You want the true-true? Besides from the sheer presence of Halle Berry, cheesy morals, tacky lines and hilarious make-up (can't decide whether Weaving as a modern Nurse Ratched or Hanks as a wannabe-badass writer with an epic British accent is the most awkward fun), I actually liked most of it. Especially the editing, pacing and the glimpses of beauty here and there.
I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy it, even though I fully expected not to. The visuals were lush and enriching, and each story seemed to hold some sort of charm to it, though some stories (like the Neo-Seoul tale and the 1936 one) tended to be more potent than others. This was a highly ambitious movie to film, and it was done well and in a rewarding manner. The film felt heavy-handed and flawed, yet genuine and profound. All-in-all I liked it. Gorgeous soundtrack, by the way.
Cloud Atlas was intense. Visually remarkable, obviously. Also a lot of cannibalism (literal and figurative), soulmates (romantic and platonic), courage > comfort, never blindly trusting anyone (including yourself), etc. Superdeep. I wish I knew it was going to be like 300 hours long, though.
The book was amazing, the movie did the best it could. I would have gladly watched a 9hr version in order to get everything from the book into the movie. Look beyond makeup and vernacular and you will see the masterpiece.
Placeholder review for an incredibly ambitious effort that mostly works. It's hard to say how well it works after one viewing, as half the time was spent confused about what was going on. It seems designed to be a film that requires more than one viewing to make sense of the themes and interconnected stories. Maybe when I watch it again I'll be able to deconstruct it better.
Could someone please explain to me how this movie is "pretentious"? Yes the story is complex, and hard to follow time to time; and yes, there is a lot of free will, determinism, theology shit going on, but if it was pretentious, we would probably leave theater with empty symbols, metaphors and stupid, meaningless images. It needs a second viewing, please watch it again in a few years.
Works best as a companion to the novel -- it really solidifies the themes in the source material while adding a strong emotional punch. The action scenes also benefit. I'm not sure I'd be able to really follow the film had I not read the novel, though. The beginning of the film is kind of bland once the novelty of the jumpy narrative wears off, but it thankfully comes together a bit by the end. I probably wouldn't like it on it's own, but it really elevates the already great novel.
Really fantastic. I like that itís not just 6 different stories - itís 6 different genres. The cutting between them was a bit jarring at first, but I soon liked it. I thought the choice of having the actors play several roles was really inspired, if somewhat distracting. The make-up was really cool. The cinematography was beautiful and the visual effects were really nice. This is definitely the best thing the Wachowskis have done since The Matrix. I loved it.
The Wachowskis take almost 3 hours 2 deliver their usual message about challenging convention. The 6 stories here do a fine job of illustrating that point, but the characters in them rarely induce much emotion. Maybe the big stars in obvious makeup detract instead of enhance, or maybe there's 1 too many climaxes w/ no resolutions, but it seems unlikely any of these tales will cause its audience 2 challenge its own ideas. Perhaps making a film about gay marriage might be simpler & more effective?
Sometimes ponderous, but often pretty fascinating. A minimum of two viewings is probably essential, so I reserve the right to alter my grade once I catch this again. What I got from it was that it's a compendium of cool-looking filmed short stories, all from wildly disparate genres, all bleeding in and out of each other and obliquely referencing each other, just like all our stories--all our lives--tend to do. I liked it. Another viewing, and I might love it.
It's the first film that reminded me of how some of my better dreams tend to work. Lots of cool costumes, set pieces and Keith Davids. It is flawed but in the same ways a dream would be flawed (this movie doesn't really have anything to do with dreams but I feel it works better when viewed as somebodies nighttime journeys spewed out with perfect accuracy onto the screen).
Count me in the camp that cannot make sense of this movie whatsoever. The premise that "everything is connected" is an utter sham - these are 6 short films that are extremely weak stories on their own, and bear no connection or effect on each other, other than happening to feature the same actors with at times god-awful makeup, and the occasional isolated deja vu "I feel like I know you from somewhere" remark. And it lasts for THREE solid hours.
A great cast and a very immersive movie. I do think it is one of those films you need to watch a few times to truly appreciate everything but when the run-time of the movie is almost three hours it is going to be hard to do that. Still, I think Tom Hanks was awesome in this, I also loved seeing him play as a bad guy. Some of the make-up was well done. Doona Bae's story-line as Sonmi-451 was my favorite part. The sci-fi elements in this movie were great, I also like Berry/Hank's accents.
The quick-cut editing of six connected stories - each of a different genre - as well as the incredible music and visuals, are what make this 3-hour ambitious film so entertaining. It's the timeless message of progress and the spread of ideas through civilization that make it so enduring. The criticism against the make-up is more distracting than the make-up itself; the story is meant to transcend gender and racial boundaries.
Some of the gimmickry works; some of it just seems gimmicky. There are moments where Tom Hanks is great; there are moments when you just feel bad for him. There are scenes of breathtaking beauty, and there are scenes you swear you%u2019ve seen after having too many Bagel Bites in some drive-in movie unheard of by anyone except and starring Rutger Hauer with Roddy Piper. Which is all to say that it%u2019s both likable and hateable, and whether you will come down on one side or the other is tough
I haven't read the book so I had little idea what to expect. And I gotta say, I'm very impressed. This is a difficult movie to make and it never feels forced or preachy. On the contrary, it's the most exciting time I've had in a long time. I liked how the nature of the stories and the fate of the characters was often completely unpredictable.
Cloud Atlas is a visual feast with technical aspects that impress across the board. Its themes and messages are not always clear - sometimes drowning in the storytelling itself - but Cloud Atlas excels at being utterly engrossing, not an easy feat for something so complex and multifaceted. Every story features characters full of life we can root for with personal obstacles we hope they overcome. This is what makes the film great.
A very bloated mosaic on karma and reincarnation as told by patronizing Americans. Very disappointing. I enjoyed Sonmi~451's story and that's about it, even though every Asian was played by a white character in extremely odd yellowface makeup. The visual splendor of it all made it entertaining to a degree but after the 90 minute mark it goes downhill really fast. PS: There's a scene where Hugo Weaving brutally guns down a Shih-Tzu that made me laugh pretty hard...
Yes, it is ambitious. We get it. But many of its storylines are underdeveloped or feel uncompleted. The politics are quite naive. And uneven makeup job is extremely distracting. Doesn't really work as something more than a huge cross-cutting experiment. A disappointment for me.
There's no need to interpret this the same way as the book, or to take it as being solely about reincarnation or anything like that. This film works quite well as a call to action for the sake of the collective unconscious. In many ways, it is a self-conscious meta-fiction about media's role in shaping history. If one does view the story as one of reincarnation, there is no reason not to take it symbolically. I think many people are missing the mark in terms of understanding how this film works.
Where the book is sinuous and oblique, their film is galumphing and heavy-handed, its rare flights of lyricism stranded between long stretches of outright risibility. And yet there's something commendable about the directors' commitment to their grandiose act of folly.