Cloud Atlas Reviews
Christopher H
Super Reviewer
May 15, 2013
Conceptually this film looks like the making of a great and unique experience, but in execution 'Cloud Atlas' is a complete mess, but it is not without merit. On a visual level the film is very gorgeous, with great cinematography to boast and solid costume designs to fit the time period each story takes place in. The star-studded cast plays multiple roles across each of the narratives (a ploy by The Wachowskis to further imprint the karma theme) with varying degrees of success. Tom Hanks pulls off every role he is given in the film and Hugo Weaving still manages to be mesmerizing despite being regulated to cliché villain roles. Ben Wishaw gives the most memorable performance as a bisexual musician in the 1930's narrative that plays out like a compelling indie drama (the best story in the whole film). Everybody else was just okay or barely registered.
At its best, the film is unique in seamlessly juggling its multiple narratives in exhilarating ways. However, more often than not it can be plodding and emotionally un-involving. None of the individual stories deliver anything new in their respective genres (the Neo-Seoul narrative lifts the plot twist to 'Soylent Green') and the characters are often lacking in intriguing development. Another major detractor from the film is the make-up, which tends to be distractingly bad at points. This causes the film to become laughable in the Neo-Seoul sequences where white actors are made to look Asian (they look like burn victims). Plus despite the multi-leveled narrative, the overall message (Love conquers all) is terribly basic considering the pretentious three-hour build-up.
In the end, 'Cloud Atlas' feels like The Wachowskis made it for the sole purpose of proving it can be done. Ambition is great, but execution is just as key if not more important in the art of filmmaking.
Based on the 2004 novel of the same name, the latest offering from the The Wachowskis siblings is a three-hour epic that attempts to adapt a supposedly un-filmable book. Telling a narrative that combines multiple stories across vastly different time periods is a daunting task for any film auteur. For that The Wachowskis deserve credit for ambition and securing a 100 million dollar budget since no major studio wanted to fund the film (turning this into the most expensive independent movie ever made). The six narratives cover many different genres from period piece, 70's detective thriller, British comedy, to even high-concept science fiction. All of these different stories have a common theme of freedom, while the film as a whole attempts to convey the idea that one's actions have a ripple effect across time.
Conceptually this film looks like the making of a great and unique experience, but in execution 'Cloud Atlas' is a complete mess, but it is not without merit. On a visual level the film is very gorgeous, with great cinematography to boast and solid costume designs to fit the time period each story takes place in. The star-studded cast plays multiple roles across each of the narratives (a ploy by The Wachowskis to further imprint the karma theme) with varying degrees of success. Tom Hanks pulls off every role he is given in the film and Hugo Weaving still manages to be mesmerizing despite being regulated to cliché villain roles. Ben Wishaw gives the most memorable performance as a bisexual musician in the 1930's narrative that plays out like a compelling indie drama (the best story in the whole film). Everybody else was just okay or barely registered.
At its best, the film is unique in seamlessly juggling its multiple narratives in exhilarating ways. However, more often than not it can be plodding and emotionally un-involving. None of the individual stories deliver anything new in their respective genres (the Neo-Seoul narrative lifts the plot twist to 'Soylent Green') and the characters are often lacking in intriguing development. Another major detractor from the film is the make-up, which tends to be distractingly bad at points. This causes the film to become laughable in the Neo-Seoul sequences where white actors are made to look Asian (they look like burn victims). Plus despite the multi-leveled narrative, the overall message (Love conquers all) is terribly basic considering the pretentious three-hour build-up.
In the end, 'Cloud Atlas' feels like The Wachowskis made it for the sole purpose of proving it can be done. Ambition is great, but execution is just as key if not more important in the art of filmmaking.
Phil H
Super Reviewer
April 28, 2013
The film is very much like 'A.I.' in my opinion, the reason being I'm sure it will split opinions right down the middle. I can well understand people loving the film but I can well understand people disliking the film for various reasons. There is a lot to take in and at almost 3 hours the film could come across as hard work.
So in case you don't know the film is basically like an old Tarantino concept, in other words its six different stories that are all woven into one, kinda. The stories are set over a vast time span from the 18th Century, the 30's, the 70's, the present day, early 22nd Century and the early 24th Century. I will give a brief little review for each section without trying to ruin the plots for you hehe.
1. The mid 18th Century, an American lawyer travels to the Chatham Islands (Pacific Ocean, southeast of New Zealand) to conclude business for his father-in-law. This story is set around black slavery and is probably the most predictable really. The sequences look realistic, rustic and lavish with a stunning old sea galleon and some tremendous location visuals. But to be honest this tale was rather average, much time is spend on the ship watching the main character 'Ewing' die slowly, but the moral of the story is obviously a good one.
2. Mid 30's UK, a bisexual young man works as an amanuensis for an old composer. The tale is set around a homosexual relationship and how (in this era) that could destroy a man's career and life. Easily the most bold and emotional section of the film simply because you don't often see gay relations like this in major films and it paints a taboo subject in a good light, somewhat. Ben Whishaw's role as the bisexual young man is (for me) the best performance of the film by far, the same can be said for James D'Arcy as 'Sixsmith' his lover. Again everything looks period perfect, the costumes are glorious and Broadbent's nasty blackmailing composer rounds off this story flawlessly.
3. 1973, California and this is Keith David's 'Shaft' moment. A journalist is trying to uncover the true facts behind the safety of a new nuclear reactor run by its shady US owner played by...Hugh Grant?. Again I must give kudos for the visuals here, costumes, cars, sets, props etc...its all very 70's. Unfortunately this story looks like a bog standard US cops/detective TV show, you half expect 'Starsky and Hutch' to pull up. On top of that its acted and played out like a crummy bog standard US cop TV show, was that the idea?, guess it was.
4. Present day, almost, 2012, UK. An aging book publisher comes into the money big time when his current author kills a critic. The author happens to be a local criminal gangster, thusly his actions sends his book soaring up the charts making tonnes of cash. A tale of two halves this one, firstly you have what I just described, then when this gangster sends his men after 'Cavendish' the publisher for their share of the profits, he must escape into hiding. What follows is a kind of twisted 'Roald Dahl' type children's fairytale as 'Cavendish' is tricked into an old age home from hell.
Broadbent once again in a tour de force of acting really nails this character perfectly with his typically eccentric British oddball looks. A kind of dark comedy this story, mostly narrated by Broadbent but with wonderful performances by a cast of pensioners and also from Weaving as the evil 'Nurse Noakes'...that character is so 'Roald Dahl-like' its untrue. A little gem this one, quite amusing with some terrific facial expressions and visual tomfoolery from Broadbent.
'is this some sort of kinky S&M hotel?!'
5. Set in a dystopian futuristic totalitarian state in Korea, the year is 2144. Clones are used for manual labour in various roles/jobs but are treated badly, like slaves. This story is told as an account by one clone in custody after her massive ordeal with a rebel movement set against the bad treatment of clones. By far the most exciting story in the film and easily the section where the Wachowski's love of sci-fi really shines through, you can tell its them.
We've all seen 'The Matrix' (right?!), well here you can see that influence breaking through. That's not a bad thing I must stress, this short story could easily be a film in its own right, the characters are really good very intriguing, the visuals are stunning, I LOVED Neo Seoul and its blue neon highways! and the action is superb. The plot is kinda over used and cliched but it works well, you get behind 'Sonmi' the clone, you want her to succeed even though you already know what happens. Naturally comparisons to other sci-fi films are inevitable, 'Blade Runner' and 'I Robot' springs to mind right off the bat, but that doesn't detract from this excellent future set tale of a police state set in the wild East.
6. The year 2321 and it appears mankind has be almost wiped out. What is left are small tribes of people living on an island (Hawaii) in primitive conditions. There are also other tribes of people who have turned to cannibalism it seems and other people that somehow remain in touch with modern technology. This is the story that bookends the film, it is also one of the weakest in my opinion as its a typically silly sci-fi post apocalyptic story that raises many questions. Once again I can't say anything bad about the location visuals or acting but its just daft.
Why would some people choose to live like primitives, some people choose to go about eating people, whilst all the while you could still live with modern technology, medicines, clothes, proper order etc...Did anyone else notice these folk all talked like 'Jar Jar Binks'??! the hallucinations of 'Zachery', the main character, aren't really explained, the cannibals are primitive like the rest but they have metal crossbows? etc..
All these short stories are interwoven amongst themselves throughout the entire film. This is admittedly one of the films issues as I'm sure some will feel confused and lost whilst trying to keep up with each tale. There are so many characters throughout, plus the fact that the actors play multiple characters in every story does make the film hard to follow at times. You find yourself trying to recall who plays who, or trying not to get mixed up with characters played by the same people in different stories. All the characters in the stories are reincarnated versions of their previous lives which we are seeing in each century/each story. So in some stories they are bad in some they are neutral etc...I'm not overly sure if their actions are suppose to effect the next incarnation though, or maybe redeem themselves in certain aspects, cos Weaving plays a bad guy all the way through...I think.
Despite that anyone can see the powerful performances by the cast in this. I like Hugo Weaving as an actor very much and I can't fault the guy here, he plays mostly nasty pieces of work but damn it he's so flippin good. As mentioned Jim Broadbent is on fire, the guy can do no wrong, he's like an ugly version of Anthony Hopkins (no disrespect Jim). Still unsure why they would cast Grant in some odd choice roles, an all American company boss?!, a heavy?!!! (thug) and the cannibal chief! wouldn't be my choice.
An odd entity really, you wouldn't think it was a Wachowski film (accept for the sci-fi bit) and the stories range from excellent to mundane. I found myself not really caring about certain plots and wanting them to spin on so we could get back to the more thrilling plots. I must also add that despite the effects and CGI being very very good throughout, the makeup on various characters is actually pretty bad haha. Using the same actors for various roles in various settings means people had to look Korean, Caucasian, female, old, bald, have different hair, coloured contacts etc...lets just say some times the actors looked good, sometimes like looked scary.
On the whole I enjoyed this epic story telling immensely, didn't think I would but I did. The film does appear to be quite politically correct also in some stories when you think about it (homosexual relations, multicultural relations...the future of the human race in the final tale) and to be honest it does drag. There are plenty of times when you think the film is gonna end, maybe it should, but it doesn't, it goes ooooon.
If this were indeed Spielberg then I'm sure some would say its close to a masterpiece, I don't think it is, for now, but its pretty close. The sheer amount of work and time to bring all this together is impressive, on top of that its a bloody good looking film with great acting. Thing is it may well take a few viewings to get to grips with it, I must admit to having to use the films (and novels) wiki to recap on all the stories. In time this could well be a classic.
Another novel adaptation, this one a more recent publication. Surprisingly the film is an independent film made in Germany but you wouldn't think it, a huge budget, a cast of stars, directed by the Wachowski's plus the whole thing comes across like a Spielberg production, well to me it did.
The film is very much like 'A.I.' in my opinion, the reason being I'm sure it will split opinions right down the middle. I can well understand people loving the film but I can well understand people disliking the film for various reasons. There is a lot to take in and at almost 3 hours the film could come across as hard work.
So in case you don't know the film is basically like an old Tarantino concept, in other words its six different stories that are all woven into one, kinda. The stories are set over a vast time span from the 18th Century, the 30's, the 70's, the present day, early 22nd Century and the early 24th Century. I will give a brief little review for each section without trying to ruin the plots for you hehe.
1. The mid 18th Century, an American lawyer travels to the Chatham Islands (Pacific Ocean, southeast of New Zealand) to conclude business for his father-in-law. This story is set around black slavery and is probably the most predictable really. The sequences look realistic, rustic and lavish with a stunning old sea galleon and some tremendous location visuals. But to be honest this tale was rather average, much time is spend on the ship watching the main character 'Ewing' die slowly, but the moral of the story is obviously a good one.
2. Mid 30's UK, a bisexual young man works as an amanuensis for an old composer. The tale is set around a homosexual relationship and how (in this era) that could destroy a man's career and life. Easily the most bold and emotional section of the film simply because you don't often see gay relations like this in major films and it paints a taboo subject in a good light, somewhat. Ben Whishaw's role as the bisexual young man is (for me) the best performance of the film by far, the same can be said for James D'Arcy as 'Sixsmith' his lover. Again everything looks period perfect, the costumes are glorious and Broadbent's nasty blackmailing composer rounds off this story flawlessly.
3. 1973, California and this is Keith David's 'Shaft' moment. A journalist is trying to uncover the true facts behind the safety of a new nuclear reactor run by its shady US owner played by...Hugh Grant?. Again I must give kudos for the visuals here, costumes, cars, sets, props etc...its all very 70's. Unfortunately this story looks like a bog standard US cops/detective TV show, you half expect 'Starsky and Hutch' to pull up. On top of that its acted and played out like a crummy bog standard US cop TV show, was that the idea?, guess it was.
4. Present day, almost, 2012, UK. An aging book publisher comes into the money big time when his current author kills a critic. The author happens to be a local criminal gangster, thusly his actions sends his book soaring up the charts making tonnes of cash. A tale of two halves this one, firstly you have what I just described, then when this gangster sends his men after 'Cavendish' the publisher for their share of the profits, he must escape into hiding. What follows is a kind of twisted 'Roald Dahl' type children's fairytale as 'Cavendish' is tricked into an old age home from hell.
Broadbent once again in a tour de force of acting really nails this character perfectly with his typically eccentric British oddball looks. A kind of dark comedy this story, mostly narrated by Broadbent but with wonderful performances by a cast of pensioners and also from Weaving as the evil 'Nurse Noakes'...that character is so 'Roald Dahl-like' its untrue. A little gem this one, quite amusing with some terrific facial expressions and visual tomfoolery from Broadbent.
'is this some sort of kinky S&M hotel?!'
5. Set in a dystopian futuristic totalitarian state in Korea, the year is 2144. Clones are used for manual labour in various roles/jobs but are treated badly, like slaves. This story is told as an account by one clone in custody after her massive ordeal with a rebel movement set against the bad treatment of clones. By far the most exciting story in the film and easily the section where the Wachowski's love of sci-fi really shines through, you can tell its them.
We've all seen 'The Matrix' (right?!), well here you can see that influence breaking through. That's not a bad thing I must stress, this short story could easily be a film in its own right, the characters are really good very intriguing, the visuals are stunning, I LOVED Neo Seoul and its blue neon highways! and the action is superb. The plot is kinda over used and cliched but it works well, you get behind 'Sonmi' the clone, you want her to succeed even though you already know what happens. Naturally comparisons to other sci-fi films are inevitable, 'Blade Runner' and 'I Robot' springs to mind right off the bat, but that doesn't detract from this excellent future set tale of a police state set in the wild East.
6. The year 2321 and it appears mankind has be almost wiped out. What is left are small tribes of people living on an island (Hawaii) in primitive conditions. There are also other tribes of people who have turned to cannibalism it seems and other people that somehow remain in touch with modern technology. This is the story that bookends the film, it is also one of the weakest in my opinion as its a typically silly sci-fi post apocalyptic story that raises many questions. Once again I can't say anything bad about the location visuals or acting but its just daft.
Why would some people choose to live like primitives, some people choose to go about eating people, whilst all the while you could still live with modern technology, medicines, clothes, proper order etc...Did anyone else notice these folk all talked like 'Jar Jar Binks'??! the hallucinations of 'Zachery', the main character, aren't really explained, the cannibals are primitive like the rest but they have metal crossbows? etc..
All these short stories are interwoven amongst themselves throughout the entire film. This is admittedly one of the films issues as I'm sure some will feel confused and lost whilst trying to keep up with each tale. There are so many characters throughout, plus the fact that the actors play multiple characters in every story does make the film hard to follow at times. You find yourself trying to recall who plays who, or trying not to get mixed up with characters played by the same people in different stories. All the characters in the stories are reincarnated versions of their previous lives which we are seeing in each century/each story. So in some stories they are bad in some they are neutral etc...I'm not overly sure if their actions are suppose to effect the next incarnation though, or maybe redeem themselves in certain aspects, cos Weaving plays a bad guy all the way through...I think.
Despite that anyone can see the powerful performances by the cast in this. I like Hugo Weaving as an actor very much and I can't fault the guy here, he plays mostly nasty pieces of work but damn it he's so flippin good. As mentioned Jim Broadbent is on fire, the guy can do no wrong, he's like an ugly version of Anthony Hopkins (no disrespect Jim). Still unsure why they would cast Grant in some odd choice roles, an all American company boss?!, a heavy?!!! (thug) and the cannibal chief! wouldn't be my choice.
An odd entity really, you wouldn't think it was a Wachowski film (accept for the sci-fi bit) and the stories range from excellent to mundane. I found myself not really caring about certain plots and wanting them to spin on so we could get back to the more thrilling plots. I must also add that despite the effects and CGI being very very good throughout, the makeup on various characters is actually pretty bad haha. Using the same actors for various roles in various settings means people had to look Korean, Caucasian, female, old, bald, have different hair, coloured contacts etc...lets just say some times the actors looked good, sometimes like looked scary.
On the whole I enjoyed this epic story telling immensely, didn't think I would but I did. The film does appear to be quite politically correct also in some stories when you think about it (homosexual relations, multicultural relations...the future of the human race in the final tale) and to be honest it does drag. There are plenty of times when you think the film is gonna end, maybe it should, but it doesn't, it goes ooooon.
If this were indeed Spielberg then I'm sure some would say its close to a masterpiece, I don't think it is, for now, but its pretty close. The sheer amount of work and time to bring all this together is impressive, on top of that its a bloody good looking film with great acting. Thing is it may well take a few viewings to get to grips with it, I must admit to having to use the films (and novels) wiki to recap on all the stories. In time this could well be a classic.
Emil K
Super Reviewer
January 13, 2013
I can see if not many are willing to go places where Cloud Atlas takes us. It asks a lot from viewer and with its three hour lenght and it is a demanding and challenging epic that has many different timelines and many different characters. Those who like science fiction with brains and ambition will quite possibly find it as one of the most interesting films in a long time. I myself loved the concept and ideas it had. It throws lot of questions to a viewer and make us in the audience to really think.
It is surprising to see that this comes from the same directors who made The Matrix - trilogy which were much more hollow as a films and aimed more for a kung-fu set pieces and famous bullet-time effects than actual ideas. Actually Cloud Atlas is a collaboration between three different directors; Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski and Tom Tykwer who all bring something of their own into this story which is based David Mitchell's novel. This mixture could have ended up into a huge mess or disaster but instead all of these directors succeeds in balancing with their material and pull off an virtuoso adventure like no other.
I myself have never seen anything like this before. Cloud Atlas reminds me of other ambitious sci-fi films like Steven Spielberg's A.I. and Ridley Scott's Prometheus with some nods to Blade Runner also. There are also elements that brought Darren Aronofsky's equally bold and majestic The Fountain into my mind. Cloud Atlas and The Founain both manages to bring rare amounts of heart into the world of often cold science fiction with devastating impact, and they both also hold this mysterious element that makes them effective and intriguing.
To describe Cloud Atlas is a real challange and that is part of its appeal. To call it a science fiction mystery with a echoes of 70's paranoia thrillers and majestic old adventure films does not even come to close its entity as a film. Cloud Atlas is something much bigger than the genres and the world it operates in. This is larger than life filmmaking and certainly deservers to be seen. As a film this is by far the best thing any of these directors has done in their careers. Mixture of Tykwer's sensibilities as a director and Wachowskie's more adventurous filmmaking is a perfect match and bring especially welcome sophisticated touch to Wachowskie's hyper-stylized action set pieces which are not seen here this time around. Cinematography by great John Toll and talented Frank Griebe are major contribution to films overall visual look and the future has rarely looked so a amazing as it does in here. One of the films most important elements is also the fantastic musical score by Reinhold Heil, Johnny Klimek and Tom Tykwer, whose music bring certain feeling of awe, excitment and mystery into this magnificent film.
Still beneath all the fantastic technical wizardy and gimmicks lies an very impressive ensemble cast. To cast same actors into many different roles could have been a disaster but it actually works brilliantly. There are moments that are slightly distracting because of the actors weak accents or their corny make-up which are at times be too artificial, but overall the impact is quite stunning. With actors like Ben Whishaw, Tom Hanks, Jim Broadbent, Halle Berry, Jim Sturgess, Doona Bae, Hugh Grant, Susan Sarandon and Hugo Weaving on board, Cloud Atlas has a one hell of a impressive cast and each and everyone of these actors captures their roles with a perfect charisma and ability to bend themselves into another characters in a different time.
Overall Cloud Atlas is one unforgettable journey. It might not be without flaws but it certainly earns to be mentioned as one of the most original films to come along in recent years. This is one of a kind filmmaking and deserves to be seen. Do not miss it.
Cloud Atlas is a stunning achievement. It is a ambitious film that defies all the expectations and with its literally megalomaniac plot it ultimately succeeds in creating an unforgettable journey through life, love, space, time and connected lives.
I can see if not many are willing to go places where Cloud Atlas takes us. It asks a lot from viewer and with its three hour lenght and it is a demanding and challenging epic that has many different timelines and many different characters. Those who like science fiction with brains and ambition will quite possibly find it as one of the most interesting films in a long time. I myself loved the concept and ideas it had. It throws lot of questions to a viewer and make us in the audience to really think.
It is surprising to see that this comes from the same directors who made The Matrix - trilogy which were much more hollow as a films and aimed more for a kung-fu set pieces and famous bullet-time effects than actual ideas. Actually Cloud Atlas is a collaboration between three different directors; Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski and Tom Tykwer who all bring something of their own into this story which is based David Mitchell's novel. This mixture could have ended up into a huge mess or disaster but instead all of these directors succeeds in balancing with their material and pull off an virtuoso adventure like no other.
I myself have never seen anything like this before. Cloud Atlas reminds me of other ambitious sci-fi films like Steven Spielberg's A.I. and Ridley Scott's Prometheus with some nods to Blade Runner also. There are also elements that brought Darren Aronofsky's equally bold and majestic The Fountain into my mind. Cloud Atlas and The Founain both manages to bring rare amounts of heart into the world of often cold science fiction with devastating impact, and they both also hold this mysterious element that makes them effective and intriguing.
To describe Cloud Atlas is a real challange and that is part of its appeal. To call it a science fiction mystery with a echoes of 70's paranoia thrillers and majestic old adventure films does not even come to close its entity as a film. Cloud Atlas is something much bigger than the genres and the world it operates in. This is larger than life filmmaking and certainly deservers to be seen. As a film this is by far the best thing any of these directors has done in their careers. Mixture of Tykwer's sensibilities as a director and Wachowskie's more adventurous filmmaking is a perfect match and bring especially welcome sophisticated touch to Wachowskie's hyper-stylized action set pieces which are not seen here this time around. Cinematography by great John Toll and talented Frank Griebe are major contribution to films overall visual look and the future has rarely looked so a amazing as it does in here. One of the films most important elements is also the fantastic musical score by Reinhold Heil, Johnny Klimek and Tom Tykwer, whose music bring certain feeling of awe, excitment and mystery into this magnificent film.
Still beneath all the fantastic technical wizardy and gimmicks lies an very impressive ensemble cast. To cast same actors into many different roles could have been a disaster but it actually works brilliantly. There are moments that are slightly distracting because of the actors weak accents or their corny make-up which are at times be too artificial, but overall the impact is quite stunning. With actors like Ben Whishaw, Tom Hanks, Jim Broadbent, Halle Berry, Jim Sturgess, Doona Bae, Hugh Grant, Susan Sarandon and Hugo Weaving on board, Cloud Atlas has a one hell of a impressive cast and each and everyone of these actors captures their roles with a perfect charisma and ability to bend themselves into another characters in a different time.
Overall Cloud Atlas is one unforgettable journey. It might not be without flaws but it certainly earns to be mentioned as one of the most original films to come along in recent years. This is one of a kind filmmaking and deserves to be seen. Do not miss it.
axadntpron
Super Reviewer
March 11, 2013
Apart from a few key decisions the direction is stellar. Taking such a behemoth containing six different story lines and doing each story justice whilst piecing them together in a way that allows them to unravel together must have been a headache from conception to the editing bay. Yet, somehow the filmmakers make it seem effortless. Like the Cloud Atlas sextet in the film, it takes master composers to make disparate pieces move in concert.
My main gripe with the film is the decision to have the actors play different characters in each of the story lines. Not only did it lead to horrendously comical make-up decisions & some actors visible uncomfortable in certain roles, but it only further drove home the message that the script was already gently cramming down our throats. Who we are and the decisions that we make are bigger than us & reverberate throughout the ages. A beautiful message that is unfortunately & nauseatingly reinforced throughout the entire film.
The message of Mitchell's book is more elusive, granted that may be because in a novel you are allowed to let the material breathe more. However, while the Watchowskis ratchet up the accessibility they lose the power of self-discovery that comes with this story. A good therapist should never tell one what to do or how to feel, but rather inspire one to feel. And what are movies but a little $10 therapy?
While I may have overall respected the film more than enjoyed watching it, I was never bored during it's nearly three hour running time. Something that on it's own is a cause for celebration.
As a fan of Mitchell's work, I was hesitant/excited to see what the Watchowskis & Tom Tykwer would do with this sprawling epic. Many people were quick to charge that the celebrated novel was simply unfilmable. But after reading an article about the directors' adoration for the story, I was excited to see how that love would translate into cinema.
Apart from a few key decisions the direction is stellar. Taking such a behemoth containing six different story lines and doing each story justice whilst piecing them together in a way that allows them to unravel together must have been a headache from conception to the editing bay. Yet, somehow the filmmakers make it seem effortless. Like the Cloud Atlas sextet in the film, it takes master composers to make disparate pieces move in concert.
My main gripe with the film is the decision to have the actors play different characters in each of the story lines. Not only did it lead to horrendously comical make-up decisions & some actors visible uncomfortable in certain roles, but it only further drove home the message that the script was already gently cramming down our throats. Who we are and the decisions that we make are bigger than us & reverberate throughout the ages. A beautiful message that is unfortunately & nauseatingly reinforced throughout the entire film.
The message of Mitchell's book is more elusive, granted that may be because in a novel you are allowed to let the material breathe more. However, while the Watchowskis ratchet up the accessibility they lose the power of self-discovery that comes with this story. A good therapist should never tell one what to do or how to feel, but rather inspire one to feel. And what are movies but a little $10 therapy?
While I may have overall respected the film more than enjoyed watching it, I was never bored during it's nearly three hour running time. Something that on it's own is a cause for celebration.
Pierluigi P
Super Reviewer
March 3, 2013
Shameful attempt of a profound and intricate journey. Pretentious, preachy, reiterative, chaotic, anticlimactic. Much ado about nothing.
c0up
Super Reviewer
March 2, 2013
The transitions between the stories are poetic and seamless, the only pity at times being the unevenness of said stories. The recurring theme of freedom takes many forms, across many a scale, but Broadbent's old age home escape, while adding humour and lightness, distracts.
I didn't feel the near 3 hour runtime, and I'm in complete admiration of this massive undertaking being realised so well.
'Cloud Atlas'. Ambitious, grand, a visual marvel. And uneven. Neo Seoul, what a world. Loved the editing, production and costume design.
The transitions between the stories are poetic and seamless, the only pity at times being the unevenness of said stories. The recurring theme of freedom takes many forms, across many a scale, but Broadbent's old age home escape, while adding humour and lightness, distracts.
I didn't feel the near 3 hour runtime, and I'm in complete admiration of this massive undertaking being realised so well.
Sanjay R
Super Reviewer
October 27, 2012
This has to be one of the worst movies I have seen. It collapses rapidly under its own pretention and ambition. You keep waiting for the story to cohere, and it never does in the far too long 2 hours and 43 minutes it takes away from your life. This film is a jumbled mess of six stories with no depth or purpose. The only intriguing thing is the wide array of characters the actors play, but having Tom Hanks and Halle Berry play 100 different people hardly makes up for this failure of filmmaking.
Matt G
Super Reviewer
September 23, 2012
Having read the book, the film had a much greater effect on me than it would for someone unfamiliar with the stories of CLOUD ATLAS.
Mark W
Super Reviewer
February 21, 2013
1849: a Pacific ocean voyage that unearths a stowaway slave.
1936: an inspirational composition of classical music in Edinburgh.
1973: a manuscript that invites a dangerous conspiracy in San Francisco.
2012: a publisher goes into hiding in a nursing home fearing for his life.
2144: a totalitarian regime in futuristic Korea gives birth to a rebellious clone.
2321: a post-apocalyptic Hawaii that's leads to the cosmos...
These are the six stories that connect life, the universe and everything as past, present and future interlace with another and humankind struggle to make sense of their existence.
What better way to tell a story than to begin it in the ancient way? An old man sitting around a campfire with scars on his face and wisdom on his tongue. That's exactly what the trio of directors Andy and Lana Wachowski and Tom Tykwer have done and it sets the perfect opening to an expansive, spectacular and hugely ambitious and visual storytelling adventure. It's so vast and labyrinthine that it's hard to even begin to break it down. It works on so many levels; from the metaphorical to allegorical, as well as, the tangential and does so while setting it in six different centuries (from the 19th to the 24th) and having the same actors play several different roles throughout. It's difficult to find your feet and it could take at least an hour before you even get a hint or actually begin to grasp anything that's going on. Once the narrative strands do come together, though, the film becomes a completely immersive experience.
It poses questions as to the meaning of our existence and the direct relation we have to one another and whether our experiences in life are just luck or predestined by means of Karma, reincarnation or simply through a greater, unknown, connection within the universe. In other words, it explores the complex questions and search for answers that have been pondered from time immemorial. It also incorporates the influence of art, television and how easily deities can be constructed and how, essentially, humankind is their own worst enemy. There will certainly be more questions than answers throughout this journey but what this film does, is run with life's conundrums, meanwhile freeing itself from narrative conventions and hits you from six different angles all at once. It really is astoundingly complex stuff.
Now, I don't profess to understand Cloud Atlas in it's entirety. I did manage to get a reasonably good handle on it's elaborate tapestry but it's a film that requires, at least, a couple of viewings to fully grasp. The utmost patience and concentration is essential and if you happen to switch off for a second - throughout it's almost three hour long running time - then it will, ruthlessly, leave you behind. You have been warned: this film will pickle your brain for weeks. It has confounded many; so much so, that it's been written off as disappointing or a pretentious mess. I, on the other hand, strongly believe that it should not be ignored. The only drawbacks I found were the tenuous linking between a couple of the stories and the tone of the film shifted a little uneasily in places. Nevertheless, this is one of the most ambitious, intelligent and beautifully constructed film's for quite some time and, if invested in, will bring many rewards.
I don't know why I'd choose to paraphrase at this point other than to sum up this film (and my review) by leaving you with the words of a wiser fellar than myself: "I guess that's the way the whole durned human comedy keeps perpetuatin' it-self, down through the generations, westward the wagons, across the sands a time until - aw, look at me, I'm ramblin' again... Catch ya further on down the trail".
Recently, Yann Martel's novel "Life Of Pi" made it to the silver screen after an exemplary adaptation by Ang Lee. However, the novel itself had been deemed 'unfilmable' beforehand. There are many literary works that have come under this assumption and David Mitchell's Booker Prize-nominated novel Cloud Atlas is another. The reception of this film has been very mixed but, give or take, the odd discrepancy and noodle scratching moment, this is an impressively successful endeavour that proves, once again, that the ability to transfer page to screen is entirely possible and vibrantly alive.
1849: a Pacific ocean voyage that unearths a stowaway slave.
1936: an inspirational composition of classical music in Edinburgh.
1973: a manuscript that invites a dangerous conspiracy in San Francisco.
2012: a publisher goes into hiding in a nursing home fearing for his life.
2144: a totalitarian regime in futuristic Korea gives birth to a rebellious clone.
2321: a post-apocalyptic Hawaii that's leads to the cosmos...
These are the six stories that connect life, the universe and everything as past, present and future interlace with another and humankind struggle to make sense of their existence.
What better way to tell a story than to begin it in the ancient way? An old man sitting around a campfire with scars on his face and wisdom on his tongue. That's exactly what the trio of directors Andy and Lana Wachowski and Tom Tykwer have done and it sets the perfect opening to an expansive, spectacular and hugely ambitious and visual storytelling adventure. It's so vast and labyrinthine that it's hard to even begin to break it down. It works on so many levels; from the metaphorical to allegorical, as well as, the tangential and does so while setting it in six different centuries (from the 19th to the 24th) and having the same actors play several different roles throughout. It's difficult to find your feet and it could take at least an hour before you even get a hint or actually begin to grasp anything that's going on. Once the narrative strands do come together, though, the film becomes a completely immersive experience.
It poses questions as to the meaning of our existence and the direct relation we have to one another and whether our experiences in life are just luck or predestined by means of Karma, reincarnation or simply through a greater, unknown, connection within the universe. In other words, it explores the complex questions and search for answers that have been pondered from time immemorial. It also incorporates the influence of art, television and how easily deities can be constructed and how, essentially, humankind is their own worst enemy. There will certainly be more questions than answers throughout this journey but what this film does, is run with life's conundrums, meanwhile freeing itself from narrative conventions and hits you from six different angles all at once. It really is astoundingly complex stuff.
Now, I don't profess to understand Cloud Atlas in it's entirety. I did manage to get a reasonably good handle on it's elaborate tapestry but it's a film that requires, at least, a couple of viewings to fully grasp. The utmost patience and concentration is essential and if you happen to switch off for a second - throughout it's almost three hour long running time - then it will, ruthlessly, leave you behind. You have been warned: this film will pickle your brain for weeks. It has confounded many; so much so, that it's been written off as disappointing or a pretentious mess. I, on the other hand, strongly believe that it should not be ignored. The only drawbacks I found were the tenuous linking between a couple of the stories and the tone of the film shifted a little uneasily in places. Nevertheless, this is one of the most ambitious, intelligent and beautifully constructed film's for quite some time and, if invested in, will bring many rewards.
I don't know why I'd choose to paraphrase at this point other than to sum up this film (and my review) by leaving you with the words of a wiser fellar than myself: "I guess that's the way the whole durned human comedy keeps perpetuatin' it-self, down through the generations, westward the wagons, across the sands a time until - aw, look at me, I'm ramblin' again... Catch ya further on down the trail".
Daniel L
Super Reviewer
January 15, 2013
Cloud Atlas couples impressive cinematography and set pieces with intriguing vignettes and dynamic performances to create an immensely unique film.
Carlos M
Super Reviewer
August 1, 2012
This is what happens when you go crazy and try to make the most ambitious film ever, a pretentious and megalomaniac project that attempts to comprise all genres and be bigger than life but is only a complete and utter mess. It is overlong, tiring, cheesy, uneven and unbearably confusing.
Dan S
Super Reviewer
October 27, 2012
An ambitious film chronicling six different stories from different time periods (1849 to 2349) and how they are all connected despite taking place in different settings, with seemingly different characters. While not a masterpiece, this film definitely flirts with it, given the actors outstanding dedication to each one of the characters they portray, not to mention the nice shifts in pacing from director Tom Tykwer. There are definitely parts that seem forced into place, but this is certainly one of the most ambitious films of all-time. The acting across the board is really phenomenal, especially Hanks and Weaving (his top-hatted villain is a delight), and the film does a fine job connecting all of its stories together. It is also a beautiful film to look at, and one that merits a view based on its epic scope, solid delivery, and memorable stories. Highly recommended.
Raymond W
Super Reviewer
September 15, 2012
Cloud Atlas is an ambitious film that could have failed miserably, or mesmerized and been spectacular. Lana Wachowski and Tom Tykwer have fortunately been able to take the scope of the novel and condense it into 3 hours of thought-provoking narrative, superb visual effects, and some fantastic acting throughout. "The key to successfully absorbing the movie is in not trying to overthink what's on screen" (James Berardinelli, ReelViews). This is also the key to enjoying the movie; to let your imagination run with it. The different stories are cut so well together, the casting choices are often jarring with heavy makeup and prosthetics changing race, gender, etc. Often, the odd casting choices are distracting, and sometimes funny (which I don't think they are supposed to be). The script isn't the best either, but the writers have done a commendable job putting it together in total. Overall, go into Cloud Atlas with an open mind, don't think too much about what's on the screen, and let your imagination run with it and have fun, and also be prepared to be deeply and profoundly moved as well.
Everett J
Super Reviewer
October 16, 2012
"Cloud Atlas" is probably the weirdest, most original, messed up movie I've seen that came out in 2012. The only way I know how to describe it is it's a bunch of different stories with the same actors(as different characters), in different time periods, about how people are ultimately connected to each other. This ranks right up there with "Muholland Drive" and "Tree of Life" as movies that just don't make much sense. The only thing with this, is it has a great score and a few days after I watched it, I'm still thinking about some of the things in it and it makes me want to watch it more when I'm able to get a blu ray copy. The acting in this is pretty good with a great cast. Tom Hanks, Helle Berry, Hugh Grant, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, and Jim Broadbent(best of the movie). Other than the constant shifting of stories(scenes go back and forth every couple minutes), some of the make up is great and some was so bad it's laughable. Especially the make up and hair done in some scenes for Tom Hanks. Almost as if he was trying to be comical, even though this is a very serious, and pretentious at times, movie. Right now, I think this was just ok, but I think after another viewing I will either like it a lot more, or just down right hate it. One some columnist's top ten list I've seen this as number 1 as best, and number 1 as worst, so it's definitely a love or hate movie. I'd be willing to bet most people will watch 20 minutes and turn it off. The movie is nearly 3 hours long, so if you watch it, just stick with it and give the entire thing a chance. Not a must see, but if your a fan of movies like I am, you should see it. There literally is nothing else like this out there.
366weirdmovies
Super Reviewer
December 26, 2012
The movie goes back and forth between six stories set in different time periods (two are in the future), with the same actors playing different roles in each story. The way it switches back and forth almost at random between the stories makes it too confusing at the start, it's too long, and I wish there had been a more rigorous narrative connection between the various tales besides the wishy-washy, feel-good "everything is connected" spiel; on the plus size the scale and ambition is impressive, and it's fun to try to spot the actors in their various roles.
Julian Left
Super Reviewer
July 20, 2012
I left two times the movie theater knowing that I saw something special, knowing that I witnessed not only a march towards freedom but also towards a better understanding of faith and how that works in the context of evolution. I noticed that everyone is talking about how important is the concept of freedom in this film and to a certain degree I fully agree. There is one small window though that I think a lot of people are missing. The fact that even if the present or the future seem to be irreversible and not to be altered, faith plays a great role in doing the unexpected because it's the pillar of what pushes anyone to change something. So the role of faith in evolution is a major concept in Cloud Atlas. Haven't read the book I have the opinion of an outsider here and I think what Cloud Atlas did is marvelous but I also acknowledge the issues that the movie has and why it is so polarizing.
The force of Cloud Atlas is not in the labirynthian craft of the story which is a bit hard to process entirely by the general audience but in the mixture of ideas and themes present in the film. That is the marvelous part. That this film succeeded in telling a story of faith, destiny, and freedom by using important problems that are relevant to our society. It went on and explored slavery, environmental issues, resource problems, politics, religion, human integrity and professional integrity, linguistics, and even insanity. It was so easy for a movie about something so common like freedom or faith to just revolve around the love/hate element of human nature but this one it didn't, it didn't took the lazy path of going somewhere. This is where I think Cloud Atlas succeeds. Making every story that's being told important and relevant to our society. It tells a story of "how not to" or "how to" without directly pointing the finger. The bad side of all this though is exactly the labirynthian craft of the story. Not because it's too hard to process by the average moviegoer but simply because it feels even for people like me -who've seen thousands of movies-- a bit like reading a really "exhibitionistish" piece of literature. It just hits you with so many things without any warning that you're constantly under a wave of ideas. It's more of a flood of ideas. The character development feels like that as well. While I can see the progress and the small connections I can hardly get attached to any character because I feel they are for a moment just pawns in the grand scheme of things shown here. It's a film that lets few people breathe. It doesn't take a pause and in movies like this one, pauses are sometimes needed.
The acting is good but nothing that will stand in front in particular. We get fine work from Tom Hanks, Jim Broadbent, our latest "Q" in James Bond Series, Ben Whishaw, and short but keen performances by David Gyasi and Hugh Grant. Halle Berry feels a little bit out of place, and God that makeup was half brilliant, half awful. In general this films lacks the technical qualities that it could have had. The cinematography is polarizing as well. Sometimes I felt the John Toll shots made more sense and sometimes I felt the Frank Griebe shots were more gripping and pulled me back into the story. The strongest technical part in Cloud Atlas is without a doubt the music. The score by Tom Twyker, Johnny Klimek, and Reinhold Heil is so emotional, vivid, and really helps in keeping the audience interested and ultimately sending a message.
I think Twyker and the Wachowski brothers managed to create a great film that only falls short because it feels just a bit too much. It went over the top with it's exposition and that hurts. This could have easily been the best film of the year if only the story ran smoother and less precise.
Story: 9.0
Acting: 8.0
Technical Execution: 8.6
Replay Value: 8.5
====================
OVERALL: 8.6
"This could have easily been the best film of the year if only the story ran smoother and less precise."
I left two times the movie theater knowing that I saw something special, knowing that I witnessed not only a march towards freedom but also towards a better understanding of faith and how that works in the context of evolution. I noticed that everyone is talking about how important is the concept of freedom in this film and to a certain degree I fully agree. There is one small window though that I think a lot of people are missing. The fact that even if the present or the future seem to be irreversible and not to be altered, faith plays a great role in doing the unexpected because it's the pillar of what pushes anyone to change something. So the role of faith in evolution is a major concept in Cloud Atlas. Haven't read the book I have the opinion of an outsider here and I think what Cloud Atlas did is marvelous but I also acknowledge the issues that the movie has and why it is so polarizing.
The force of Cloud Atlas is not in the labirynthian craft of the story which is a bit hard to process entirely by the general audience but in the mixture of ideas and themes present in the film. That is the marvelous part. That this film succeeded in telling a story of faith, destiny, and freedom by using important problems that are relevant to our society. It went on and explored slavery, environmental issues, resource problems, politics, religion, human integrity and professional integrity, linguistics, and even insanity. It was so easy for a movie about something so common like freedom or faith to just revolve around the love/hate element of human nature but this one it didn't, it didn't took the lazy path of going somewhere. This is where I think Cloud Atlas succeeds. Making every story that's being told important and relevant to our society. It tells a story of "how not to" or "how to" without directly pointing the finger. The bad side of all this though is exactly the labirynthian craft of the story. Not because it's too hard to process by the average moviegoer but simply because it feels even for people like me -who've seen thousands of movies-- a bit like reading a really "exhibitionistish" piece of literature. It just hits you with so many things without any warning that you're constantly under a wave of ideas. It's more of a flood of ideas. The character development feels like that as well. While I can see the progress and the small connections I can hardly get attached to any character because I feel they are for a moment just pawns in the grand scheme of things shown here. It's a film that lets few people breathe. It doesn't take a pause and in movies like this one, pauses are sometimes needed.
The acting is good but nothing that will stand in front in particular. We get fine work from Tom Hanks, Jim Broadbent, our latest "Q" in James Bond Series, Ben Whishaw, and short but keen performances by David Gyasi and Hugh Grant. Halle Berry feels a little bit out of place, and God that makeup was half brilliant, half awful. In general this films lacks the technical qualities that it could have had. The cinematography is polarizing as well. Sometimes I felt the John Toll shots made more sense and sometimes I felt the Frank Griebe shots were more gripping and pulled me back into the story. The strongest technical part in Cloud Atlas is without a doubt the music. The score by Tom Twyker, Johnny Klimek, and Reinhold Heil is so emotional, vivid, and really helps in keeping the audience interested and ultimately sending a message.
I think Twyker and the Wachowski brothers managed to create a great film that only falls short because it feels just a bit too much. It went over the top with it's exposition and that hurts. This could have easily been the best film of the year if only the story ran smoother and less precise.
Story: 9.0
Acting: 8.0
Technical Execution: 8.6
Replay Value: 8.5
====================
OVERALL: 8.6
Jason S
Super Reviewer
November 22, 2012
I walked out of this movie wanting to walk right back in and see it again. The storytelling was fantastic and all the actors did a great job balancing all the roles they were given. Most of the makeup work was great but there were a few that fell really flat. I'm super impressed with the feat of making this movie and can't wait to jump into some making of features.
