saw it at the cinema and was blown away; subsequent viewings on DVD have continued to move me. While The Lawyer finds the lack of detail, background and explanation frustrating, it seemed to me a perfect study of miscommunication between adults, especially the well-educated, and a comment on the pretensions creative types have for apparent perceptiveness in others; Samantha Morton's character is the most prone to misread her partner's behaviour, and an up and coming artist, no less.Surrounding Craig's scientifically-minded character are similarly well-read arty north Londoners all either completely oblivious to Joe's distress or the cause of it, preferring a rather British 'take no notice' view of Jed's stalking, which I found entirely believable. Jed's protestations of love in the Tate Modern was a classic example to me of the irony present throughout the film: a man declares his love in an art gallery, a hallowed place where fierce emotion is channelled into high art. But he is merely rendered a nuisance and shooed away. How very English! The film is remarkable for what it does not discuss openly; the lingering silences and awkward pauses as Joe's mind starts to unravel at dinner parties illustrate how ill-at-ease these Guardian-reading, latte-drinking middle classes are discussing unpleasant aspects of life in general. Which is a cliché but not altogether untrue. No, there isn't apparently an inquest, nor any police involvement, but it's not a documentary, it's a study of how people react the fallout of a violent event; it brings to mind Peter Weir's Fearless (1993), which examined the extent to which people withdraw when coping with severe stress. A rational mind such as Tresdodge's would perhaps enjoy Joe's sessions with a counsellor but the point is Joe's identity is fundamentally in crisis here; he is unable to explain Jed's attentions, nor Mr Logan's motivations for hanging onto the balloon, nor his perverse sense of guilt that he could somehow have stopped the whole thing from happening. What good is science in the face of such overwhelmingly human behaviour? To put Tresdodge's mind at rest, I read the book after seeing the film and didn't find much in the way of explanation there, either, except more elaboration on Joe's rigid belief there is a rational explanation for everything. Which would also explain the tension between Joe and Claire, who as an artist is presumably of the opposite view. On the surface, Claire has more in common with Jed's character; while obviously disturbed, Jed wholly embraces his emotions, regardless of how inappropriate they are.The score and cinematography is as integral to the success of the film as the script, which I found perfectly satisfactory, although Tresdodge is right when he says the opening sequence of the ballooning accident is the best moment of the film. The tension begins right there, before the balloon has even appeared, as you can see a proposal is about to take place, and it never leaves the screen. This film is complex and uncomfortable to watch, but deeply satisfying; I get something new out of it every time. Even the title can be read in two ways - think about it.