Ammonite (2020)

O'Sullivan calls the film superb and says it contains multitudes. She praises its tactile cinematography and the performances of Kate Winslet and Saoirse Ronan.

Rooney offers an ecstatic verdict, calling the film profoundly affecting and saying it floored him. He singles out Kate Winslet and Saoirse Ronan’s emotionally transparent performances and the film’s naturalistic intimacy for praise.

Webb finds the film a tender, finely crafted triumph, though its story is slight. She especially praises Winslet’s assured physical performance and the film’s grounded visual craftsmanship.

Chang praises the film as a wrenching, passionate portrait of solitude rather than a sweeping forbidden romance. He singles out Kate Winslet’s extraordinary performance, calling it her finest screen acting since “Mildred Pierce.”

Searles finds the film atmospheric and emotionally complete, while noting it is not a conventional love story. The review praises the meticulous attention to everyday sounds and gestures, and the poetic refusal of the ending to provide the expected resolution.

The critic gives the film a strongly positive verdict. They single out Kate Winslet’s achingly vulnerable performance for praise.

Bradshaw finds the film absorbing, intimate and intelligently acted, though its characters feel slightly less real than those in Lee’s previous film. He particularly praises the combined screen presence of Kate Winslet and Saoirse Ronan.

The page gives the film a positive verdict as an unhurried period tale. It singles out Kate Winslet and Saoirse Ronan battling against the times amid love and fossils.

The critic gives the film a positive but measured assessment. The page was blocked, so its specific praise or complaint cannot be verified.

Lane finds that the film persuades despite its speculative historical premise, and praises how emotionally grounded it feels. He singles out its vivid treatment of the elemental connection between desire and death.

Rife finds the romance pallid and emotionally elusive despite its occasional grim beauty. She singles out the sound design’s contrast between untamed nature and prim Victorian timepieces for praise.

The review frames the film as a solemn love story sparked by Kate Winslet and Saoirse Ronan, but the full verdict is behind a paywall. The standfirst singles out the leads as the spark for the romance.

The review finds the film sensorial and affecting, though its central romance is largely concealed. It especially praises the immersive coastal sound design and Lee’s expression of carnal desire.

The page could not be accessed, so its critical verdict is unavailable. No specific praise or complaint can be verified.

Robb finds the film visually impressive but ultimately constrained by heavy-handed symbolism and its burden of historical significance. He praises Kate Winslet’s performance and the intimacy of the sex scenes, while faulting the imagery for often feeling lifeless.

Erbland finds the romance chilly and emotionally unconvincing, despite the lead actors’ commitment. She praises a few small moments of connection but faults the script and direction for leaving the characters at a remove.

Newland finds the film a beautiful but plodding, ultimately ordinary romance. She praises the leads’ chemistry and the director’s eye for coastal textures, but finds the concluding section inert.

Debruge finds the romance stark and ultimately more symbolic than satisfying, though he sees enough to recommend it. He praises Winslet and Ronan’s committed performances but faults the film for failing to make their passion resonate.

Willmore finds the romance emotionally hollow, despite its tactile naturalism and restrained style. She praises Kate Winslet’s performance, while criticizing Charlotte’s thin characterization and the writing’s empty silences.

The review finds the film a subtly affecting and moving love story. It particularly praises Kate Winslet’s performance and the way the changing landscape reflects Mary Anning’s emotional transformation.

The critic finds the film deeply emotional but admirably restrained, with its subtle pleasures lingering. They single out Winslet and Ronan’s performances and their wrenching, beautifully choreographed love scene.

McCarthy finds the film unusual and compelling, though its final stretch lacks dramatic force. He praises its tactile atmosphere and frank portrayal of the women’s relationship.

Keogan argues that the film reduces Mary Anning and Charlotte Murchison’s lives to speculative romance while neglecting their scientific achievements. She praises Kate Winslet’s performance for conveying emotional depth through sparse dialogue and precise body language.

Gorber finds the film chilly and underdeveloped, with its emotional payoff feeling unearned. He praises Winslet’s performance as well suited to the film’s austere tone.

The critic finds the romance cold and the film dreary, despite the actors’ committed performances. He singles out the scenes of Mary working among the rocks as more compelling than the love story.

Kermode finds the film’s strongest work compelling but says its glacial pace and thin character development keep it from succeeding overall. She praises the leads’ performances and the blunt, unromantic portrayal of desire.

The critic calls the film a middling love story, weighed down by misery and a lack of emotional connection. They praise the lead performances and Lee’s atmospheric use of landscape, but find the romance unconvincing.

Goldberg finds the romance cold, flat, and aggressively dull, with little emotional connection between its leads. He singles out the lack of chemistry between Kate Winslet and Saoirse Ronan as a key weakness.

The critic finds the film’s romance tepid and its storytelling mechanically paced, despite its thoughtful approach to queer history. They single out the visual craft in a brief scene suggesting Anning’s past connection with Elizabeth Philpot.