Enduring Love (2004) User Reviews

Just misses out from being the sum of it's parts

[wellthatswhatithinkanyway · 7/10 · 12 April 2005]

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.***

Not bad, had its moments, once again Daniel Craig is excellent

[tresdodge · 7/10 · 10 January 2005]

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.

Second Impressions...

[jkownacki-1 · 5/10 · 13 September 2004]

(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...

Not easy viewing but interesting and engaging. Oh, and viewers calling it a 'Fatal Attraction rip off' are just missing the point

[bob the moo · 4 December 2004]

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.

Was this film about Joe's incapacity for love?

[rowmorg · 7/10 · 30 July 2009]

I saw the Jed figure as existing in Joe's imagination, welling up from his unconscious mind to haunt him. Yes, Jed was at the triggering event but he haunts Joe without reference to anyone else, and challenges him on the most difficult subject for many English intellectuals: love for thy neighbour. Joe dismisses love publicly in his lectures and privately to friends: according to him it's just "biology". Naturally, this conviction makes him unaware of insulting his live-in lover. He is trapped inside his inability to love. Jed's professed love makes Joe extremely uncomfortable, and he uses all sorts of evasions to escape it. This passage of the film, roughly the first half, was rivetingly significant to me. It is dealing with a central English issue. As the plot developed and Jed emerged from the shadows into Joe's life I thought the film lost its way a little. Joe never confronted his inability to love, and Claire left him. The symbolic representation of this disaster was brilliantly theatrical, but raised some difficult issues of plot resolution that were uncertainly handled. To call this picture a stalker film is like saying Hamlet is about mental health: the more you see the stalker and the less a haunting, the less the film will entertain and challenge you.

A singular experience. it will stay with you.

[GiraffeDoor · 7/10 · 4 October 2019]

I'm rather fascinated in any movie with Craig before he became Bond. I wonder if he somewhat wasted in that role sometimes.

I read the book and this was still a very fresh experience that tells its story for more efficiently than the book but no less subtly for the most part.

A mysterious and nuanced picture that keeps a lot of its cards close to its chest as we explore a very masculine search for meaning and significance in our lives as a few are disrupted by a random tragedy.

The elements might have an obvious unity, but that makes it an even more intriguing experience, not a "drama" as we're used to using the term and not quite a thriller either even if it wobbles precariously on the border, watching the rational mind succumb to the bizarity around him in a haunting fashion.

Always visually interesting; a sensuous adventure that is a treat for the senses as much as it stimulates us intellectually, made even more hypnotic for its rich score wavering from the lyrical to post-tonal eeriness. I watch a lot of horror, but the feather touch here strikes a raw nerve as effectively as I could hope for from one of the them.

This is indeed a creepy movie, not just for its not-all-there antagonist but for wordless questions it brings to mind and how the things we use to bring a sense of sense and order into our lives can be disrupted.

There is a lot of waxing philosophical which one might like though at times it does seem like a narration substitute and an excuse to not tell us the story visually.

I feel the essence of the novel has indeed been captured though the stylistic tone is admirably its own. The material story is even told more efficiently and there is a more powerful sense of motivation.

Bold and uncompromising. It will simply not be a lot of people's cup of tea but it does what it tries to do with intelligence and panache. One truly feels grown up watching it but not in a pretentious way.

Where's The Rabbit?

[gurghi-2 · 7/10 · 5 May 2005]

Notwithstanding its popularity, just how bad a match for "Notting Hill" was Roger Michell? "Changing Lanes" was about as substantial as a studio thriller can be; somebody ought to give this guy at a good, commercial chiller that isn't masquerading as anything else. He'd knock it out of the park. The opening sequence and the climax of "Enduring Love" are startlingly effective, and held me in rapt attention as no two scenes in any film the past year. If "Enduring Love" finally proves less than the sum of its parts, well at least there was some math involved.

No doubt Ian McEwan's novel provides the film with what depth it has; the ideas aren't original (Daniel Craig's professor is the kind of talking-head that should exasperate anyone) but their intersections are provocative. How much stress can we take, just how tenuous are our ties?

At its core it is no more than a stalker movie with art-house pretensions, but at least the trials of the main character are less a result of his own transgressions (unlike the the all-time champion in the genre, "Fatal Attraction," which can be boiled down to, Don't commit adultery!). "Enduring Love" demonstrates just how fragile our relationships can be, and how useless rationality is in the face of obsession, or even genuine affection. That its outcome seems inevitable only increases the tension.

In movies today, Rhys Ifans practically has a patent on a certain brand of loser. This one's got an actual (albeit rare) disorder to blame, not that the movie stops (or bothers) to explain that for us— or to differentiate, as it does for marriage and infatuation, between fanaticism and faith: it's the part Mr. Ifans was born-again to play!

Most unfortunate are the Psycho-esquire score and the coda, which is a head-scratcher: is there going to be a sequel? I don't think so.

The Beach Boys' "God Only Knows" will never sound the same. Of course, that only goes to show that you can ruin any pop song by putting it in the mouth of a movie psycho.

Enduring Pretension

[tigerfish50 · 1/10 · 21 June 2014]

On the brink of a marriage proposal as they picnic in a country meadow, a college professor and his girlfriend are blind-sided when an out-of-control hot air balloon drops from the sky with a terrified young boy in its basket. Strangers arrive from nowhere to grab hold of the tethering ropes, but a gust of wind lifts the balloon back into the air. Everybody lets go - except for one man who plunges to his death shortly afterward.

From this melodramatic beginning, 'Enduring Love' quickly descends into a quagmire. The professor's romance begins to show signs of strain as he agonizes over his role in the accident, and one of the strangers from the field starts to stalk him. Characters converse in an artificially obscure manner, shout at one another and walk about in pouring rain to demonstrate their inner conflict. An intrusive soundtrack, glib camera techniques and jumpy editing provide more annoyance until another melodramatic episode resolves the stalker issue. Several years later, some of the characters return to the meadow to discuss how past events have affected their lives - while most viewers will reflect how a pretentious director and screenwriter have wasted 100 minutes of their time on such specious nonsense.

Unusual

[BrandtSponseller · 8/10 · 9 May 2005]

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.

Nowhere near as good as the novel.

[maxcobain · 6/10 · 6 January 2014]

Having massively enjoyed Ian McEwan's original, I decided to watch the film adaptation, and was thoroughly disappointed. Roger Michell's decision to leave out two of the best scenes in the book, and to largely alter the ending, left me feeling cheated. Parry's assassination attempt on Joe's life in the novel is hugely important in building suspense to the final scene, and Joe's purchase of a gun injected some humour into an otherwise very bleak plot. Missing these two scenes, and curtailing perhaps the most important scene, the balloon accident, which takes up over a chapter in the novel, to a matter of minutes, made some of the later incidents unbelievable, as it did not seem convincing that Joe would be so traumatised by something portrayed as being so fleeting. While some of the acting (Rhys Ifans) redeemed the film to an extent, it still remained unsatisfying. To anyone who did not enjoy the film, I would still recommend that they read the novel, as it is hugely enjoyable, very well written, and most importantly, a very different experience from the film.

Middle class people behaving unfeasibly

[sgreenan · 3/10 · 27 April 2005]

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.

Psychological thriller and important issue

[robertemerald · 8/10 · 25 April 2019]

Enduring Love is complex psychologically, and treads grounds that attempt to expose the nature of post traumatic experience, and the important issue of obsession. There's a cruel irony here, as one man's obsession upon another man, an almost incomprehensible assault that must have its true source in mental illness (rather than the tragedy that binds these characters), in turn tragically becomes an obsession for the victim, as he struggles in vain to understand this unwanted attention in a most British and gentlemanly way. It exposes to a great extent just how vulnerable social conventions can be in the way Englishmen interact with each other. I found it interesting that this nightmare may have been mitigated had the victim's de facto/bed partner (another aspect of the swirling psychologies) been just a tad more supportive. Is that the feminine side of Englishness? Grow a backbone, you find the solution, you're the man? This is the sort of movie that Uni students could write papers on and discuss for hours. It was engrossing, to be sure, but I'm an Australian and thus docked it a couple of points for being infuriating. Part of the soundtrack has a beautiful classical, pastoral melody. Other parts, those of tightened tension, are more severe. I wondered if two composers were employed for this. At its core this movie has a huge heart, is a showcase for wonderful actors, is high quality, and surely must have been one of the best and most interesting movies of its year.

Deeply irritating through unfeasible motivations

[raygirvan-86231 · 3/10 · 12 March 2015]

I don't suppose it's a spoiler to say that the main character acquires a stalker; this is the crucial point of the film, and of my impressions of it. The scenario is interesting: the explosion of consequences on a group of dysfunctional Londoners' lives after their involvement in a ballooning accident. But the development of the plot depends on continually unfeasible choices of actions. Nobody seems to have heard of stalker fans. Nobody except the immediate victim, Joe, seems much bothered about it, or even inclined to believe Joe about it. Joe takes none of the obvious steps for dealing with the situation - asking shop staff to remove the person pestering him, solicitor, police, restraining order - or even the dramatically likely outcome of thumping the guy and letting the situation come out in court. The film would probably make sense in a universe where a stalker was an unheard-of phenomenon. But on Planet Earth, it just doesn't work.

"Gripping throughout with a great modern British cast."

[jamesraeburn2003 · 29 November 2004]

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.

Different, And In A Good Way

[socrates4 · 7/10 · 16 May 2019]

ENDURING LOVE is based on a novel which I have not read, so I can not compare the two. But I will say that the film is very good. The book seems like exactly the type of thing I would like to read if only I had more time to read novels. But unfortunately I do not, so I'll have to settle for the film version, which isn't really settling at all, since the film is good all on its own.

The acting and directing are both very good. The story is wonderful and it unfolds in a very powerful way. You never know what's going to happen next, but is always tense and wonderful. The pacing and the tone are both spot-on. Recommend.

A chillingly beautiful opening scene...

[jamesgill-1 · 7/10 · 28 April 2010]

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)

A Daniel Craig film before he became JAMES BOND

[jaybob · 7/10 · 30 December 2007]

Enduring Love was directed by Robert Michell, Joe Penhall wrote the screenplay,adapting Ian McEwan's novel.

Daniel Craig,Rhys Ifans & Samantha Morton star in this rather strange drama. It starts off with a tragic accident, & one death. This part is very interesting, exciting & well done. This is the first 10 minutes of the film, then the remaining 90 minutes is all talking,(low key), It does get more dramatic towards the end. The script at times seems confusing, even though its mostly 2 or 3 people talking.

The talk is interesting (its about love & life). The acting is the main reason to see this film. Daniel Craig made this 2 years before he became James Bond. Here he is not as pumped up as he was in Casino Royale. He is an excellent actor & definitely handles this role very well, so does Samantha Morton & as his girl friend. Miss Morton is very talented.

The third character is Rhys Ifans, one of the newer actors & He will be a top draw performer very soon, (Think of a younger Christopher Walkin). Bill Nighy gives another delightful performance as he usually does.

This is a hard film to review for me: as much as I liked the acting, sets, locations etc. I found the story on the dull side.. my 3 star rating (below) is at the bottom of the 3 star range.

Its easy to see why this did not play in many theatres.(maximum of 50 in USA late 2004) Its R rating is mainly for the F word used throughout, BUT this is not a film for teens & younger.

Ratings: *** (out of4) 80 points (out of 100) IMDb 8 (out of 10)

What a lot of rubbish!!!

[esthersantiago777 · 1/10 · 7 January 2006]

Did the cameraman have Parkinson? Why is the camera spying them when they are on their own? Why does it fall on the floor every two seconds? What type of script is that? I'm sure, without reading it, the book has to be better. The poor guy just suffered this terrible drama and the only thing the girl can say is 'get over it, I've got work to do'. Did I miss when the stalker falls in love with the guy? Not a hint of it!. The first scene is very promising, after that is one mistake after another. Nothing is believable, not even the friends. What about when the guy goes, drunk, to see his friends and they let him hold the baby?, I think it's a very unpleasant film to watch. It gets on my nerves.

Film superior to the book

[anatetevale · 8/10 · 7 May 2005]

I remember reading Ian McEwan's book. I remember it took me a long time to do it, despite the fact I'm usually a fast reader. And I remember thinking, excellent plot, but I really don't like the author's writing. So I was very, very pleased to see this great story turned into a film, even better when this is a film which is carefully directed, produced and edited. It is not the most extraordinary thing in cinema, nevertheless it is a very good movie, dealing with the topic of madness in one of its most singular forms, the erotic delirium. The problem faced by Daniel Craig's character is a difficult one: is this man insane or am I going crazy? Who is mad and who is not?

Smashing Beginning, well acted, but falls clichéd a bit

[pc95 · 7/10 · 2 February 2009]

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.

turned an amazing book into a cheap thriller

[sophie_so_good · 2/10 · 7 December 2007]

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.

God only knows what I'd be without you.

[hitchcockthelegend · 8/10 · 2 March 2010]

Joe and Claire are about to share a romantic picnic when a stricken hot air balloon drifts into the field. With a young boy on board and petrified, and the pilot desperately trying to anchor the balloon, Joe and three other men rush to help. But it will end in disaster and bring into Joe's life, Jed Parry. It's the start of something that threatens to spiral out of control.

Enduring Love is an adaptation {screenwriter Joe Penhall} of Ian McEwan's novel. It's directed by Roger Michell and stars Daniel Craig {Joe}, Rhys Ifans {Jed} and Samantha Morton {Claire}. I think the first thing that should be noted is that the film differs greatly from McEwan's excellent page turner. Tho the essence of the source, such as obsessions, loneliness and to endure love, exist in the film, it does have a number of significant changes. If they be for better or worse,? well that's for others to decide should they enter both mediums.

Enduring Love is a fascinating, if at times uneasy, viewing. One that is actually hard to sell to potential first time viewers. It struggled to find an audience at the box office on account of its complex themes and unwillingness to pander to the norm. And! it's cold, very cold {something that is brilliantly enhanced by Haris Zambarloukos' photography}. So ultimately it's a film that has no specific target audience, this in spite of some lazy observationists trying to lump it in with the formulaic stalker genre. Personally it took me three viewings and a deep delve into the DVD goodies to finally understand and get the movie. So with that I'd urge those who watched once and hated it to maybe try again. For film's of this type don't come around that often, and when they do it feels like a breath of fresh air. Even if that breath is tainted with a chill brought about by the human condition and all its intricate possibilities. 8/10

Commercial art house

[howie73 · 7/10 · 23 August 2006]

After the exhilarating opening scene, Enduring Love becomes a strange mixture of Claude Chabrol and Adrian Lyne (Fatal Attraction); not that its strangeness is something negative, it just seems this is a film with many tricks up its sleeve but without a coherent directorial identity. Director Roger Mitchell has fashioned a film that apes many others but not his own style, so it seems this is a director in search of his own vision. Stylistic gripes aside, Enduring Love is a very good film with excellent performances by Daniel Craig and Rhys Ifans as hunted and hunter, or to be more precise stalked and stalker. Samantha Morton's role as the suffering girlfriend to Craig's Joe is a disappointment though. Her role is underwritten and Morton does the best she can with the blank canvas she was given.

I would call this film commercial art house because it has enough mainstream appeal and intellectual rigour to merit multiple viewings. At the heart of this film is the notion of eternal love, in the spiritual and material realms. Ifans's Jed represents a combination of the spiritual and the material dimensions of love, albeit marred by psychotic urges, whereas Joe's is a cynical disavowal of domestic love. Joe's cynicism about the meaning of love is targeted throughout the film, and it seems his inability to express emotion is what binds him in the cul de sac of Jed's obsession. Since each character is obsessional to varying digress, the film is also an exploration of how sane or insane loves makes us feel. While Jed feels an excess of love that Claire cannot express to Joe, Joe's failure to deal with Jed's advances, leads us to question Jed's love for Claire.

We do not see a single kiss between this couple, yet Jed is bristling with passion that is uncontrollable. And even though Joe is perplexed by this, he is drawn into Jed's tantalising web, the essence of which destroys the cosy veneer of heterosexual normalcy Joe takes for granted. So is Joe gay? Did Jed trigger Joe's denial of his own homosexuality? These questions are not answered by the film, but you sense Mitchell's ambiguous approach to expressing Joe's torment might suggest something far more complex.

Enduring Love hits the right notes most of the time, including the deft use of music which recalls the score of Lemming and at times Swimming Pool. Some have complained the music is obtrusive, but I feel it enhances many scenes and creates a troubling, and at times unexpected atmosphere.

WAY too slow...

[resonanceseven · 3/10 · 6 September 2006]

I understand that this film was intended to portray a deeper story of a man's understanding of life, but it was very poorly executed and in my opinion, failed miserably. I was hoping for a gripping and thrilling story yet I was bored to tears and found that I had to force myself to watch it in its entirety. The only captivating part of the movie was the balloon crash... the rest could have been summed up in a short film. Not to mention that the ending was a total cop-out. I was disappointed in this film, but gave it a 3 because I've seen worse. It could have been slightly better had it been shorter or if the story had been told at a faster pace.

Tough Unusual Love

[Chrysanthepop · 5 May 2008]

'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.