Sindre Kaspersen English filmmaker Roger Michell's sixth feature film which was written by British playwright and screenwriter Joe Penhall and shot in Oxford and London, England, is an adaptation of a novel from 1997 by British novelist and screenwriter Ian McEwan. It tells the story about Joe and Claire, a young couple who while celebrating their reunion in the English countryside notices a burning air balloon which is heading towards the ground with one passenger and a pilot who has caught one of his legs in the anchor rope. Joe and three other men who has become aware of the air balloon runs to secure the landing, but when they reach the balloon they are drawn up in the air by a sudden and strong breeze. Each one of the rescuers manages to let go in time, but one man stays with the air balloon and falls down with it. The tragic incident affects all of the people who were involved, but especially one man named Jed Parry who strangely begins to feel a strong connection to Joe. Joe and Claire returns to their everyday life and tries to move on, but are disturbed when Joe is contacted, on more than one occasion, by Jed who appears to think that the accident had some kind of profound meaning. Acutely and engagingly directed by television and stage director Roger Michell, this character-driven and plot-driven mystery draws an intriguing and unsettling portrayal of an urban English couple who while re-establishing their relationship in the aftermath of a disastrous event, discovers that one of them is being followed by a man who witnessed the event. While notable for it's naturalistic milieu depictions, the fine production design by Irish production designer John Paul Kelly and cinematography by Cypriot cinematographer Haris Zambarloukos, this at times humorous, romantic and intensifying drama depicts a variable study of character and a nuanced fictional tale about friendship, obsession and love.This British production which was produced by English producer Kevin Loader is impelled and reinforced by it's cogent narrative structure, the brilliant acting performances by English actor Daniel Craig, Welsh actor Rhys Ifans, English actress Samantha Morton and the fine supporting acting performances by English actor Bill Nighy and Northern Irish actress Susan Lynch. A poignantly atmospheric and well-paced psychological thriller which gained, among other awards, the ALFS Award for British Actor of the Year Daniel Craig at the 25th London Critics Circle Film Awards in 2005 and a Special Recognition For Excellence in Filmmaking at the 76th National Board of Review Awards in 2004.

Spikeopath 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

rowmorg 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.

aliciadipesto 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.