I just wanna point out that the scenes with no dialogue are the one's that say a lot ... Kate Winslet masters the way she talks only with her eyes.

The first word that comes to mind when reviewing Ammonite is implicit. The only other review (at the time of writing) laments the lack of explicit sex scenes. There's no need for them; this is an understated love story, not a porn film. The sex scenes are few in number, but shot with delicacy and restraint. In fact, very little of this movie is explicit. An awful lot is left to the imagination of the viewer. Back stories are hinted at, touched briefly upon and only once filled in. Even the ending is left to us to imagine. Implicit, rather than explicit, is the watchword for this movie. The performances of the four female leads are in the same vein. Subtly acted throughout; never overdone. A really beautiful movie.

Kate Winslet plays Mary Anning, a famous fossil hunter / palaeontologist with exhibits in the British Museum, who must now sell ammonites to tourists etc just to keep her and her mother, Gemma Jones, going. Into her life comes convalescing, well off Saoirse Ronan who stays with Winslet until she has recovered. A deepening relationship begins.

Remarkably touching, beautifully acted - especially by Winslet - and nicely lean love story set against the backdrop of a drab, miserable 19th century Lyme Regis. The 2 leads make a completely believable couple and the affection is bought forward slowly and ultimately quite explicitly. It is a quiet gentle film with no obvious romance or great outpourings of emotion or melodrama and all the better for that. I loved the ending.

I enjoyed the film. I didn't enjoy fictionalising a real person. Having a pop at yesterday's moral's and how they still impinge on us today is something that could have been done without hijacking a real person. A real person who deserves her story telling properly. Even the BBC article I read said this film wasn't a gender issue film, it was a class issue film, with many men and women suffering what she suffered. If anything gender was a side issue. The gender issue would have been an issue within it's own class, not across classes. But they want to lose that because it doesn't fit the modern tick box exercise and all us working class thickies wouldn't be capable of putting two things together. In fact the same insult is levelled at us still!

Maybe I'm being a little harsh. That said, I really enjoyed it as a film. The pace reflected the situation, the acting was brilliant, Kate Winslet expression was a brick wall, but when she eventually succumbed to smile it was beautiful. The story was gorgeous.

My criticism lies with the writer/director for picking Mary Anning name to write fiction against. If you are writing a film about her, actually focus on her life, yes you can embellish, but embellish the truth, not that it would need that.

I put this film in the genre of Lesbian Twaddle - I can say that as I am one. I'm not sure who these films are aimed at, but that is beside the point. My main problem with this film is the misogyny and it is a big problem. Very rarely does a film make me cross, but this one did. It also makes me cross that I have only found one review that picks up on this issue. It's on a website called Paste if anyone wants to look it up. Many people question, why make up a lesbian romance for Mary Anning when there is no evidence for one, but no-one questions the misogynistic approach. I personally don't have a problem with the lesbian bit -we have been written out of history.

The initial premise of the film and main focus of the first half hour or so, it to highlight the misogyny of the scientific establishment at the time and Mr Murchison's treatment of his wife. The ultimate irony is that, Francis Lee by his portrayal of Charlotte Murchison and Elizabeth Philpot (Fiona Shaw), does both these women a great dis-service. Charlotte is portrayed as vapid and Elizabeth as some old hippy type making herbal remedies, when they were both accomplished scientists in their own right and had interesting lives. The film is misogynistic because it gives less attribution to their paleontology achievements than did the male-dominated natural history circles at the time!

Unless Francis Lee simply wants to maintain his position as prime director of LGBT films (I thought God's Own Country was excellent), I don't know why he felt the need, when Mary Anning had a very eventful life which would have made a much better film, to create a mythical lesbian romance. He would have done just as well to base a film on her brother Joseph. Rich man from London turns up in Lyme Regis with his errant son, leaves him with Joseph because he thinks a bit of sea air and hard work in the upholstery trade will turn his life around. A bit of drudgery with horsehair and cotton wadding, then sex on a pebbly beach - job done!

I gave the film six stars because it was well acted and the cinematography and costumes were excellent. However two last points that I think were huge gaffs. No-one in 1840 and who kept their own chickens would cook an addled egg or one with a chick in (it happened so fast I couldn't quite see) as eggs would be collected every day and you know if a hen has gone broody is sitting on eggs. Gone off eggs float when put in a bowl of water. Also I'm sure men did not tie their scarves in a Hoxton knot in 19th Century England - maybe on the continent but not here!

Ferociously slow and meandering, lacking the passion and emotion of its contemporaries and a little too long for what it bestows, which is a rather bleak and salty tale of two lost and lonely women, one of which has had her flint removed and couldn't catch light if you dosed her in kerosene and dropped her into the sun. There's always, at least, a little optimism and expectation, hope perhaps, even in the most forlorn of our turbulent times, but seemingly not here.

This movie isn't for everyone, that much is clear from the mixed reviews. Some people enjoy it, others think it's an absolute bore. I fall into the first category. The movie isn't flawless but I found myself involved and captivated throughout. Personally, for me it was never too slow, but I can understand that people might feel differently. You should prepare yourself for a slow-paced, two hour long dramatic period piece.

The acting from everyone in the film is fantastic but of course in particular from the two leading ladies. Kate Winslet and Saoirse Ronan are absolutely terrific. The chemistry between them felt genuine and well-done to me, which is crucial in a romantic movie.

Only two very skilled actors could pull off the type of non-verbal communication that is often present in this move. It's nice that they don't have to share their life stories to each other in front of the camera. Their connection is deeper than basic communication. So much can be said with a glance, smile, and subtle body language. It's refreshing and surprisingly intense. Actions speak louder than words, after all.

The soundtrack is lovely and subtle, but gets intense at the exact right moments.

The cinematography fits the film perfectly.

Finally, I was intrigued by the unique concept of the movie. Ammonites, a love story between two women from very different backgrounds, the struggles of a lower class woman living with her terminally ill mother, the inequality between men and women during that time... and all of that (loosely) based on the life of a real person. Multiple interesting concepts coming together in one movie.

If you're hoping for a queer love story between two women that is happy and not a little depressing, you might want to adjust your expectations. This movie can be a bit dreary and sad. I have to admit I'm a bit tired of all the gloomy, unhappy WLW movies that exist, and still longing for a relatively happy queer movie, like a 'Love Simon' for women.

All in all, however, I did enjoy it and would probably watch it again in a few years.

It's nice and full of emotions. The story is beautiful and flows beautifully with a very good pace and great characters development. The performances by both Kate Winslet and Saoirse Ronan are so strong and Oscar worthy. The movie has some beautiful deep lines and also full of beautiful loud silence. Cinematography is stunning with many beautiful sceneries. Sets and costumes are nice too. Although the movie is so nice and I truly love, I still could feel that it's not new or original to me.

Ammonite excavates the depths of intense lesbian romance. Strong acting would be an understatement. There are a few twists and turns along the way, some of them even predictable but Winslet's authentic performance as her meticulous, passionate character along with the performance of Ronan, keeps us rapt. The film has a captivating cinematography with stark physical beauty and colour palette of the beaches, sets and constumes. However, despite the plot being quite stretched out, Director doesn't fails to deliver a heartwarming and memorable experience.

It's 1840's Britain. Reclusive paleontologist Mary Anning (Kate Winslet) lives with her sick mother and sells fossils she finds on the rocky beach. She is well known even in London although one get a sense that she is often dismissed. Roderick Murchison has come to hire her and learn at her feet. He has brought his sick wife Charlotte (Saoirse Ronan) to recover with the sea air.

This movie became a joke somewhere but I don't recall where. The joke is basically that this movie is just another Victorian lesbian couple trying to have an affair. This repetitive trope is getting tiresome. There is nothing new here. There is nothing that bad either. There is also no real great danger to these two ladies. They don't even allow the maid to raise the temperature. It does have two great top-level actresses and it looks beautiful. Sadly, it doesn't add anything new to the conversation.

Director and producer of this travesty, Francis Lee, apparently said that with this film he wanted to give Mary Anning "the relationship she deserved", to which I say; What did the poor woman ever do to you?

If anyone don't understand why this is a massive insult to Mary Anning and Charlotte Murchison, just imagine a film made about any famous historical man portrayed in this way. It'd be ridiculous to take say, George Cuvier or Charles Darwin and completely eject all their scientific endeavors from a film about them in favor of injecting a fictional and unrealistic gay love story into their lives, complete with an explicit sex scene that looks more like the work of a sweaty teenage boy than a respected filmmaker. The very notion would be deemed absurd if it was a male scientist, but with women it's apparently OK.

The real Mary Anning was a huge pioneer within paleontology, made even more remarkable by the fact that she was both a woman, and working class in a time where nearly all other scientists and their institutions were exclusive to men from the upper class. But the film doesn't really showcase any of it, all her amazing scientific work is shoved to the far background whilst the writer/director seems far more interested in speculating what Mary Anning's sex life was like.

Now, Francis Lee is a gay man himself, and I liked his previous film, God's own Country, which I thought handled the trials of gay men in a small town excellent, but what Francis Lee seems to have failed to realize is that in using famous historical women to tell a gender-swapped version of God's own country, instead of a progressive gay drama he plays into massively sexist notions that women's professional work doesn't matter and the most interesting about them is their sexual and romantic relationships, and the idea that women can't have platonic relationships worth telling stories about, they need to be sexual.

Not only does the film greatly reduce the work of Mary Anning, but Charlotte Murchison, in the film portrayed as a just a bored housewife that needs to have her depression cured by romance, was a competent geologist in her own right, but this is COMPLETELY ignored in this film. Also ignored was the fact that people couldn't just have casual lesbian relationships and kiss openly without fear of consequences in 1800s England, and treating it as such does all real lesbians who had to stay in the closet or be forced into loveless marriages for the sake of appearances a great disservice.

And it's not even a good romance between them, both main actresses look bored throughout and I literally saw more chemistry between the protagonist and a fossilized ichtyosaur than with her co-actor.

If you want a good lesbian historical drama, just watch Gentleman Jack instead, if you just want to see Kate Winslet topless, just watch Titanic instead, and if you want a good film about paleontologist Mary Anning... well, I can't think of a good film about that, but you certainly won't find it in Ammonite.

In 19th century England jaded, somber, self-made paleontologist Mary Anning spends her days alone on the coastline excavating fossils, until a well-off tourist entrusts his wife Charlotte Murchison (repressed, melancholy, and a shadow of her former self) into Mary's care. Though Mary initially views Charlotte as another unwelcomed guest, gradually the two strangers become close as their relationship intensifies. In a quiet, intimate, and moody story such as this where much goes unsaid, most of the emotion is conveyed through subtleties and body language, but fortunately the two lead actresses are up for the challenge and deliver strong, internalized performances--though at times it's frustrating to try and discern the real emotional depths and complications between their two characters. It's hard to truly determine the historical accuracy of what transpires on screen, plus it concludes on an ambiguous note, but Ronan is solid as usual, while Winslet is absolutely riveting. **½

The story of Mary Anning could have made an inspiring and interesting film, but sadly this is not it. Whilst Technically this film is superb - it gets the period detail and atmosphere just right, Kate Winslett is great as Anning and the cast otherwise are excellent, sadly Anning's real story is hardly developed, and instead we get a lesbian love story - for which there's no evidence , and which looks both out of place and unrealistic in the context of mid 19c England. A missed opportunity.

I think I had set my expectations a little too high before I started watching, what with stars of Kate Winslet and Saoirse Ronan's caliber involved. 'Ammonite' is mostly more understated than I would have anticipated, in every regard, though as historical fiction, that's an understandable approach to take. It has its flaws, yet is still enjoyable and worth watching.

'Ammonite' is a little bit of a study in contrasts, as emphasized by the two leads. Mary Anning's life is depicted with purposeful and stark solitude, hard work, and a notably gritty, asocial personality - lacking in color, and vitality. This is the least glamorous role I think I've ever seen Winslet take on. Charlotte Murchison, meanwhile, carries a certain spark with her, and presumptuous amiability - while yet being unaccustomed to toil and hardship in the relatively opulent life she has known. Ronan gives her a definite sense of excited innocence befitting those characteristics.

Unless viewers are particular fans of these historical figures or their fields, or of the cast, it's a fair guess that most are here for the speculative fiction part of the film, the depiction of a lesbian relationship between Anning and Murchison. It's a subtle, slow build, with very singular looks, or the delicate touch of a hand, forming the foundation. Compared to other movies with a similar narrative bent, it seems a bit out of character the first time that Winslet and Ronan kiss. And yet, isn't life also messy like that at times? The stars absolutely shine in this capacity, giving their characters and the affair a strength and intensity that is magnetic. Their intimacy reaches an enchanting crescendo of passion many comparable pictures don't seem to want to show on screen. And as one would rather hope, writer-director Francis Lee devoted much energy in the screenplay to the portrayal of their relationship.

There's a small part of me, however, that feels so much time was spent ensuring Anning and Murchison's love affair was treated appropriately that the rest of the film suffered a bit as a result, as though such time and energy spent writing were a palpable, quantifiable resource. It's not that any one particular aspect leaps out at me as flawed, or underwritten - but nor does any aspect truly capture one's imagination, save for the love that Winslet and Ronan so gracefully portray. Like the skies and the sea throughout 'Ammonite,' much of the feature just seems a little dull and grey. There's nothing inherently wrong with how the plot is laid out; after all, if this is a study in contrasts, then there's no greater contrast than to light a great blaze for the central relationship and keep a single low candle aflame for the rest. Yet I can't help but feel that something's missing.

It also has to be noted that 'Ammonite' somewhat falls into an all too familiar trap of representing a queer relationship that cannot last. One has already created speculative fiction that Anning and Murchison were involved; why not take it one step further? At least the real obstacle here is an intangible distance between the lives of the subjects, and not the heteronormative trope of "they're married," but it's still regrettable. Imagine if every cinematic romance between a man and a woman were similarly doomed to failure by its screenplay.

Still, despite its flaws, and despite a familiar failing - I will also say that the final scene is very, very well done. Though 'Ammonite' tiresomely imparts that the love affair can't last - the film's visual realization of the boundaries between the characters is given an exquisitely artful illustration. It's a bumpy ride, but the last stop along the way is truly commendable.

'Ammonite' is worth watching, especially for the warmth and zeal that Kate Winslet and Saoirse Ronan give Anning and Murchison's intimacy. And, true, other viewers may find this even more appealing than I do - indeed, I want to regard 'Ammonite' more highly than I do. I say just to keep your expectations in check, because the picture is a bit uneven.

I'm rating this the same as I did The Portrait of a Lady, as they both have extreme similarities to one another. Not to take anything away from either, but with this especially, I've never known a quieter film. Not in terms of the volume but there is a real contrast to the sound of the violence of the crashing waves and the feeling of being out of control, to the then relative peace of a warmer day whilst the characters establish their relationships with one another. There are also segments of isolation & at times the silence is deafening & the camera cuts quite often to scenes of live animals crawling over paintings of nature, which I interpreted as though the two worlds look like they are in sync, but very definitely not in equal measure.

Ammonite's love/dramatic story is very deep and beautiful. But, the film was really missing many things that prevented it from being a great motion picture.

The film's love story is very unique and beautiful. Really loved the love story between the two characters and how it was built. But, it was built in a way that was so dull, slow, and boring. It didn't take a long time to build it, it was being built in a dull/slow way that made it seem like it was long. I have watched many films that are like Ammonite, films that are slow and cold but some were actually very great because they used many aspects to make it be so.

To have both Kate Winslet and Saoirse Ronan in one film is a very big thing, both of them put a great performance that is worth an Oscar nomination especially Kate Winslet. She was able to portrait her boring/depressed character very well, her face was saying it all, by looking at her face you can tell what she's feeling. But, I feel like the writers didn't use them well, in some scenes, I felt like they were only focusing on both of them too much and ignoring other things like music, set design, and screenplay. What's the point of focussing on the acting and ignoring everything else?. Having both of them in one movie is a very big chance that nobody should waste and they should use it very well and be careful with it especially that the bond between them was so great.

In addition, The film has a very beautiful/genuine loud silence. Silence is a very important thing in this film and it has so many meanings behind it. Silence is a language, silence speaks volumes. But, I feel like the reason why the film seems dull and slow is because of this, "THE SILENCE". It was used too much and in a way that would make it seem like it's a boring film. If it was used very well, then this film would've been a masterpiece for sure. There are many scenes or films that have complete silence In them. But the audience still enjoys seeing them. For Instance, "Call Me By Your Name" has many scenes in it that are completely silent. Like, one character is just eating or smoking or watching anything without saying a word. But with all of that "Call Me By Your Name" is one of the best films ever and the reason why is because the film used many aspects and knew how to use "silence" in a way that would make it seem great.

The sound mixing & sound editing were awful. In some scenes, I was struggling to understand the speech and the background noises were louder than the speech. The film is also missing a music score that would've made many scenes better.

The film has visually stunning frames and shots, the cinematography was great. But, they were so few.

In the end, Ammonite would've been a masterpiece especially that it has a great love story that would live for ages and two amazing actresses. But, the film didn't use the tools that they have in a way that would make the film a masterpiece.

My rating is: 6.5/10

Ammonite's title is deceptive, being not just about a fossil, but linking directly to the character of Mary Anning, hard and curled up against the world around her. Years of scouting beaches and digging in the dirt, only to have her work credited to men in London, has left her cold and brittle. The arrival of depressed young woman Charlotte however, soon challenges her countenance. Filmmaker Francis Lee balances the grit and dirt of Mary's excavations with the high Victorian society Charlotte is from with ease and interesting perspective. The film is about downtrodden individuals, spurned by a number of issues from the period, gaining perspective that they're not as alone as they once thought. Winslet and Ronan play excellently off each other, with Ronan taking on a role you can imagine a young Winslet would have played. Their performance culminates in one of the most intimate love scenes I've seen onscreen for sometime. Knowing that the two actors were allowed to choreograph this themselves with minimal interference is worthy as well, and shows care taken in crafting the relationship. Clearly this film hasn't clicked with everyone, and it'd probably be best to leave any pre-conceptions of what a 'lesbian film' should include at the door. But if given a fair chance, 'Ammonite' could breathe new interest into the life of a British historic figure.

Ammonite is not a traditional love story. It's about an unlikely relationship between two women with their scars. But it is mainly a tale of loneliness and emotional digging. Saiorse Ronan is doing very well, but it's Winslet who has a great and courageous performance.

Mary Anning was not a lesbian, so why make her one? If you want to make a historic film about a remarkable woman but ignore the facts of her life; that she grew up poor, and that she taught herself to read and went on to become a female pioneer in paleontology I am all with you. But would you accept a lie of this kind today, if it had been the other way around? I will not accept this type of deliberate falsification of history with the excuse that in today's environment of identity politics anything goes.

Ammonite is one of those rare movies that tells its story with minimal dialogue and an exquisite attention to detail.

Every aspect of the complex art of storytelling through film is finely attuned to the weaving of this tale, and Ammonite accomplishes this with a delicate and light touch that allows its world to breathe.

We experience the visceral windswept beach that animates the life of Kate Winslet's character, Mary Anning, and breathes life back into Saoirse Ronan's character, Charlotte Murchison.

There is a bleakness, it is a cold and hard environment, but Winslet and Ronan make it real and bring warmth with two extraordinary performances marked by keen observation and subtlety.

Director Francis Lee has crafted his world with great care using every aspect of the medium to full effect - the result is a work of art, a thoroughly engaging movie, a study of life.

9 1/2

As others have intimated, "Ammonite" is rather an Anglicization of "Portrait of a Lady on Fire" (2019), and, sure, particularly given the sex of the filmmakers, a more male-centric variation, and, yes, it's not as good. The latter is such a masterpiece, though, that even its effigy, if you will, or fossilized remains--its replication of reproduction is telling. Once again, it's costume-drama lesbians on a rocky beach gazing at each other--one a hired professional respected in her field and the other's husband away. In the French film, this was all about art, including as if the entire picture was but another painting from the shared female gaze of the artist and the camera. Among other things, there was also the story-within-the-story of the Orpheus and Eurydice myth that reflected that gaze. Instead of painting, here, we get fossils. That doesn't have the same effect. Spectators may gawk at both in museums, but one is art and the other science. This is where "Ammonite" gets kind of clever.

As a fictionalization of the historical paleontologist, the Mary Anning here also draws and writes, but beyond the amusement of the prospect of Kate Winslet reversing her role in "Titanic" (1997), this only goes to the picture's business with hands and touch. I also don't care for the unromantic trope of falling in love with unconscious women. The tactile bit is apt for archeology and sex, though, but not necessarily much for the visual arts. Ditto a quite good soundscape--I like the sounds of the sea, handiwork and such here. Anyways, the ultimate counterpart here to the French film is the heightened music--and even that romance cliché of being in the rain--as the women attend what we're initially lead to believe is but a musical concert. More than that, though, it's an exhibition of the magic lantern. It's the most scientific of the visual arts: projected pictures--and, later, movies. Reminds me of some books on the history of motion pictures with titles of "Archaeology of the Cinema" (e.g. Those by C. W. Ceram and Laurent Mannoni). A good place to begin for that history is with the magic lantern, the beginning of projecting pictures, including motion pictures. Cinema wasn't just born in front of popcorn-chewing audiences or coin-slotted peephole boxes, and even then it was at first largely the work of at least wannabe-scientist inventors. But, no, cinema was invented by hard-science, not even the social sciences, polymaths: Christiaan Huygens, Michael Faraday, Joseph Plateau, Simon Stampfer, Charles Wheatstone, Jan Purkyne, Jules Janssen, Étienne-Jules Marey.

Point is, employing the magic lantern here was ingenuous. It was a scientific marvel to be gazed upon as much as were dinosaur bones. Note, too, how the entire scene is about looking, especially the scientist within the movie, who herself is gazing upon her love interest through another lens or screen, as it were, in the window. Quite the mise-en-abyme there. The rest of "Ammonite," besides the corresponding ending, I could take it or leave it, but this scene works. I'm less fond of the more vigorous sex scenes to its French counterpart, the seeming "head" pun of the fossil find leading to that term for sex, as well as the related allusion to castration-anxiety psychobabble of the male gaze at the end. Note the earlier male frontal nudity contrasted to the statue, as well as the prior male portraits. Oedipus instead of Eurydice. It takes one out of the illusion of sharing the intimate gaze between the two women (by two wonderful actresses, by the way, in Winslet and Saoirse Ronan) and places us back within the traditionally-dominant cinematic male gaze as though we're intruding. The magic is gone. Hard not to compare that to the sustained success of the gaze to the very end of "Portrait of a Lady on Fire."

British born in 1799 Anning's family home was next to the sea where she searched for fossils. A sometimes dangerous search in which one landslide killed her dog. It was a time when nearly half of children did not survive beyond age 5, and she too experienced most of her siblings early deaths. Fossil hunting & selling was common in her community. Mary was 12 when her brother found the ichthyosaur skull, and Mary, later, the rest of the skeleton. Still in poverty as Mary grew older one of her clients held an auction of fossils he had purchased from her to assist the family. She found many important fossils, but like most women she was ignored as a professional in the male dominant science world. She eventually gained enough money to buy a house. Well known, she had buyers from Europe & America. The film's emphasis with Charlotte Murchison was largely made up; both the romantic and Charlotte was already an experienced fossil collector. Basically near zero time was spent showing the arduous task of preparing a fossil. Sadly we see little of her collections & scientific community interactions where she was well known. She died at age 48.