Cloud Atlas (Wachowski/Tykwer)

[Ezee E]

CLOUD ATLAS

DIRECTORS: Tom Tykwer, Lana and Andy Wachowski

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/Cloud_Atlas_Poster.jpg

IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1371111/)

[Ezee E]

How the heck did this get made? A nearly 3-hour $140 million film that will certainly get its large share of haters. I don't see it getting beyond $60.

With that, I'm quite on the line on this. While I'm somewhat involved with all six stories, by cutting between them all, I never really feel involved with any of them. There's simply too much. On the first viewing, it almost feels like you're searching for the Tom Hanks and/or Weaving in the future story, the London story, etc. Sometimes they are horribly casted to the point of almost feeling like a spoof.

But it's resonating really well with me. I've never read the book, so I think its understandable to be overwhelmed, and I think it's definitely something in need of a rewatch. There's lots of scenes to admire, with the New Seoul, and the shipwreck definitely being the highlight for me. Frobisher, is the character highlight. Halle Berry's San Francisco story is shrug-worthy, although it has the best shot in the movie, and the publisher on the run is cute, but Halle Berry sort of hurts it. "The Fall" is mostly forgettable for similar reasons.

I love the ambition, and you won't get movies like this too often (if ever), Aa rewatch is warranted. The more I think, the more I like. The more I read about it, the more I love.

EDIT: Typing this out is making me respect it more as well.

[Fezzik]

I was asked by FilmPulse to review this. I was honored that they asked, but pissed because I'm just too slammed this weekend to make it to the theater.

I'll probably see it some time next week.

[Dukefrukem]

If anything, E's post makes me want to see this more now.

[Henry Gale]

Not sure the last time I was so excited to see something. Thankfully, after all these months, I finally can starting tomorrow.

[baby doll]

I'll definitely give this a shot when I see it, but I'm keeping my expectations low. Looking back on the Wachowskis' first four movies (I haven't seen Speed Racer), there's a precipitous drop in quality from Bound to The Matrix to the Matrix sequels, which doesn't bode well for this one: Mo' money, mo' mediocrity. As for Tykwer, Heaven is pretty awesome, but most of the credit for that has to go to Krzysztof Kieślowski and Krzsztof Piesiewicz. Also, why is Tom Hanks still in movies? What is this, 1998?

[Ivan Drago]

I only hope this is the film that brings the spectacle back to movie-going. At least for me, anyway.

[Watashi]

I'll definitely give this a shot when I see it, but I'm keeping my expectations low. Looking back on the Wachowskis' first four movies (I haven't seen Speed Racer), there's a precipitous drop in quality from Bound to The Matrix to the Matrix sequels, which doesn't bode well for this one: Mo' money, mo' mediocrity. As for Tykwer, Heaven is pretty awesome, but most of the credit for that has to go to Krzysztof Kieślowski and Krzsztof Piesiewicz. Also, why is Tom Hanks still in movies? What is this, 1998?
Cause Tom Hanks is awesome.

[baby doll]

I only hope this is the film that brings the spectacle back to movie-going. At least for me, anyway.Yeah, because if there's one thing lacking in contemporary blockbuster cinema, it's computer-generated spectacle.

[baby doll]

Cause Tom Hanks is awesome.I didn't like him before The Terminal and I didn't like him after.

[Watashi]

I didn't like him before The Terminal and I didn't like him after.
Tom Hanks as an actor hasn't been that great lately, but as a person, he's hilarious. Read or listen to any interview of him. The guy is great when he's a comedian.

[Pop Trash]

Tom Hanks as an actor hasn't been that great lately, but as a person, he's hilarious. Read or listen to any interview of him. The guy is great when he's a comedian.

This is entirely true. He also has a rep for being one of the nicest guys in Hollywood, esp. his treatment of people on set. That said, I've never been the biggest fan of his acting (the dramas in particular, with the possible exceptions of Saving Private Ryan and Road to Perdition ...he's better with comedies like Big).

[Ezee E]

This is entirely true. He also has a rep for being one of the nicest guys in Hollywood, esp. his treatment of people on set. That said, I've never been the biggest fan of his acting (the dramas in particular, with the possible exceptions of Saving Private Ryan and Road to Perdition ...he's better with comedies like Big).
Tom Hanks is hilarious in the London spot, even if it seems like a spoof of something. Everything else, he's just alright. Disappointing, because I'm a big fan of him.

[Dukefrukem]

I didn't like him before The Terminal and I didn't like him after.

You must not have seen Burbs otherwise the first part of this statement doesn't make any sense.

[Thirdmango]

I really wanted to love this movie, I really did and they just never gave me the opportunity to love it. The trailer made me feel like this was going to be my favorite movie by them but it was just a mess. I loved the Seoul story and I liked Jim Broadbent anytime he showed up but the rest of the movie just never hit me. Some of the make up is amazing and some of it is the worst. This movie was a big let down for me, and I loved Speed Racer. (So take that into consideration.)

[Ezee E]

I really wanted to love this movie, I really did and they just never gave me the opportunity to love it. The trailer made me feel like this was going to be my favorite movie by them but it was just a mess. I loved the Seoul story and I liked Jim Broadbent anytime he showed up but the rest of the movie just never hit me. Some of the make up is amazing and some of it is the worst. This movie was a big let down for me, and I loved Speed Racer. (So take that into consideration.)
Broadbent's escape from the hospital drew the biggest cheers from my audience. Seemed kinda awkward.

People really didn't like Weaving as the Nurse.

[Pop Trash]

This movie is amazing in theory, but not in actuality. I feel the Wachowskis (and Tykwer I guess) are just not very good at staging scenes and the heavy make-up didn't help in that dept. A lot of the stuff with Hanks and Berry just feels like one of those SNL skits they throw in at the end of the show that just sits there D.O.A. but in this case I don't think it is meant to be funny. The post apocalyptic bits were like a mix between Battlefield Earth and Pootie Tang. The Ben Whishaw segment just reminded me how good Ben Whishaw is.

You can tell this film desperately wants to be in the same territory as The Tree of Life, 2046, and The Fountain, but it just doesn't get there. There were only bits and pieces here and there where I felt anything resembling awe.

[Pop Trash]

I'm also curious how Holy Motors will stack up against this.

[Stay Puft]

I'm reading the book right now. It's neat.

Saw the trailer recently in the theatres and immediately noticed that the characters who have the birthmark are actually being played by different actors. I mean, I'm only halfway through the book or so (currently reading Sloosh'a's Crossin') and haven't seen the movie... but there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason behind the casting?

[Mal]

A reluctant yay. I adored Jim Broadbent in this and the segments directed by Tykwer were the best. Otherwise... those goddamn eyebrows in Seoul. Horrid.

[Lazlo]

Can't stop thinking about this. I really connected with it emotionally and was completely drawn in by every aspect. It's the best thing I've seen all year and I can't wait to go again. So, so pleased.

On a different note: I counted six walk-outs, including a couple who came in 20 minutes in and missed the early portion that sets everything up with the title cards and whatnot. They had to have been lost beyond belief. Why do people bother to show up so far into the movie? This happens almost half the time I go to the theaters and I can't understand it. I know there are tons of previews these days, but if the posted start time is 7:00, why are you bothering to show up at 7:45?

[eternity]

The Tom Tywker segments are INCREDIBLE. It's a shame the Wachowski's don't hold up their end of the deal. It's a bit jarring to watch what is essentially six movies at once that barely justify being bonded together; once you get into one story, you are dropped into another in an entirely different style and genre. Sometimes it works really well, and other times it doesn't, if only because some segments are just so much better/worse than others. The material would have been served better as a miniseries, but since it's a movie, it could have benefited from being a bit shorter and more of a tone poem. Infuse a little Tree of Life into this movie and you have a masterpiece; rough it up and embrace the campier elements more and you have Southland Tales. I can't help but think it would have been better if only it were a bit worse, if that makes any sense. It's so slick at times that it seems sterile.

That all said, I really liked it. I wish I loved it. The 1930s and 1970s segments are fucking incredible. If there was a way the Academy could give a Best Director nomination to Tom Tywker but omit the Wachowskis, I would be all for it.

The one thing I really dug about the narrative structure is how you couldn't tell who the protagonist was in some of the segments until at least half way through. Anything could happen to anybody at any time; anybody could be the hero, the villain, the important character, or the death fodder. It gave the movie the element of surprise that so many other movies lack.

[Pop Trash]

The 1930s and 1970s segments are fucking incredible.

No.

I do agree with you re: the Tree of Life vs. Southland Tales thing. If they pushed the camp and overall self-conscious weirdness/humor levels, I do think it would have been better in a ST or Repo Man kind of way.

[TGM]

Hoping to see this soon. Maybe tomorrow.

[Ezee E]

This only made 9.5 million at the box office. Yikes.

[Ivan Drago]

Seeing on Tuesday. Going in with hopefully no expectations.

[Thirdmango]

was tywker 1, 3, and 5? The actual who did each one went by so fast I couldn't figure out which director did which three.

[Henry Gale]

was tywker 1, 3, and 5? The actual who did each one went by so fast I couldn't figure out which director did which three.

The Wachowskis did 1850, Sonmi's and After The Fall with Tykwer left withthe ones with cars (or, at least, non-flying ones) But from what I gather, the three directors resented the idea of being labeled for having done individual pieces, but they were only forced to do so when at the last minute, the DGA wouldn't give them a joined credit for the whole thing. Apparently even the festival version didn't have the credit split up.

Basically, the film sometimes had more than one crew filming different segments at once, and Tykwer and the Wachowskis are credited with the ones they put themselves in charge of on-location. But that doesn't mean after years of writing, co-producing and planning to make it that they didn't have input in how each others' pieces were visually conceived or that they didn't all work together with the actors ahead of time, it's just a distinction the Director's Guild wanted to make since they're always vehemently against giving more than one person credit as a director.

[Watashi]

As a massive Speed Racer fanboy, I was bummed out that the Wachowski segments were my least favorite of the timelines. The post-apocalyptic timeline was downright embarrassing. The dialogue, acting, and direction just looked silly (needed more creepy Mad Hatter Weaving).

That said, the Whishaw/Broadbent stuff was lovely. I'm quite surprised by the embrace by the internet community acting like "be kind to everyone" is some revolutionary theme that few films tackle. I think the film works best in small doses rather than looking at it whole.

[eternity]

As a massive Speed Racer fanboy, I was bummed out that the Wachowski segments were my least favorite of the timelines. The post-apocalyptic timeline was downright embarrassing. The dialogue, acting, and direction just looked silly (needed more creepy Mad Hatter Weaving).

That said, the Whishaw/Broadbent stuff was lovely. I'm quite surprised by the embrace by the internet community acting like "be kind to everyone" is some revolutionary theme that few films tackle. I think the film works best in small doses rather than looking at it whole.

Mad Hatter Weaving is precisely what made that segment so lame, that's for true true.

[Pop Trash]

Mad Hatter Weaving is precisely what made that segment so lame, that's for true true.

Oh lawd that was awful. I almost forgot about that. I was thinking "not only is Tom Hanks speaking like Pootie Tang, suddenly we have Hugo Weaving doing his best Warwick Davis from The Leprechaun to deal with." Apparently in the book he is meant to be something of a metaphorical devil, but the Wachowskis decided to literalize it in the tackiest way possible.

[Watashi]

Apparently, he is supposed to represent George W. Bush.

[Ezee E]

What about New Seoul Wats?

[Watashi]

I liked some parts of New Seoul (I love the interrogation scenes, and everything with the PapaSong girls), but when it got all action-y in the escape, I kinda lost interest.

I appreciate big ambitious polarizing sci-fi movies. I expected this to be another Fountain or Tree of Life, but I thought while its themes and time-spanning editing was good, a lot of the execution was clunky and goofy. I think this film needed better actors and a better script that didn't have to say "our lives are not our own" every 10 minutes.

[Fezzik]

I saw this last night. It would be an incredibly difficult film to review.

I found it to be an incredibly moving film, which surprised me. At times, I was wondering what the point of the entire exercise was, but as it got closer to the end, all that melted away.

It was well acted for the most part and the editing was pretty amazing. I'm not a huge fan of the Wachowskis, but I liked pretty much all of this one.

I don't even know where this would go on my year end list, but its a movie I'll be thinking about for a while. Its one of those that begs for further digging into its details.

[Henry Gale]

I guess I should pop in to say that I was completely taken by it, and I haven't quite stopped thinking about it since the weekend, but there's so much rich stuff going on in this (even beyond the stuff people have seemed the most keen on discussing) that I still want to all sink in a bit more before I sort everything out in my mind and elaborate on my thoughts.

[TGM]

So I really just loved everything about this movie, even though I'm sure quite a bit of it went right over my head. But I honestly can't remember the last time I was so moved by a film. When trying to break it down and dissect it, I really don't even know where to begin, but here's my attempt at a review for it nonetheless. (http://cwiddop.blogspot.com/2012/11/cloud-atlas.html)

[chrisnu]

I fixed Tykwer's name in the thread title. :P

[Ezee E]

I fixed Tykwer's name in the thread title. :P

D'oh!

[Skitch]

Wow so this was fairly magnificent.

[Skitch]

You must not have seen Burbs otherwise the first part of this statement doesn't make any sense.

Nah none of it makes sense. Hanks has done a ton of good stuff.

[EyesWideOpen]

I'm a huge Wachowski and Tykwer fan and this was an epic failure of a movie. There was so many laughably bad scenes/moments that I lost count. The only redemption was the Neo Seoul stuff and that just felt like Matrix-lite stuff.

[NickGlass]

Somehow seeing this film proved to me how unadaptable the novel really is. I think the novel is ingenious, but the film struck me as a prime example of what it means to force the connections the book cleverly, and tacitly, presents.

[Rowland]

Laughable. Hilarious. Hysterical. Exhilarating. Platitudinous. Profound. Deranged. Square. Sincere. Impossible.

[Watashi]

Yes, those are words.

[Pop Trash]

Laughable. Hilarious. Hysterical. Exhilarating. Platitudinous. Profound. Deranged. Square. Sincere. Impossible.

What is Prometheus?

[Rowland]

Yes, those are words.Been lazy lately, school has drained my, uh, wanting-ness to write... stuff. The remainder of the sentences can be imagined by the reader, like Mad Libs.

[transmogrifier]

Yes, those are words.

I refuse to accept "platitudinous".

[Rowland]

Here, I filled in the blanks for a Letterboxd review:

An unwieldy medley of paradoxes. It's laughable and hilarious; confident and hysterical; deranged and square; clunky and lyrical; platitudinous and profound. What finally sells it is the deeply felt sincerity that is unmistakably evinced by its makers, and the seeming impossibility of its very existence, which make for an exhilarating experience. And what can I say, its insane, genre-jumping, century-spanning narrative is a bona fide ripsnorter, made all the more diverting by the game of spot-the-actor embedded into its design with equal parts thematic function and tongue-in-cheek, the MVP in this respect going to Hugh Grant as a post-apocalyptic, tribe-pillaging cannibal. A deeply flawed, borderline masterpiece.

[Skitch]

A deeply flawed, borderline masterpiece.

Yes. Well said.

[NickGlass]

[T]he MVP in this respect going to Hugh Grant as a post-apocalyptic, tribe-pillaging cannibal.

Hugh Grant? MVP? Crazypants.

[NickGlass]

I have no real intentions of beating down on Cloud Atlas, but it appears that earnestness is being mistaken for mastery.

Does the film wear its heart on it sleeve? Sure. Is it a literally interpreted, here-let-me-connect-the-dots-for-you narrative jumble? Absolutely. Does it organically allow its ideas to breathe? Not so much.

[Rowland]

I have no real intentions of beating down on Cloud Atlas, but it appears that earnestness is being mistaken for mastery. Oh, I'm not arguing that it's masterful. Note that I made a specific point of emphasizing how I can level as many criticisms at the film as I can accolades, often contradicting themselves on a scene-to-scene basis, which makes for a very unwieldy film, hardly masterful.

[Derek]

Oh, I'm not arguing that it's masterful. Note how I made a specific point of emphasizing how I can level as many criticisms at the film as I can accolades, often contradicting themselves on a scene-to-scene basis, which makes for a very unwieldy film, hardly masterful.

So it's a borderline materpiece that's hardly masterful?

[Rowland]

So it's a borderline materpiece that's hardly masterful?Yep.

[Ivan Drago]

Saw this again yesterday after thinking I looked at it the wrong way the first time. Now, this might be my favorite movie of the year.

[Stay Puft]

...but there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason behind the casting?

Okay, so there is, but... this is probably the biggest problem with the film. It was fun seeing where the actors would reappear at first (I literally LOL'd when Zhou Xun showed up as the hotel manager in the 70's story), but once the scheme became apparent the whole thing just looked naff in retrospect. Like Nick says, they're forcing connections that the book would either leave open to interpretation, or that simply weren't in the book at all (this being moreso in the visual connections they try to force through juxtaposition, like Sonmi's escape and Autua proving his mettle to the captain; it often feels like they were grasping for straws in the editing room). To that end, I found the film adding up to nothing much at all, or relying too heavily on one aspect to try to tie everything together in a meaningful way (e.g. Sonmi's revelations).

I almost wish I hadn't read the book before seeing the movie, because I generally like these filmmakers and wanted to like this film, but it just doesn't read. It mostly boils down to a bunch of plodding plot, and the details of the plot are the least interesting thing about the novel (I feel like maybe a much better idea would have been to take the concept of the novel and run with it in another direction for the film; being so beholden to the plot and characters was an exercise in futility).

[Stay Puft]

I think the film works best in small doses rather than looking at it whole.

Yeah, I had been going back and forth on whether or not to vote yay or nay, because I did enjoy many moments of the film, and feel that as far as direct adaptations go, this is often as good as one could expect (the production design and casting in many respects, e.g. I can't imagine a better Frobisher, and the atmopshere was almost as I had imagined). It's well designed in this regard, but as a whole it's just a shambling mess of nothing, an adaptation that jettisons the novel's clever conceptual ideas in favor of some grand universal spectacle of "can't we all just get along" or something to that effect.

[[ETM]]

I'm back from the theatre, after seeing just two and a half hours of it. Power literally cut out at the beginning of the climax.

I'm incredibly pissed, but surprised, because: a) there were over 50 people there to see it, and b) almost all of them stayed in their seats for almost an hour, hoping to see the ending (the power was out for like 20 minutes, and after that the technicians tried to boot up the server, but couldn't for some reason).

We took the refund and will definitely be back to see it again.

[Ivan Drago]

Question: Did anyone have the birthmark to signify the singular soul in the 1830s storyline, and if not, then who was the first man to have the singular soul? Because on one hand, there's so much more focus on Adam Ewing that it might be him, but after Zachry's opening monologue about his first encounter with the devil (right?), we're introduced to Henry Goose as if he's the first one.

[Lazlo]

Question: Did anyone have the birthmark to signify the singular soul in the 1830s storyline, and if not, then who was the first man to have the singular soul? Because on one hand, there's so much more focus on Adam Ewing that it might be him, but after Zachry's opening monologue about his first encounter with the devil (right?), we're introduced to Henry Goose as if he's the first one.

If I'm not mistaken we see it when Goose opens Ewing's shirt and sees the key for the first time. Could be wrong though.

[number8]

So last night I went to a comedy show, and one of the comedians said in the middle of her act as a transition, "You guys wanna hear the true-true?" and chuckled to herself, then asked the silent crowd if anyone's seen Cloud Atlas. My girlfriend and I were in the front row and we were literally the only two people in the entire crowd who have seen the movie. So the comic then went on to do a bit about the fake language and I am fucking dying in the front row wiping away tears while the rest of the place is silent. And the comedian goes, "See? This is REALLY funny if you've seen the movie. Look, that guy (me) is crying right now. You guys need to keep up with this stuff. I am innovating up here and you don't even know."

Anyway, that was a thing that happened.

[Qrazy]

Blech. I've seen this film before. It was called the Saragossa Manuscript. It was better then.

[ledfloyd]

What a monotonous slog, one of the pleasures in the book is the way Mitchell channels different literary styles and they completely missed the opportunity to exploit that on a filmic level. It's kind of a shame because the way they managed to interweave the six narratives is pretty impressive. It just becomes so overbearing in its sameness that you're ready for it to be over when there's still an hour left to go.

[eternity]

What a monotonous slog, one of the pleasures in the book is the way Mitchell channels different literary styles and they completely missed the opportunity to exploit that on a filmic level. It's kind of a shame because the way they managed to interweave the six narratives is pretty impressive. It just becomes so overbearing in its sameness that you're ready for it to be over when there's still an hour left to go.

I can kind of see where you're coming from, as the Wachowski sequences all seemed to be cut from the same cloth, but I don't entirely agree. The movie jumps from being Waking Ned Devine to Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy to...well, The Matrix, quite effortlessly.

[Grouchy]

Came back from this a couple of hours ago. I unabashedly loved it. I can imagine how as a novel it might be different, subtler in its connections, but the movie was masterful in my opinion. I think it managed to juggle different tones effortlessly and it was never less than interesting, and often more exciting than anything else I've seen recently. The moral of the story is very optimistic and blatant and yet it never felt forced down my throat.

It's sad to see how many of you compare it unfavorably to Tree of Life. I think this film is better in every aspect. I would love to see this again while I can't even consider re-watching the Malick.

[Grouchy]

Blech. I've seen this film before. It was called the Saragossa Manuscript. It was better then.
Thanks for this, by the way. I'm aware of the novel because it's described at great length in an essay by Todorov, but I didn't know there was a film! I'll be downloading it inmediately.

In an entirely unrelated aside, anyone complaining about the yellowface make-up or similar cross-racial special effects in Cloud Atlas is missing the point by a landslide.

[Rowland]

In an entirely unrelated aside, anyone complaining about the yellowface make-up or similar cross-racial special effects in Cloud Atlas is missing the point by a landslide.The most persuasive argument I've read concerning this issue is the double-standard of yellowface vis-a-vis blackface, in that the former is so prominently featured in the film whereas the latter is limited to a blink-and-you'll-miss-it appearance by Broadbent in the background of one scene. Any perceived cluelessness or (more likely) cynical calculation that resulted in this imbalance doesn't strike me as egregious enough to significantly affect my appreciation for the film.

[Grouchy]

The most persuasive argument I've read concerning this issue is the double-standard of yellowface vis-a-vis blackface, in that the former is so prominently featured in the film whereas the latter is limited to a blink-and-you'll-miss-it appearance by Broadbent in the background of one scene. Any perceived cluelessness or (more likely) cynical calculation that resulted in this imbalance doesn't strike me as egregious enough to significantly affect my appreciation for the film.
There is an example of "whiteface" too with Halle Berry, which, aside from White Chicks, has never been made to my knowledge.

[Rowland]

There is an example of "whiteface" too with Halle BerryDoona Bae too IIRC.

[[ETM]]

They pretty much did every combination in the film.

[Dead & Messed Up]

One of the damnedest things I've ever seen. I kinda loved it. More than anything, it was the nakedness of the film that grabbed me. This could've come off as platitudinous to some - not necessarily without cause - but the unapologetic heart behind the film is such a necessary anchor for the flights of fancy and preposterous incongruity of the different storylines.

[number8]

Ted Sarandos, while hyping Sense8:


“Their film reviews have been brutal, and everything after The Matrix didn’t go well, but if you look at the earlier cuts of their films before they had to jam them down to 120 minutes, it’s amazing. There’s a four-hour cut of Cloud Atlas that will blow you away.”

I WANT.

[Lazlo]

I WANT.

Heck yeah.

[Skitch]

Dammit!

[max314]

Contrary to Sarandos' proclamations, the Wachowskis seem to insist that their nearly three hour cut is, in fact, the "director's cut" of the film:


We don’t usually do that, because we are usually in love with the final product. I mean the final piece of art is usually the one that represents what we were attempting to achieve. So it kind of suggests that there’s incompleteness, or there’s something that is lost due to whatever logistical or financial studio constraint. And this movie is, we had final cut on this film, and every single edit is- that was part of the process, which was so fun, was that we wouldn’t stop cutting until all three of us loved the cut. If one of us thought, “Eh, I’m not sure about that transition” or “I’m not sure about that cut.” We would keep massaging it or keep working on it until all three of us thought it was right.

FULL INTERVIEW (http://collider.com/andy-wachowski-lana-wachowski-cloud-atlas-speed-racer-interview/)


Well worth reading / listening to the whole thing, by the way.