Cloud Atlas

[Clean]

Saw the Wachowski's (Matrix) new movie, Cloud Atlas. I went into it knowing nothing about it except that it had an all star cast; Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, etc. I guess because of the Wachowskis, I assumed it was science fiction. Now that I've seen it, I honestly don't know how to categorize it.

I was overwhelmed by the six interwoven plots that make up the story. All the actors and actresses play multiple roles. One actress plays a man in one plot. Tom Hanks plays a "Nurse Rachet" role in another story. The movie jumps between the 1800s and a post apocalyptic Earth in the 22nd Century.

It's 3 hours long, but I can't say I got bored. The scenery is beautiful and the music is soaring.

I won't pretend that I understood it all. I gather that the central message is that we lead multiple lives and love lasts forever.

If you're looking for lite fare, steer far away from this one.

 

[arieshorn]

This has my interest peaked. I've heard mixed reviews on this and the book was deemed unfilmable even though the book was award winning but no script writers dared to touch it because it was so out there.

 

[FAST FRED]

I thought "Cloud Atlas" was pretty good, however I never felt much empathy or sympathy with any of the characters, although the acting (in multiple roles having different genders, ethnicities and ages; stay until the credits are over to see this recapped) was fine.

Part of that's because the telling of six stories, switching back and forth and back and forth within the same movie, is a tough and space hungry task.

Not enough room for back story or total character development.

Those six tales, which take place between the years 1849 and 2346, were all interesting and apparently connected (that's this movie's mystery), but none were really new stories individually to an old movie buff like me.

Plus, each one iseems to be a re-imagining of the story that started before it and therein lies the enigma as they each play out in a non-sequential sequence.

At the end it all kind of comes together.

Kind of.

I've seen similar film fare before over a lifetime of eclectic movie going and, more lately, selective DVD rental, although some of the story lines were less identical or less recently utilized than others.

Comparisons to "Silkwood," "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," "Amadeus," "Logan's Run," "Mutiny on the Bounty" and even "Conan the Barbarian".....OK, that's 1,2,3,4,5,6 right there.....all quickly jumped into my mind.

And then, "The China Syndrome," "Cool Hand Luke," "Immortal Beloved," "Soylent Green," "Billy Budd" and "Centurion" made the cogitative comparison leap soon thereafter.

That's what happens when you've watched bunches and bunches of movies and have an organizing mind.

There are just seven basic plots found in literature (or movies), anyway.

The Link

Enigmatic, visionary, sweeping, mysterious, impressive, expansive and even epic are apt descriptions for this movie.

It certainly was all of that.

But confusing, tedious, unresolved and too long (172 minutes) may be what other viewers think.

I was conscious of all that in varying degrees, as I watched.

However, I was always well-entertained and was never, ever, bored.

Whenever this flick got a little derivative or drug a bit, I still enjoyed the skillful way it was put together.

I haven't read the David Mitchell book, but I suspect this screenplay is a worthy adaptation of a novel that seemed unfilmable.

So kudos for the effort.

Since nowadays ten films receive a Best Picture nomination from the Academy, this will surely be one of them.

Tom Hanks is always a strong Best Actor candidate and some of the other thespians will probably be nominated also.

I thought this original musical score was particularly outstanding and, along with the film editing and the overall look of the picture, the triple-headed direction by Wachowski, Wachowski and Tykwer and their aforementioned adapted screenplay, I'll expect many Oscar nominations and some statuettes to be awarded.

This is an ambitious, well-made, wide-ranging, beautiful, thought-provoking and possibly memorable film event, which IMO will be most appreciated by cinematophiles having a capacious and patient bladder and who really appreciate witnessing on screen evidence of the art and craft of movie making and not so much by those folks looking for an exciting, fast-moving or easily understood story.

My sweet wife thought it was boring and not enigmatic at all.

She says the only good part was the visual role recap during the credits at the end.

I enjoyed it, as I've described, in the same way I appreciated "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," namely: an OK story, delivered by interesting, thoughtful, excellently crafted cinema.

 

[Burnt Orangeman]

Overall I give it a C+ because none of the 6 subplots are that good nor do they combine to be even as great as their sum.

I liked the valley people lingo and would have preferred a full length movie around that. It was cool. You had to think but you could understand it not unlike Shakespeare.