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…
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.
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?…
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…
I just wish I cared about any of these stories being told.
I like it how they change, but still don't change. (is it thast weird?)
Everything in the known Universe is connected. This quote tells everything.
Somni-451: "Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb, we are bound to others. Past and present. And by each crime and every kindness, we birth our future."
Tedious stuff. The "interlocking" plots aren't so much hard to follow as hard to care about and most of the cast are out of their depth in trying to make their various roles stand out in any way; Halle Berry can rarely play one person, is she really up to six in one film?
The film's sense of its' own epicness and utter conviction that its' trite messages are somehow transcendant finish it off. A brutal ordeal.
Ok, dont know if I liked it.
All of the stories were equally compelling, which is no mean feat for an ensemble piece.But sadly, that's the most positive thing I can say about 'Cloud Atlas'. The casting of multiple roles per actor didn't necessarily detract from the film. It just didn't add anything to it. I think Mitchell's book, which I didn't enjoy that much, was so well-received because there was stylistic variation between each of the interweaving chapters. The film, on the other hand, lacks such versatility. Its unimaginative editing suggests a degree of homogenisation amongst the three directors. I generally admire the idea of a melodramatic ensemble, but I feel as though the directors ultimately failed to realise their ambitions.
“If God created all this then why do we have the right to change it?” – Adam Ewing, Cloud Atlas
Cloud Atlas, adapted from a difficult novel by David Mitchell, emerges as the most multi-dimensional film of many lately to promote the benefits of community and the disastrous effects of being incarcerated by subordination. At once infuriating and captivating, Cloud Atlas sets out to defy narrative conventions. It succeeds at being a cinematic tapestry to be explored rather than digested. Yet, the main message – “We are all drops that make up the ocean.” – feels too small to justify such a complicated movie. On first viewing, the aspirations for something grander are there, but the base of what’s being…
I thought this movie was extremely entertaining and well made. The main reason (in my opinion) this movie wasn't really well received was because of how much it makes you think. I am not calling this film the next treatise of philosophy but it makes us think about what connects us both literally and figuratively. (Or physically and spiritually if you prefer).
A pretty fantastic adaptation if you've read the book. A pretty steaming pile of shit if you haven't. In its favor, the film delivers some of the most imaginative and aesthetically-pleasing cinematography to date. However, owing largely to the complexity of the source material, the narrative is more incoherent than my roommate on mescaline. I also recall the novel articulating its themes much more intelligently than the film, which condenses everything into vagaries like "everything is connected," "reincarnation is a trip," and "karma is a bitch." Read the book, or you'll be yibberin' and hollerin' to Somni that is a spesh ambitious fluke real quick-wise.
Peeping Tom, Night of the Hunter and a whole host of older films were ignored or given bad reviews upon…
Apologies for the rather clumsy and drab title, I was going to call it Pure Cinema but that isn't quite…