Cloud Atlas

[MariaLionza]

This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »



Directed by Tom Tykwer, Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski
Starring: Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugh Grant

Plot: An exploration of how the actions of individual lives impact one another in the past, present and future, as one soul is shaped from a killer into a hero, and an act of kindness ripples across centuries to inspire a revolution.

IMDB

Get free tickets on the forum

[Jayman]

Oh my God, this is ghastly!
Not the movie - the release date schedule: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1371111/releaseinfo

Why are we getting this so late?

[TheOnes]

Saw this last night. Honestly, might just be the best movie i have seen this year.

All of the stories told are interesting and worthy of investment. You care about everyone, the structure of the film is incredible and links all the stories so it acts like one narrative across time (which is the movie's point, so kudos). The messages are exactly the same as what i believe (mostly), what i've been reading up on and what i've been fascinated with. The main theme of the movie is that nothing can exist only slightly, everything that exists has an impact [spoiler]which is more demonstrated by the future storyline with the Fabricants fake and menial existence turning into the most extraordinary change and discovery, impacted from past events and impacting future events[/spoiler]. Which is what i believe.

The way the film uses language is just extraordinary aswell, giving us some of the best dialogue i have ever heard. So much is said in a single line most of the time that it just blows your mind. And the filming style of each story is indicative of the era its in (for example, the 1970's story is shot and lit like a police chase movie that was filmed in that time), so with one shot you can immediately tell where and when you are, but its not overboard to the point of feeling like many movies edited together.

If i was to be picky, i would say that some of the makeup is just terrible, not just the racebending makeup with the actors changing race and gender across stories, as that is very hard to do and has a very specific point to the movie, so i can forgive the attempts. But things like the blood effects are just awful. For instance, there is a death near the end and the blood around him honestly looks like a cross between Tango and Ketchup. And there is a point in 1970 where Hugo Weaving is bleeding from the head and the blood looks slapped on, there doesn't seem to be any skin pentration at all. Pretty shoddy stuff that kinda takes you out.

But All in all, best movie of 2012 IMO

9.7/10

[Jayman]

There's a great deal to be admired in this movie. The sheer scale of the production is epically mesmerising in every sense of the word, every performance a tour-de-force and, in typical Wachowski-fashion, iconic moments galore...and yet, I felt surprisingly underwhelmed by it all. The biggest flaw in my opinion was the decision to have the same set of actors all cast in different roles in each story. Not even gender/racial make-up is taboo in this production. Thanks to that, my poor eyes will never be able to unsee Hugo Weaving as a tranny (I'll bet this was Lana Wachowski's idea).

Despite this, it is still a great movie, hand-crafted for the makers due to the highly philosophical, religious & revolutionary-themed subject matter, but unfortunately also quite frustrating for those exact reasons. It's the kind of movie that'll get viewers questioning what they've just seen...and that's almost always a good thing.

PS. How did [spoiler]Hae-Joo Chang survive his fall from the skyscraper bridge[/spoiler] ?

[TheOnes]

The biggest flaw in my opinion was the decision to have the same set of actors all cast in different roles in each story. Not even gender/racial make-up is taboo in this production.

Wasn't that the point though? To have events repeated and impacted throughout time and have relationships reincarnated through history. For example:

[spoiler]Hugo Weaving in the past dealing with the slave trade and the movie ending with his daughter running off to join the Abolitionists with her husband. In the end, this gets reincarnated through the future and Asian Weaving gets revenge and the punishment he was warning her was coming in the past is inflicted, when Somni (played by the same actress as his past daughter), went on a mission to free the rest of the Somni slaves and expose the truth. Asian Weaving was her Jailer (not her interviewer), and was there and gaining satisfaction during her execution. That end montage was handled brilliantly IMO and you see the consequences impacted on the same elements and strands (the same group of people). Themes and questions are raised on one story, and the consequences and connections occur to the same actors in the different time periods[/spoiler]

PS. How did [spoiler]Hae-Joo Chang survive his fall from the skyscraper bridge[/spoiler] ?

[spoiler]No clue. We didn't see a body splat like with the Critic. Maybe he was caught when he fell, found some lose wires, etc?. It wasn't like he was suddenly brought back to life after an impossible death, he vanished and reappeared, and i went along with it[/spoiler]

[Jayman]

The biggest flaw in my opinion was the decision to have the same set of actors all cast in different roles in each story. Not even gender/racial make-up is taboo in this production.

Wasn't that the point though? To have events repeated and impacted throughout time and have relationships reincarnated through history.

Let's put it this way rather - it was distracting. I appreciate the reasoning for it, but I think I would have preferred it if [spoiler]they'd kept them all as independent stories with independent actors, and then in the end intertwined them in a Eureka moment so that we as the audience would be able to associate the respective characters with their reincarnated counterparts. I do also understand that this would have been difficult for the average movie-goer to process given the vast number of characters in the movie, but at least we wouldn't have had those truly shitty (& borderline offensive) prosthetics.[/spoiler]

[TheOnes]

The biggest flaw in my opinion was the decision to have the same set of actors all cast in different roles in each story. Not even gender/racial make-up is taboo in this production.

Wasn't that the point though? To have events repeated and impacted throughout time and have relationships reincarnated through history.

Let's put it this way rather - it was distracting. I appreciate the reasoning for it, but I think I would have preferred it if [spoiler]they'd kept them all as independent stories with independent actors, and then in the end intertwined them in a Eureka moment so that we as the audience would be able to associate the respective characters with their reincarnated counterparts. I do also understand that this would have been difficult for the average movie-goer to process given the vast number of characters in the movie, but at least we wouldn't have had those truly shitty (& borderline offensive) prosthetics.[/spoiler]

(Prepare to watch me rummage in my brain to find multiple excuses. Its quite a sight really:)

[spoiler]But that would've opened up another can of worms wouldn't it? For me, the obviousness of the prosphetics wasn't THAT distracting. While probably grossly unintentional and admittedly slightly cheesy, it let me know that all of these stories ARE connected right off the bat, and the jumping around in time and the multiple narratives had a point, and i automatically grew invested and loved the ever growing and spiraling "one narrative throughout time. One set of people separated by history and existence."

If every single character was played by a different actor, then i probably would've just sat there as all of these stories happened and i probably would've grown impatient to see why these are all important. And given the run time, it might have taken its toll on the audience in general (infact i think it did anyway from what i've been reading). While the structure would've been the same, you wouldn't have had the reincarnation theme as in the foreground as it could've been. Yes, for the same role that was played by different actors, you had the birthmark to represent the same person and the role they played. But you can't have every person involved in the narrative sporting a different birthmark, cause that would've been FAR too convenient and coincidental, and probably would've taken me out of the movie more

But on my first watch, i didn't feel as though it was 6 randomly edited together films as it could've been presented like that if it was multiple actors. Now, I don't know if the prosphetics and race bending had anything to do with the way i felt while watching it, but if anything it made it easier to appreciate more[/spoiler]

[Jayman]

Anybody read the book(s) here?
[spoiler]Do we know right from the get-go that the stories & characters are all connected or do they trail off in different directions before converging right at the end?[/spoiler]

[LondonCityNights]

Finally got a chance to see this!

Here's my review:

http://londoncitynights.blogspot.co.uk/ ... ykwer.html

I loved it, I'd much, much rather see something that's hugely ambitious but flawed than something than succeeds at doing something limited and safe. This film is audaciously odd and good natured in the best possible way.

[ploggit]

Coming soon to Sky... keep your eyes peeled, you lucky Murdoch people!