Recensioni degli utenti

At nearly three hours long AND with a strange and difficult to comprehend plot, I can see exactly why "Cloud Atlas" lost a ton of money. In the States, it only brought in about $27,000,000---yet cost $100,000,000 to make. Much of the high cost is undoubtedly due to the cast--as the film boasts some famous and high-paid actors (including Tom Hanks and Halle Berry). It's a shame really, as the film does have some nice thing to offer...though overall, it was a problematic film to watch.

The film consists of many different stories that all occur many different times in history (both in the past and very distant future). And, instead of being told in sequence, they are interlaced throughout the film. Why and what these plots all have to do with each other is something the audience is left to discover or create within themselves. However, many will get frustrated because for some time, the film doesn't give you a lot of clues at to what it all means.

Despite being confusing and hard to grasp, the film has several things I loved. The stars of the film all play multiple roles and you'll see many of them in many stories. This provides the actors a chance to show off their talents--especially because many times they need to effect accents and/or play the opposite gender!! Yes, most of the main cast members play men AND women. Now this never would have worked if the acting was bad and the makeup was bad--but they really shine in this film. I was blown away by the makeup and thought several of the female characters were women when they weren't--it was that convincing. Additionally, while I was a bit cold about the overall film, I did appreciate how novel the movie was--very, very unique.

So how might I have wanted the movie to be instead? Well, the many stories frustrated me because some of them were really, really compelling--and seeing only bits and pieces of them was annoying. I really wanted to see the whole story of many of the stories and could have seen the filmmakers making four or five films instead of just one. I particularly liked the stories about the replicant as well as the one where Hanks played a thug author (his acting was really nice here).

My advice is that this film demands a viewer who is very, very patient, content with ambiguity and who wants to see a nice experimental film-- warts and all. Worth seeing but odd to say the least.

NOTE: Parents, this film is NOT appropriate for kids. It clearly earns its R rating for some extremely graphic violence and sex. While the sex is sometimes steamy, the violence is what troubles me most for anyone crazy enough to let kids watch this one.

I was lucky enough to get last-minute tickets for this film at the Toronto International Film Festival. The theatre was packed and we were thrilled to see it although we did not entirely know what to expect. I had read a part of the book but never found time to finish it.

The very opening of the film is mesmerizing and sets pace for all that is to follow. Six stories are intertwined to create one magical ride through time and space, as all stories move forward as one. To those who haven't read the book, I expect you might find the movie confusing at first. It seems unclear at the beginning (and for most of the first hour and a half at least) what all these characters have to do with one another. The end ties it up quite well, but for a three hour film, you might find you've spent a bit too long grasping at straws. Just let it go and enjoy what's before you; It will all come together in the end.

An important aspect of the film is that actors play different characters throughout the film, finding themselves in different stories and eras. Often it works. The futuristic plot with Jim Sturgess is one I particularly enjoy. But sometimes, it feels like they're incorporated just a tad bit much. Tom Hanks' role in the editor's story seemed huge and important and first but it seemed we were supposed to forget about it. As I walked out of the theatre, I felt I had seen not only Cloud Atlas as a whole but a series of other films as well.

I think maybe for a film such as this one, actors who weren't as known would have been better. It may have been easier to believe in all their different characters and forget who they were. But as far as their performances went, well they were great. Tom Hanks shines from the opening sequence to the very end. Halle Berry was adequate for the journalist and Hugh Grant... actually it seems he's playing himself in this one too. But the true star as always is Hugo Weaving. He steals the screen whenever he appears and is mesmerizing both as the devil or a regular assassin.

The costumes and make up went from absolutely stunning (it may take you a few minutes to recognize actors sometimes) to somewhat distracting. Changing the race and age of an actor has got to be challenging but it's still hard to forget who they are. I expect the film will get an Oscar for this however, as I don't think anyone will beat them in this category before winter comes. The score was also incredibly powerful and beautiful and helped set the tone for the movie greatly.

Cloud Atlas will take you anywhere and everywhere. It may surprise you by its sudden burst of violence, sometimes exaggerated and almost funny, sometimes cold and raw. You might cry at times, as the characters make choices and sacrifices. One story is particularly funny and had the theatre laughing quite often.

All in all, Cloud Atlas is no ordinary film. It's a voyage that will take you to places you didn't expect. Don't try to understand it, just let yourself go and you'll find you understood what it was all about. If you're looking for a linear plot, then this film isn't for you. But if you want to experience something different, then by all means, buy a ticket for Cloud Atlas when it comes out. I know I'll be seeing it again.

I didn't find it to be a mess at all, and it was certainly the best thing the Wachowskis have ever done. I'm not sure how the directing duties were distributed, so I'll uniformly praise Tom Tykwer as well.

I haven't read the book, so I can't make any comparisons there, but I don't often leave a film adaptation wanting to read the novel afterwards, as I did after seeing this.

Visually stunning, epic in scope, a strong score; the sort of film that you're constantly amazed was ever made and happy it was. Equal parts comedy, romance, thriller, and dystopian speculative fiction, it really is an astounding mix of disparate elements.

The biggest overall failure was definitely some of the make-up effects - trying to turn Doona Bae into a believable red-headed Caucasian woman was simply distracting - but the overall art & sound design was incredible.

If I could turn channels while watching TV and switch between stories and narratives as seamlessly and as deftly as the editing in Cloud Atlas, it would honestly be hard to go back to simply watching one show at a time.

Truly a marvel of multitasking on so many levels. Great stuff.

"Cloud Atlas" is nearly three hours in length, but I wasn't bored for a minute. The film alternates between six very different stories quite seamlessly, creating an exhilarating experience. It's part sci-fi, part historical drama, part love story, part comedy. Any number of things could have gone wrong with the film. All the different genres it brings together might have failed to coherently mesh. But they did, and it's something to see.

The film takes us on shipboard in the 1800s, where a young man forms an unlikely bond with a stowaway, a runaway slave. It tells the sensitive, melancholy story of a promising young composer in the 1930s – separated by prejudice and misfortune from his lover, a man named Sixsmith. It also brings us to 1973, where an intrepid reporter finds herself caught up in a web of murder and intrigue. In the present day, the film offers up the comedic tale of a publisher on the run from a gang of thugs. Plunging into the future, it shows a dystopian vision of Seoul, South Korea that is comparable to "Blade Runner" and a primitive post-apocalyptic Hawaii.

Linking these stories together are the simple thematic elements of love, compassion, and a love for liberty. The correspondence between the composer Robert Frobisher and Sixsmith depicts the plain beauty of love as well as any film I have seen, as do tender moments between the central characters of the portion of the film set in the futuristic New Seoul. Even in the blatantly comic segment with Jim Broadbent as the publisher, a deep passion for freedom and human dignity shines through.

All the actors do a great job in their multiple roles. You can care for Tom Hanks one moment as a villager in a future Hawaii, and then revile him in the next scene where he plays a truly despicable doctor. The best performances are given, however, by Doona Bae and Jim Broadbent. I think they surpass all the rest. Bae plays a "fabricant", a kind of clone designed to serve humanity. Her gradual awakening to her own self-worth, to the subjugation of herself and of her people, is beautifully and movingly conveyed. She is heartbreaking in this role. Broadbent is equally excellent as the publisher Cavendish. His expressive face and popping eyes are ideal for comedy – and he's hilarious. But he's more than that. Broadbent infuses the character with a sense of sorrow and weariness at key moments. Cavendish has depth, a history, regrets from his past. Broadbent brings all this out brilliantly without losing his comic touch.

Everything in "Cloud Atlas" comes together to create a film I found thought-provoking and highly entertaining. I don't hesitate to recommend it.

There can be little doubt that Cloud Atlas will become a classic that will be watched over and over again by its devoted followers, just like its predecessors by Stanley Kubrick and Ridley Scott. Despite the many questions I had in my mind when I left the theater and the moments during the film when I felt disappointed or confused, I knew this, and I have not stopped thinking about the movie and longing to be back in front of the screen.

It is easy to criticize this movie as some have done for being overly ambitious, pandering to low taste, being too simple or too complex, with too few actors or too many, or even for celebrating revenge violence against professional critics who write negative reviews. They may all be correct, but these critics will still put themselves in the same category as those that warned audiences against 2001 or Blade Runner. The truth is that Cloud Atlas is profound in its reach, its visual and acoustic impact, its mesmerizing flow and its completely ground-breaking storytelling, and movie goers will see it and feel it in their guts.

It is a movie that is a product of our age of internet-driven universal knowledge and vision, and the freedom we have to travel the world and jump between ages, genres, images and identities at our will. It reminds us that we are human and that we can still hear our heart beat, if we listen.

Kudos to all the filmmakers for adapting this famously "unfilmable" novel in such an inventive way. There are SIX separate timelines that switch after every scene, but instead of the plot, the narrative continuity follows the theme of the film. Once you clue in to that overall theme, it is no longer confusing when the story jumps from a runaway slave in the 1800s to a post apocalyptic future battle between some of the last humans remaining on earth.

All this audacious style and structure makes Cloud Atlas a curiosity to say the least, but the film is lifted to the realm of "Masterpiece" by the all-star ensemble cast. This impressive collection of actors fires off amazing performances like the Expendables 2 fires off high caliber bullets. I mean this will long be considered one of the greatest acting clinics ever filmed, and a high point in some already outstanding careers, as the end credits alone are astonishing to watch.

Overall this is a movie that transcends the simple elements of stars and plots and special effects, and boldly assumes to take the cinema to another level of storytelling, much like Avatar took film to a new level of technology a few years ago. The ambition, the technical brilliance and the passion that was put into this film makes it one of the great epics of our time.

I never read the book, but was intrigued by this movie because I had heard the book was very good. I don't have as much time to read as I used to, so I watched it, sort of liked it but found it kind of tedious to get through due to all the jumping around from story to story. Seeing the different actors as different characters was more distracting than anything, and the film was paced too quickly allow the average viewer to pick up all the complexities and themes the author was likely trying to convey.

In the end, I found that it had a couple of good and original story- lines (particularly the Escape from the Nursing home plot, and the gay composer plot was good) but I found the other stories to be of the mostly bland and formulaic sort we've seen many times before (ie. guy finds out slavery is bad, investigative reporter uncovers a plot by an evil corporation, bladerunner/soilent green hybrid plot, and a fairly standard post-apocalyptic adventure story plot). While all of the story lines were entertaining, you never have enough time to become invested in each story or characters because the movie constantly jumped around between the six different plots. Yes, there are six different plots in this two and half hour movie, and therein lies there problem.

After having watched the movie, I looked up the plot of the book because I was curious to see how the author handled the story. According to Wikipedia, In the book:

"Each tale is revealed to be a story that is read (or observed) by the main character in the next. The first five stories are interrupted at a key moment. After the sixth story, the other five stories are returned to and closed, in reverse chronological order, and each ends with the main character reading or observing the chronologically previous work in the chain. Eventually, readers end where they started, with Adam Ewing in the nineteenth century South Pacific. Each story contains a document, movie or tradition that also appears in a previous story. It shows how history not only repeats itself, but also connects to people in all time periods and places."

For the life of me, I can't figure out why the directors didn't structure the movie this way. It would have worked far better. The audience would have been able to become more immersed in each story- line, and the connections between each plot would have been more apparent. As it stands, upon one viewing, it seems more like a mess that tries too hard to be clever. So then you might say "you have to watch it more than once to 'get it'". I don't want to have to watch a film more than once "get it". I paid close attention the first time. I'd rather spend my time doing something other than watching an average movie more than once. It's a sign of poor story telling if you make it so that you have to watch a film more than once in order to "get it".

This film could have been so much better if it was structured like the book and took its time to actually tell the stories and develop the characters. Instead it was paced like an action movie. I felt like I was watching Inception at times (another annoying film that you "had to watch more than once in order to 'get it'"). Perhaps it was structured this way due to a limited running time. But why even attempt to merge six completely different stories into a single movie in the first place? It would lend itself much better to a mini-series. Game of Thrones is the perfect example of a book adaptation that proved to be an immense success when told at a television show's pace. I feel like this movie would have benefited greatly if it was separated episodically like that.

Before you respond to this with elitist statements like: "I got it first watch, you're just too dumb to understand catch all the intricacies," or "the average viewer is a moron, that's why they need all the themes and messages spoon fed to them. This film treats the audience like it has intelligence and allows to viewer to draw their own conclusions." I just want to pre-emptively say "no you're wrong". The reason I think this film was a disappointment was precisely because it treated the audience like morons who just wanted to see fast paced action with no deep exploration of the themes or characters. It didn't give the audience a chance to think about any of the themes because it was too busy rapidly jumping between story-lines focusing more on action scenes rather than any sort character development. Supposedly the Tom Hanks soul goes through a whole redemption arc that I never caught because the film never actually focused on it. I haven't even read the book, yet, on first viewing, it felt like none of the major themes of the book were explored with any sort of depth. It's a shame because it seems like the book is a good one worth reading. I'm probably not going to read it now though since the movie spoiled the plots for me.

That being said, I would say this film is worth a redbox rental at least. It has some good acting and some nice cinematography and special effects. It looks very pretty. The action is also quite good, although I wish there was a little less focus on the action, and more of a focus on the philosophical themes and characters.

This is one of those experiences that defy explanation (similar to the one I had watching "2001: A Space Odyssey"). I had read the book a year before and if you had asked me to pick a book that could never be made into a movie, I would have easily selected this. How wrong I was. This masterful concoction kept me intrigued for nearly three hours and yet I'm still trying to figure things out. I agree with the late Roger Ebert that even with two or three viewings, I am still trying to put this all together. It doesn't matter. It's like looking at a painting on repeated visits to a museum, maybe the works of Breughel or Bosch. There are some themes that run through the multiple characters' existences, touching on oppression and endurance of the human soul. The performances are wonderful. I would imagine that the likes of Tom Hanks must have been in heaven, extending their acting chops. I need to watch the film again, but for now will leave it to those more intellectually astute to look at the implications of the tenets of this film. I would recommend it as an experience everyone should have.

Extremely ambitious film. The way it combines six different stories from different time periods, and here we have different characters as the actors play different roles, a really ambitious, big and expensive project. I can freely say that this is a unique film, truly special, I can understand those who love the film, but also those who do not like it. Although it lasts a full three hours, I was not bored at any point, which is a great thing. The actors did a great job, visually the film is beautiful, and I even like that it requires increased attention while watching. However, I got the impression that there were too many stories and characters and I couldn't connect everything, that is, not everything made sense to me. A lot of it seemed superfluous to me and how the film wouldn't have lost much if some things had been cut. Perhaps this film falls into a special category, and that is that it needs to be watched multiple times in order to be able to understand everything.

The fact that you are interested in watching this film and that it was even made should be heralded as a collective success, because Cloud Atlas is a thought provoking film. Your personal and collective philosophies will be challenged, and your emotions will be engaged. Each of the six stories address mankind's struggle against seemingly inexorable systems/oppressors, and resolve that love can help us overcome the worst hell. Cloud Atlas also requires that you have a super-trained memory because the six story lines are jumbled and unnaturally presented. I don't mind a thinking man's movie, just as long as my brain doesn't attempt to shut down after being exhausted by the editor's brutal film gymnastics.

Three of Cloud Atlas' story lines are wildly entertaining. That also means that three are also lacking. If you are willing to accept that you may have to either take a notepad with you to keep track of the story lines and trudge through some uninspired acting (sometimes Hanks & Berry are flat), or commit yourself ahead of time to watch this film twice, then go out and purchase your ticket. Otherwise, wait for the film to come out on Netflix.

Cloud Atlas is unlike its contemporaries at the multiplex. It tells a big story in an engaging, difficult fashion. It has big names and a big budget. But it also is thematically dense… it wants to tell you something through plot, characters, dialogue and symbols. Cloud Atlas is also thankfully a very enjoyable film, much longer and denser than much of what is available today. "Ambition" defines this film.

In just under 3 hours, six radically different stories are told, and they appeal to a broad audience: a 19th century tale of unlikely brotherhood, the letters of a gay composer to his partner in the 1930's, a San Francisco- set conspiracy in the 70's, A hilarious account of an old publisher's woes. A Blade Runner-esque clone's struggle for freedom, and the survival of a tribe after 'The Fall'. Genre conventions are toppled, as these stories with different tones are juggled in short intervals, leading from comedic highs to shocking drama in minutes.

But as with the characters, these plots are connected thematically, and clever wordplay and visual imagery links the stories, such as the end of a monologue referencing "the gates of Hell" and cutting to a shot of the gates of a building that, for Cavendish at least, is the gates of Hell. Each of the stories has strengths, a few have faults, but together the medley is incredible.

I found that while the earliest two stories began slowly and plainly, they developed very well and provided fantastic drama, especially the 1849 story. The Nuclear thriller was strong, Halle Berry is great and there are some real twists, and I also loved the 'Dirty Harry' and 'China Syndrome' vibes, but comedy bled into it from the 2012 story which diminished the climax. The 2012 story is hilarious, and its first scene is a standout; Tom Hanks is incredible as Dermot Hoggins. Although while the story is interesting, it doesn't fit quite so well thematically- it's almost too light. Listening to the 'Cloud Atlas Sextet' fits with all the stories, but can't resonate with Cavendish's. The future Korea is visually stunning and communicates its themes well, certainly the darkest plot, but the action can get over the top (Yes, I know who directed this) and there are some horrible clichés. But that scene of horrendous dialogue, the weakest in the film, can't derail a great piece. Lastly is the bleak, Hawaii- set post-apocalyptic story. It was my favourite, possibly because I'm a sucker for anything involving apocalypse. But Hanks and Berry are fantastic again, the barbarians are menacing and scary, and the story is cool. It also concludes the film perfectly.

I've only talked about the plot! The actors really steal the show. In the credits, each actor's name is placed with a clip of every one of their characters… everyone in the theatre stopped and stayed. People play characters you had no idea they played. A few highlights: Sturgess' lawyer and the slave Autua, Frobisher, Hugh Grant's sexist nuclear boss, Cavendish and Hanks' Hoggins. Doona Bae as Somni and Hugo Weaving's "Old Georgie" round it out- the latter is truly a demon. Much credit has to go to the makeup, literally making actors disappear into their roles. There is a huge number of transsexual and even race-bridging roles- it's worthy of note that Lana Wachowski was at one point Larry Wachowski. Also deserving of praise, and possibly Oscars is the large scale visual effects that cover hundreds of years and look so believable. Sound quality is top-notch as well, listening to Old Georgie is chilling, as is the vision of Korean diners, and well... the whole future.

But all this plot serves a purpose, and Cloud Atlas intends to tell you things. Freedom is possibly the biggest theme, as well as the idea that our actions affect others greatly throughout time: we're part of a large human network. Really though there's so much to talk about you should just see the film. There are small stumbles every so often, but the structure hides them very well. No one story takes more time than others, no one character takes more time than others, and the structure and pacing drives the film forward briskly. It's a shame this film hasn't been better received commercially, because it's a phenomenal achievement, interesting sci-fi and drama, and as of now, the best film I've seen in 2012. 8.8/10

I don't know what to make of it. It's the weirdest film I've ever seen. And it's way too long.

It's supposed to span 3 generations of people who are connected in some way. But I didn't really see the connection except the fact that the same actors played them.

The writer was trying to convey a message that the movie failed deliver. While I do not deny that it's a mind-boggling film, and I appreciate it, it's really ambiguous. There are too many scattered ideas. Although I must say, it's nothing short of brave and original.

Not great but a fairly good attempt.

A grandiose production and stellar cast doesn't help this overly ambitious mix come together in a coherent movie. The series of different stories isn't set up well in the beginning so it feels confusing for a while. Then when they sort of come together it isn't clever or convincing. Maybe this story was unfilmable. It just felt like a mix of bad movies shredded and mixed up together. It tries to have a common theme about standing up to oppression of some sort or other via corporate corruption, musical composition, the slave trade, science fiction etc but in the end it wasn't worth the effort.

The white actors acting as Asian and vice versa are distractingly comical although I understand there is a reason for it.

It's easy to see why it wasn't a box office success and didn't receive any major nominations.

Skip it.

The last time I felt like this after seeing a movie was when I saw "Inception" on opening night. I realized I was seeming something that was different, creative, and classic.

Cloud Atlas is an amazing piece of film. Even the harshest of critics cannot say that this film is not ambitious. But I think that 99% of the people that see this film will appreciate it. I'm NOT one who tends to like films that are overly "artistic" (I hated "Tree of Life", for example). But while the overall message of the film is hard to put into words, it is easy to understand. The film is very watchable, and the nearly 3 hour length seems to fly by. The stories are sharply written, and for those who are afraid of getting "lost" while viewing, no worries ... you'll enjoy seeing clues that link the stories, but even if you miss the clues you still will see a story that is well explained and easier to consume than an experimental art film.

I am absolutely shocked that the reviews from the "experts" have not been more favorable, and the lack of box office sales is a crime. Please go see this movie - if you can see one film this year, this is the one!

My wife and I were able to see an advanced showing of Cloud Atlas last night at The Chicago International Film Festival. I will say that I was thrilled to see this movie from the moment I saw the initial trailer release. I am a huge fan of movies that are epic in nature and are rather daring by taking on the task of time lines that may span a millennia.

I will not provide any spoilers but I will say that the film is truly grand in scope and as you may have deduced from the trailer, the film time span passes through hundreds of years and includes many characters and story lines that are interwoven or overlap.

I cannot say enough about the performances in the film. From top to bottom, everyone displays amazing performances. Hugo Weaving obviously is a show stopper in several scenes. The make-up and costume design will throw even the seasoned film-goer off as the transitions made by these characters are nothing short of spectacular. I cannot see another film coming close to being in the same category for the Oscar in Costume and Make-Up.

The visuals and the score of the movie were the biggest takeaways for me. There were moments that reminded me of Blade Runner mixed with Out of Africa. There are a large number of stories within the film, some large and some small, but many strong enough to be individual films themselves. That being said with the long running time of the film, almost 3 hours, coupled with the multitude of story lines and the very numerous edits, the film can be a daunting task for even a seasoned viewer. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't fighting to pay close attention to every detail to the first hour of the film to understand what was happening. The first 10 minutes alone caused me some confusion.

This film will not be for everyone due to its complexity and length, but for those who are true fans of films this epic in nature will truly appreciate the film. I very much look forward to another viewing of the film and encourage everyone to see the film at least once.

Cheers

"Impressive". That's the best description I could come up with after being asked by my brother and sister-in-law about my thoughts on Cloud Atlas immediately following the film's second-ever public screening we'd just attended. Not a very incisive assessment, I'll grant you, but my head was still spinning as I tried to make sense of what I'd just witnessed over the film's jam-packed two hour and forty three minute running time. This may be one the most ambitious and epic films I've ever seen, demanding rapt attention from viewers as they're taken on an odyssey that spans the globe over 500 years and hopscotches between numerous interwoven story lines that incorporates just about every film genre available, featuring actors playing several different roles each. Cloud Atlas is based on British author David Mitchell's best-selling 2004 novel and was a huge challenge for the filmmakers to adapt and finance (its estimated budget of over $100 million also makes it the most expensive independent film ever made). The architects of this beautifully twisted madness are directors/writers/producers Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) and The Matrix's Wachowski siblings, Andy and Lana (Lana was Larry until a gender transition that was completed about five years ago). The Wachowskis, notoriously press shy, were surprisingly on hand (along with Tykwer) to introduce the film's second screening the morning after its star-studded TIFF world premiere on September 8th at the Princess of Wales Theatre.

A movie this expansive should have a massive cast, considering how many characters appear - not so in this case, though. Principle actors Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugh Grant, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, and Xun Zhou each take on multiple roles that plays loose and fast with the actors' ages, races, and genders (Susan Sarandon, Keith David, James D'Arcy, and Doona Bae also have smaller roles). Having so many dimensions to explore with all of their characters must have been acting nirvana for this lot. For the most part, they pull off the various requirements of the roles, many of which require a significant amount of prosthetics and makeup. Several of the roles were so well disguised that I was completely clueless that a certain actor had played the role until the end credits visually made some of the big reveals (learning that Berry played the white Victorian housewife and Grant a war paint-layered native completely floored me). Sticking around until the end is an absolute necessity for Cloud Atlas - the oohs and ahhs from the sold-out audience as they discovered who actually played some of the parts was a wonderfully unique filmgoing experience for me. For all of the positive aspects that the race bending and gender bending idea brings to the film, there is the faint whiff of novelty attached to it. Things do get a little silly when you have Weaving seemingly playing an Asian character whose makeup produces more of a Vulcan look (which may have been intentional, as it's for a sci-fi sequence that takes place somewhere in the 2300s), as well as in full drag playing a Nurse Ratched-like character. The latter obviously has parallels to Lana Wachowski's own life and although the nurse character provides some decent laughs, I was a little hung up on how it seemed one of the character's main functions was to generate laughs purely based on the surreal sight of Weaving playing one truly ugly looking woman. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it.

Weaving does provide one of Cloud Atlas' most memorable roles, as the seriously creepy Old Georgie, who terrorizes one of Hanks' many characters. Hanks does some of the best work I've ever seen from him, playing four different characters that range from an unscrupulous doctor in the 1800s to going far against type with maybe the film's standout character, a modern-day thuggish British writer named Dermot Hoggins who gets the ultimate revenge on a critic for a bad review. Berry is excellent with her predominant roles playing an ambitious reporter in 1970s San Francisco and a political figurehead (from what I could grasp) aligned with one of Hanks' characters in the far future, in one of the film's few story lines that doesn't quite work. Also great is Broadbent as both a composer and playing a man tricked into living in a retirement home, who provides the film's best comic relief.

The weighty Cloud Atlas principle themes of philosophy, reincarnation, oppression, and destiny, along with the film's highly challenging pace and complex non-linear storytelling construct will overwhelm many - that's okay, however. I was lost a number of times - not Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy-level lost, mind you, but definitely out of sync with what was happening on screen. This is the type of daring film that demands multiple viewings to completely grasp the filmmakers' grand scope and there's nothing wrong with a little audaciousness from Hollywood once in a while. Even with a big-name cast, it'll be very interesting to see how the otherwise difficult-to-market Cloud Atlas will fare at the box office come late October.

TIME was a little bit harsh but nevertheless "a little bit" accurate.

This movie is a visual masterpiece, solid performances by the ensemble cast - however it lacked empathy and depth. Akin to watching multiple movies all at once, interspersed with collisions and intersections to tie it all in. Whilst I was never 'immersed in this story, it was thought provoking and at times captivating.

Whilst each period of time was critical to the story, "each period of time" ruined "the story". A tad indulgent with final cut of almost 3hrs - thank God the $100mill budget didn't cut corners on visual effects - still, it teetered on almost a snorefest

The Wachowskis were the wrong directors - me thinks. Providence may cast the first ballot as to who might have been better.

That said, definitely worth a look - but I shan't watch this flick a second time.

I understood what it tried to do, but didn't work. So many fine actors, so little sense made in the end. It's a shame, I expected more.

Contrary to what some pretentious director may believe, one may understand a movie and still not like it. That is the case with Cloud Atlas, which mixes 6 average stories to prove that: the soul survives; soulmates do exist and white people are evil.

The 6 scrambled but linked plots are book-ended by the story taking place in a low-tech post-apocalyptic future. Cowardly Zachry, played by Tom Hanks, lives with a tribe that worships a deity called Sonmi-451 and is constantly menaced by savage Kona barbarians. Despite his fear, Hanks helps a member of a more advanced group, played by Halle Berry, to launch a signal for the evacuation of what is left of mankind to another planet.

This story contains the only unsolved mystery: how did Zachry's village even come to exist, considering the brutal, random Kona assaults. Also, as an added annoying bonus, Zachry has "visions" of the devil (played by poor Hugo Weaving, who is the villain in all the stories).

In a movie this long and complicated, "visions" are the last thing one needs.

The other story in chronological order are: in 1849 a lawyer sailing back home saves a stow away Afro-American, who strangely happens to live in a South Pacific island inhabited by Maoris. All the villains on board are white, so once back at home the lawyer decided to join the abolitionists. Also, the lawyer is married to a read-headed, freckled oriental woman (this is linked to the soulmate concept).

In 1936 the love story of a gay couple is destroyed by suicide. The link with the previous story is the diary written by the lawyer and read by one of the lovers.

In 1973, Berry plays a journalist who meets the remaining half of the gay couple and gets involved in a story that looks like blacksploitation with nothing to do with the rest of the movie, apart from proving that white people are bad.

In 2012, an elderly publisher gets locked up in a retirement home, but manages to escape. The evil nurse of the home is played by Weaver, who looks nothing like a woman - albeit a very masculine one. The link to the previous story is a house. This story tries to offer some comic relief, but it is not very funny.

In a dystopian future, in South Korea, a female clone named Sonmi-451 goes through the same plot line of The Matrix, albeit in a more condensed time-frame. Chosen by a revolutionary group for reasons impossible to understand, Sonmi-451 discovers that the world is not what it seems and that humans deserve to know the truth, only to get the group attacked by the authorities and herself in danger. She also falls for her saviour, played by Jim Sturgess (who's the lawyer married to the oriental redhead).

All characters in each segment are played by the same bunch of actors, which means Berry gets to play a Caucasian blonde, Jim Sturgess is badly disguised as "oriental" and Korean Doona Bae plays both Sonmi-451 and a weird- looking redhead.

In fact, the make-up is excessive to the point of distraction More than the idea of souls surviving and meeting again, one gets politically correct characters shoved down the throat - with the constant of Hugo Weaving, white male and incarnation of evil.

This movie is a fusion of several genres (drama, adventure, sci-fi, comedy, romantic tragedy) as well as an attempt for an art-house cerebral movie to attain commercial blockbuster status. In my opinion it mostly succeeds, but finding a large mainstream audience is its biggest challenge to be met (at this point, before wide release).

Imagine taking six short (but big-budget) films with different stories and directors and combining them into an anthology feature, united by a common theme and cast of actors in different roles, and then editing the entire thing out of sequence. The "nested" narrative of the book has been re-arranged for the sake of the visual medium of film, and after first being introduced to the 6 worlds, it's not that hard to keep track of who's who, what's what and where & when. Frankly, it's a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination for Best Editing - it works very well considering the challenge of making it flow coherently.

The cinematography, set & art design, music score and performances range from good to great. The make-up in some cases created a distraction (a Korean woman transformed into a red-haired Caucasian; Hugo Weaving as a buxom female nurse) but it adds a bit of fun to the experience. There's a smörgåsbord of material here for most people: human drama, mystery, violence, sex, adventure, farcical comedy, gloomy sci-fi and occasional romance (both gay and straight). It's 6 movies for the price of one! Just be ready to spend almost 3 hours in your seat and suffer a bit of whiplash as the transitions can get frenetic at times, with multiple cliff-hangers happening simultaneously. Like a good roller-coaster, it has its lulls and rushes. Some might find the finale a bit conventional, sappy or anti-climactic. But there's no denying this is a big, expensive gamble on the part of the Wachowskis and their producers. Hopefully it'll achieve the kind of success they got with the first "Matrix" and not the fate of the abysmal "Speed Racer." (PS I saw the film at its world premiere at TIFF.)