Cloud Atlas

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.)

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.

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.

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

"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.