this was watchable but not that great. many scenes were heavy-handed sledgehammers full of shivery crying. it needed a dose of subtlety and / or camp. some cool visuals though and impressive make-up. i really disliked jim broadbent's googly eyed performance. tom hanks was bad as well. the whole 'lemon prize' scene could have been cut. halle berry 70s part was the strongest.
Saw this for a second time with a "virgin" who absolutely loved it. I have to say it went down a lot smoother this time as my expectations and attachment to the source material wasn't clouding my reaction.
I can't express enough amazement at how deftly the whole thing was handled. The shock of all the transitions wore off and I was able to appreciate the visual and aural connections between the scenes. In that regard, this is one of the most impressive cinematic feats in memory. Not everything works, but that's part of the nature of a project like this, I imagine.
I feel even more strongly about Hanks' performance. His villainous roles were hammy but I don't think failed to make a three dimensional character out of Dr. Goose, especially in the scene where he reveals his true intentions. His performance as Zachry also has a lot more going on than he's been given credit for.
As far as the criticism of the script dishing out broad platitudes, I think that's a little unfair. This is a film about universality and so it needs to be open enough to encompass all of what it's trying to connect--which is the entirety of human experience up to this point (and beyond). As with Terrence Malick, profundity can still be found in something primal or general, and I do think the filmmakers are going to wind up inspiring a lot of people with this film if it manages to reach a broader audience. I really hope those that are on the fence give it a chance. There's a good chance you might not care for it, but I imagine the majority of its detractors still believe it to be worth seeing for the new storytelling form is attempts. And there's also a chance it might really have a positive effect on you. That's worth the gamble, in my opinion.
I wasn't comfortable before with putting this on a year-end list because of the misgivings I had, but this film does so much right that I can only fault it so much for not being the perfection I was hoping for. It really is a highlight of 2012 for me.
T E A M R I V E T T E
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to lazarus again.
I've been seeing plenty of phenomenal films the past couple weeks, but this has nonetheless remained in my thoughts since my last viewing. I've been constantly revisiting the score, which is quite simply (as of now) the best I've heard all year. This film will, without a doubt, have a secure placement on my list of top ten films for 2012.
I saw this over the Thanksgiving Break with my brother (who had seen it already) before it was pulled from my local theaters, and my expectations were tempered. I expected a preachy, pretentious and self-important bore. Honestly, what I got was far better than I expected. Is it preachy? Sure. Is there some weak dialogue? Oh, you bet ("My uncle was a scientist, but he believed in love" was pretty silly). But the film conveys it's central theme of the effects we human beings have on each other through the course of history through our choices while being surprisingly one of the most entertaining films of the year. I had a lot of fun watching this movie; after being thrown off a little at the beginning, I was able to follow the stories pretty closely, and I was legitimately interested in seeing what happened to these characters (I haven't read the book, so I had no idea what might happen). I thought it was a marvelous exercise in different styles and genres that all contained a semblance of the aforementioned central theme. I might have to give it a second viewing to really determine whether it's a great film or not, but at the moment it's the most ambitious movie to come out of Hollywood in a long, long time, and I fully enjoyed myself. If it's not one of the best movies of the year, it's certainly one of the best times I've had at the movies all year.
"You are what you love, not what loves you"
- Donald Kaufman
Love love it! Just seen it an hour ago!!!
Yeah, I adored it as well. Majorly flawed, but a great cinematic experience. More thoughts later.
I know I've got a big ego, I really don't know why it's such a big deal, though.
I love this
Cloud Atlas (A-) - It is what it is but in the case of Cloud Atlas it's a lot of things (past, present, future, sci-fi, action, comedy, romance) but, like the film's, it's all connected sharing the same thread thread of different lives from different times with the common desire to fight for truth and freedom shaping the course of history regardless of race, sex, and even beliefs.
The execution of these arcs is not always perfect and sometimes clunky but the overall picture as a whole succeeds in living up to it's ambition. In the end the individual stories were short but they still delivered an emotional end though their personal lives filled with both joy and tragedy.
I do think the film is less profound than the filmmakers felt it would be. As long and and intertwined the movie is, its still pretty straightforward stuff. But I guess its fine since it made the movie very accessible.
I'm surprised people found the movie so confusing. I didn't catch all the connections of course but each story is like you said, pretty straightforward. They complement each other in wonderous ways and that's what makes this movie great, no doubt. I thought it was pretty accessible, but almost everyone called it "confusing". I don't see it... maybe people just weren't paying enough attention or they were paying more attention to the connections between the story than to the stories themselves (the latter is the most probable). On first viewing of Cloud Atlas, you should follow the stories and catch the more obvious connections (visual cues like the half of the book under the bed, who's playing who, etc). On second viewing you can start catching the more subtle clues. The connections given by dialogue, etc. On second viewing, you can also absorb the visuals much more because you're not so focused on the stories.Originally Posted by shooter_mcgavin
Agree, I did not have a hard time understanding it, it was complex but pretty straightforward not like Donnie Darko... I think what will make this a classic is its original attempt to tell the stories with excellent editing... The sequences of escape are synchronized, the elements associated with water are synchronized, the flyover that Luisa Rey passed is somehow like the neo Seoul Electromagnetic field road... Everytime Sonmi's cathecism's and Robert narrates his letters, the scene spans across time with similar themes of love and search for freedom... It was like an orchestra, where the elements and characters are synchronized! I love it!
I saw this for the second time today... loved it...
I could start making a list of sentences starting with the words "what a" (what a vision; what a chance for the actors, etc) But I won't. I will just say that I don't see why people found this movie confusing. i thought every single story was "simple enough" to follow. But have to be willing to go with it. To let yourself go. To trust the directors.
i can see why some people don't like it. i can see the arguments. The 70s story is not the movie's strongest suit, but it has a couple of elements that make it worth watching (like Tom Hanks as Isaac Sachs, who gets the movie's best voice over).
***MINOR SPOILERS***
I'll start with the techs and work my way through...
Cloud Atlas is Visually dazzling. The 19th century story and the Neo-Seoul in particular had the best visuals. The fact is that every single story had its own individual look and "feel". From the first shot of ANY scene in the movie, I could tell in which story we were. The visual effects of the big futuristic chase with Jim Sturgess and Doona Bae on a "motorcycle" where amazing to watch but they NEVER got in the way of the story. It was always about the Characters.
The score... oh the score... much like Ben Whishaw in the 70s story I just can't stop listening to it... I think it's a masterpiece which is just as good or better than Hans Zimmer's best work.
Cloud Atlas's editing is groundbreaking. You want innovative transitions? There are plenty of them here...
Make-up: I think it did its job. It certainly made me believe Ben Whishaw was a woman and the store clerk without me linking either back to the composer of the 1930s. But of course I knew that Nurse Noakes was Hugo Weaving. But look at the story in which it is set. the 2012 story. The COMEDY. It was SUPPOSED to be outrageous and funny as hell. I bought most of the other make up. Of course you can see through most of them, especially Hanks and Berry, but I don't find that to be bad. So what if they are recognizable in all of their roles?
And now... onto the big ones. Script. Oh the pain... oh the suffering these guys must have gone through to get this thing done. But it was worth it. Like I said before, the stories are clear and the overarching themes of liberty, freedom and oppression are expressed in every single story. There are some great lines and the movie has a crescendo in the last 45 minutes where we see the ending to all the stories all leading up to a fantastic finish. This must have been one painful adaptation. I want to read the book now. I've already bought it for Christmas!
Cloud Atlas is never over-directed. There are some great shots here (like when David Gyasi jumps off the boat's mast grabbing the rope) and some others which are symmetrical to each other to bring another element of connected-ness to the story.
And now the performances. The big standout is Doona Bae and then there are the four boys: Whishaw, Broadbent, Hanks and Sturgess. Grant and Weaving are both pretty good, but they don't ever play "main characters" in stories so they are never fully developed. it's really hard to rank the 4 boys because they are all so good. I'd probably put Broadbent at #1 of the boys.
But Doona Bae... she was AMAZING!!! A phenomenal performance that has stayed with me (and I saw this movie for the first time a month ago). IMHO, she should win Best Supp. Actress at the Oscars. obviously... she won't even get nominated.
The main theme of Cloud Atlas is NOT reincarnation. Of course reincarnation is part of it, but to me the big theme was freedom. About how humanity keeps on oppressing through different means. We oppress the blacks, the latinos, the elderly, the gays, all those who are not like us. Cloud Atlas is epic, but it approaches its big themes through personal stories. Also, there's a lot of hope in Cloud Atlas. Hope that there is such a thing as true love, that somehow someone will rise up and help those in need. Hope that maybe, just maybe, the human kind is not so heinous after all. Hope that one person can make a small difference. And why does that small difference matter? After all, that act of kindness is meaningless. It will only amount to a small drop in a limitless ocean. Well... what is an ocean but a multitude of drops?
Cloud Atlas is one of the best movies of the Year (it's second on my list after The Master).
I agree that Bae was simply amazing and should at least get an Oscar nod. Sadly, not one group so far has mentioned her. I'm really mixed on Broadbent and the 2012 segment in general. It just didn't fit in tonally.
This will probably make my end-of-year ballot for Supporting Actress, Film Editing, Production Design, Makeup, Visual Effects and Original Score.
I know I've got a big ego, I really don't know why it's such a big deal, though.
If anything, this made me want to read the book. I liked it a lot, but I also felt like I needed to see the six-hour cut. The editing in this was phenomenal, as was the production design. Ben Whishaw and Doona Bae were far and away the standouts in the acting department, though D'Arcy was excellent too.
I still feel that I missed a lot. Where's my library card....
I will marshall all the forces of darkness to hound you to an assisted suicide - Peter Capaldi, In The Loop
Will finally be seeing this today! Could Time Magazine's worst film of the year make my top 10? Just the fact that I could even ask that question points to their choice of worst film as hyperbole.
If anything, this made me want to read the book. I liked it a lot, but I also felt like I needed to see the six-hour cut. The editing in this was phenomenal, as was the production design. Ben Whishaw and Doona Bae were far and away the standouts in the acting department, though D'Arcy was excellent too.
I still feel that I missed a lot. Where's my library card....
Definitely check out the book. I don't think you'll regret it.
It's hard for me to fathom an extended cut for home video. Like, the film seems so perfectly calibrated transition-wise, it's not just a simple matter of plugging in a handful of scenes. The whole "symphony" would be effected. I imagine it would take quite some time to perfect another version. Of course, I'm sure they had earlier, longer cuts, but who knows if they worked, or if they were just trimmed down due to contract restraints.
T E A M R I V E T T E
I didn't like it. Certainly not as much as the book or at least what I was expecting from the filmmakers and some parts are cringing. But it is not worst film of the year. TIME magazine in recent years have started trolling or have come really close to that, I guess, to generate page clicks and tweet counts (what's up with all those 'Top lists' every day? I distinctly remember their critique of 'The Hours'. They used the adjective 'highfalutin' (the first time I heard the word!) and labeled it the worse of the year. Plus I never liked Corliss and Co's taste anyway.
I really liked this and even cried at one point! Everything doesn't work, and Hanks + Berry bring the whole thing down a notch (although the former is actually really good as the gold-stealing character), but the sheer ambition of it is mind-boggling. I was especially blown away by how everything was edited together, not just in the simpler matching edits - like a door knock in one timeline cutting to a door opening in another timeline - which are all executed perfectly, but also in how the transitions between many of the stories implicated a greater meaning.
I've read this entire thread and nobody has given props to Jim Sturgess for his acting here? I thought he was most excellent, along with Ben Wishaw. Doona Bae was also a standout, although there are some issues with her main character's storyline (it becomes a bit of a simplistic Matrix redux) and I'm having trouble separating that with a couple of her acting choices. She was also a bit empty in the scene where she is supposed to be a white girl during slavery-era America and that was also one of the most distracting cases of character makeup in the film (of which there were many). Still, I'm very intrigued by this woman now and want to seek out more of her work.
This will be on my mind for quite awhile. Not a masterpiece, but certainly touching greatness many times. A half-finished love affair indeed!
I loved the idea that Bae would play the wife in the 1800's section, though! Because that meant even if Sonmi and Hae-Joo couldn't be together in the future, they already had a chance to be together in the past!
I meant, it's totally ridiculous when you think about it, but the thought totally warmed my heart when I was watching.
WE'RE GONNA FIGHT!
This weekend...one last chance to save Halle's career from complete oblivion. Oh, wait...
"...it's already done."
#THECALL.
Are you referring specifically to the post-apocalyptic section? Aside from the tricky dialect they're both forced to speak, I don't know what either of them did wrong. Hanks was surprisingly convincing for me here. His guilt and anguish, his resentment, finally his curiosity; all this he handled fine. Berry's character isn't as interesting but she didn't have any missteps that I saw. The Luisa Rey segment is the weakest in my opinion (as it is in the novel), but not really because of her.
T E A M R I V E T T E
Berry's misstep was being superficial at all times (although at least she wasn't as out of place as Susan Sarandon, who seemed completely lazy in her small main role...WTF was that?). Hanks tried to go deeper but it didn't feel right to me, except the one character I mentioned. I know this isn't exactly a fair comparison here, but just look at Denis Lavant in Holy Motors. Hanks had to play the most varied assortment of significant characters out of everyone in Cloud Atlas and he's not enough of a chameleon to make it great.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
