Watch On Chesil Beach For Free

Lack of good storyline.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

"On Chesil Beach" is primarily set in the year 1962. But by all indications, the action should really be taking place in 1862 at the height of the morally repressive era in Victorian England. In the guise of being a romance, the film develops the story of a young British couple, Florence Ponting and Edward Mayhew, who fall in love, but their relationship falls apart with a disastrous wedding night that culminates in a long conversation in the idyllic, pebbly setting of Chesil Beach. Again, the story sounds like that of a frustrated married couple out of a Henrik Ibsen play like "A Doll's House."In the bonus track of the DVD, there was a lengthy segment where the writer, director, producer, and actors attempted to offer a rationale for this strange film. Here is a digest of their remarks:(1) The leading actress described the film as being "about two lovers." That statement is difficult to understand, based on a relationship that was never consummated.(2) The screenwriter described the theme of the young couple "crossing the line" from "innocence" to "experience." With vague generalities, the writer was avoiding the main subject matter of the film: the frigidity of Florence Ponting.(3) The screenwriter made another unsubstantiated claim that the conflict between Flo and Edward was based on "emotional understanding running ahead of physical understanding." But if that were the case, it was difficult to believe that their "problem" was not identified much earlier in the lengthy period of courtship, as opposed to the single, shocking revelation on their wedding night. (4) The film was described as "a love story" and "a tragedy." But the break-up of the couple due to a case of frigidity was hardly the subject matter of a love story. The cringeworthy subject matter was closer to pathos than tragedy. One of the film's producers made the jaw-dropping observation that "many people will identify with the relationship of Edward and Florence." Without any support for her contention, the producer then went on to assert that the film is "universal" in its implications! (5) The filmmakers boasted of how the film reveals the "internal life" of the characters. But in the crucial scene where Florence meets with her local vicar, all we see is that she is bottled up emotionally. We never learn much of Flo's internal life until the climactic conversation on Chisel Beach. There might have been more empathy for Flo's character if she had opened up to the vicar with the truth.Contrary to the objective of the film artists, "On Chesil Beach" was not about "internal life," but about the suppression of that life.SPOILER ALERT: At the close of the film, we fast forward from 1962 to 1975 and finally to 2007. During this sequence, it is revealed that Flo married and had children with Charles Morrell, the male member of her string ensemble. But it is never explained how that relationship was successfully consummated or how Flo had changed over time from her disastrous experience with Edward. There is an inherent dishonesty in a film that makes a bold claim for universality, yet refuses to explain character development and how people change over time. Specifically, what happened to Flo between the wedding night at Chesil when she described her bedroom experience with Edward as "revolting" and the time when she evidently discovered conjugal bliss with Charles Morrell? Most assuredly, Edward Mayhew has to be wondering what happened behind closed doors between Florence Ponting and Charles Morrell that was different from his experience with Flo at the Chesil Beach hotel.

The director tried to restore the full picture of the novel, but the rude interspersed reminiscences will reduce the immersion of the story, which is a common problem after converting literary works into movies. As a result, the film is very raw in both the construction of characters and the superposition of emotions. Therefore, The sudden emotional outburst at the end of the film is not convincing. On the actor side, Billy Howle played well but Saoirse Ronan was a bit too tension.

Set against Dorset's spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, "Brooklyn", "Lady Bird") and Edward (Billy Howle, "Dunkirk") about to embark on the sexual adventure of their conjugation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50's and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their disfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) but mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, "Suffragette", "Before I Go To Sleep").As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of "Atonement" for example), there are a couple of clever "Oh My God" twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question. The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the "if only" twist of films like "Sliding Doors" and "La La Land", the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don't think I've seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn't enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone - such as the kindly probing vicar - is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place. A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt ("12 Years a Slave") which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen. Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of "Atonement".(Please visit bob-the-movie-man.com for the full graphical review or One Mann's Movies on Facebook. Thanks).

I'm not sure weather I likes it or if it was just a downer. It Starrs out this awkward movie about to inexperience kids getting married and trying to get it on at their honeymoon. Than just became this grim moment of how sometimes it don't work out.It's a long process too. I hate when movies draw it out but it does help In the sadness.Movie reminds me of Brooklyn but more boring. I don't get any film Saoirse Ronan stars in (Except for Lady Bird). Actually that's not true at all, but all of her movies are far too artsy for me sometimes to the point where I don't understand the critical acclaim of some of these things.