Recently, I've become aware that certain films are able to transcend the medium by being completely self-assured in their atmospheres…
Everything is Connected
A set of six nested stories spanning time between the 19th century and a distant post-apocalyptic future. Cloud Atlas explores how the actions and consequences of individual lives impact one another throughout the past, the present and the future. Action, mystery and romance weave through the story as one soul is shaped from a killer into a hero and a single act of kindness ripples across centuries to inspire a revolution in the distant future. Based on the award winning novel by David Mitchell. Directed by Tom Tykwer and the Wachowskis.
"What is an ocean, but a multitude of drops?" - Adam Ewing
I think the only sensible way to review this film is by each of it's inter-twining stories. In chronological order, of course:
Time and setting: South Pacific Ocean, 1849
Genre: Sea-faring adventure/period drama
Protagonist: Adam Ewing (Jim Sturgess)
Well, I suppose a good place to start is the worst place to start, because things can only get better. Although the events of this section are meant to be small and cramped to show the gravity of the events that are to follow, this doesn't seem to gel with the rest of the story. The other stories have a bigger scope, while nothing much happens in this…
It speaks volumes of a filmmaker when they can fluently negotiate, perhaps perfect, multitudinous genres during their careers. What speaks even louder and distinctive volumes is that adept versatility showcased in and confined to a singular film, which navigates genres in such a fluid manner that the coalition of possibly conflicting styles is in fact flawless. Cloud Atlas is one such phenomenal film for the Wachowski's and Tom Tykwer, and what they orchestrate beneath the 172 minute smokescreen is unparalleled, exceedingly audacious and possibly, in due time whilst the film ferments, a revered classic in cinema.
Historic and futuristic; comedic and mightily dramatic; thrilling and introspective, Cloud Atlas traverses an abundance of eras, harnessing the theory that each choice we…
David Mitchell’s novel is one of the most impressive novels I have ever read. It is an exercise in style, an exploration of the nature of humanity and a narrative of hope, an appreciation of art and a glimmer of redemption for a self-destructive race. That is what I got out of it, but the book is so complex that multiple interpretations are possible and there is always the chance that people will not take anything from it at all. That’s the nature of any form of art. Where the film fails to be a successful adaption of the novel on that deeper level for me, it more than succeeds in distilling a common thread from it, structuring the complex…
Having read the book only after seeing the trailer a few months ago, I was never in the camp that thought the book should/could never be turned into a film. I read the book with an almost insurmountable amount of hype behind it, but it met those expectations handily. The film has been hyped even more than the book, with good reason! The book is epic and dramatic, spanning vast amounts of time and space. Even though it has one of the most interesting and impressive narrative structures of all time, the narrative is secondary in importance to the themes holding the disparate characters and circumstances together. How do you turn such a book into a movie without failing miserably?…
It has some flaws but this film its CRIMINALLY UNDERRATED. Surprisingly this is one of the most unique experiences I´d ever had with a film, and at the same time its one of the most complicated plots I have ever seen in the terms of narrative but its brilliant at the same time. Its a movie that really makes you think in order to fully understand whats going on.
The Wachowski siblings have always been ambitious filmmakers even if they have overreached themselves on more than a few occasions. Cloud Atlas is undoubtedly their most ambitious project to date both thematically and logistically. Three directors, six interweaving stories and a big budget independent production dealing with existential questions: At worst it is career suicide, at best filmmakers’ folly.
Although David Mitchell’s original novel deals with the concept of storytelling it never seemed a natural fit for the silver screen. It is simply too dense and sprawling to be considered commercially viable. Therefore it took filmmakers with the vision and financial clout to bring this adaptation into the world. For all its faults, and it does have many, it is…
Stunningly beautiful. Much better than the novel. And I don't say that very often.
Makes a mockery of star ratings. Equal parts amazing and shambles.
This is a very tough film to explain, so bear with me. The film is a series of stories from several different time periods, past, present and future, in which Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Doona Bae, Ben Whishaw, Keith David, James D'Arcy, Xun Zhou, David Gyasi, Susan Saradon, and Hugh Grant play pretty much every character. There are a number of different themes about life, legacy and rebirth that tie each of these stories together.
It's so hard to do this film justice in a summary, as there are just so many things at work all at once that it becomes too much to handle. And at almost three hours long, that's a lot…
Ne znam, odavno me neki film nije ovako zabavio. Mislim, struktura filma je drugačija i traži nekakvu pažnju ali da i dalje ostane pitko jako, dosta različitih žanrova što je isto vrh i eto. Sviđaju mi se također međupoveznice, kako uvijek neka >kreacija< (dnevnik, knjiga, film, prd) postane poveznica među likovima tj likovima koji su uvijek jedni te isto, ali uvijek na nekako otuđen način (tipa kad skladatelj kaže kako je abolicionist glup jer ne kuži da ga ovaj truje, ili berlavi film o starcu kojeg japanka gleda, ili kako domorodac gleda japanku ko BOŽICU) promatraju prethodne verzije sebe. Čini mi se da je ta doslovna povezanost možda mala prilagodba publici čisto da eto ne bude baš sve nasumično, ali…
SciFi Saga: 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. Tom Hanks, Halle Berry star.
Enough ambition, stunning visuals, and prosthetic noses for two films, and not all of it works, but there are enough rewarding themes and moments to make it pay off.
At first this film is so confusing. I was so puzzled and didn't really get the connections. It was almost impossible to get what the plot was or where this whole thing would end. It's very interesting and thrilling. I was so cought and i am still cought, trying to find out about all the things that weren't explained, the details and links.
This will definitely be rewatchend and hopefully i will know more then because i think this is one of these films, where you get things at the second/ maybe third time you watch it.
I haven't read the book (yet; it's on my bookshelf), so I don't know what themes it explored. From the movie, I get nothing deeper than a superficial motif of inter-connectedness, which is further underlined by having actors play multiple parts. This would've been distracting if there was anything to be distracted from. But the filmmakers allow the story's structure to inhibit emotional depth.
Still, the movie functions very well as storytelling and visual spectacle. It's a good sign that during no individual story did I find myself wanting to go back to another; they are all entertaining to watch and compelling, and edited together in an effective manner.
- Only God Forgives
- Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
- Spring Breakers
- A Field in England
- Eyes Wide Shut
- Speed Racer
- Marie Antoinette
- Spring Breakers
Peeping Tom, Night of the Hunter and a whole host of older films were ignored or given bad reviews upon…
- The Red Shoes
- Synecdoche, New York
- Time of the Gypsies
- Speed Racer
- La Jetée
Apologies for the rather clumsy and drab title, I was going to call it Pure Cinema but that isn't quite…