Archive: 5 posts

---

Has anyone else seen this film? Written and directed by the Wachowski... siblings, it interweaves 6 stories across 6 separate times in history and the future. It is based on a 2004 novel by David Mitchell (the writer, not the comedian). To be honest the film is a little mind-boggling. It's difficult to fully get your head around what's going on and what the point is. But slowly you get an inkling of what the main point that the film is trying to get across. It is probably a film that requires more than one viewing. It lost money at box office (making 63 million back of its 102 million budget). However it is without a doubt the most ambitious film I have ever seen both in its sheer spectacle, the stories which weave in and out of each other at odd moments, each of which are fascinating by themselves. I've never had such a sense of wonder after watching a film... Inception came close, but this is just out of this world. Highly recommended.

2013-01-02 01:18:00 Author: Burrich Posts: 1018

---

Hmmm. To be honest I was quite disappointed with this movie, and found Inception far more interesting. I do love complex stories, but this one reached a whole new level of complexity. Unnecessary complexity. The 6 stories can't really relationate with each other clearly, and I don't find any relevance in some of them. I actually liked the stories in their own (the assylum one was hilarius, the futuristic one was quite intriguing, the musician one was my favorite), but alltogether they don't really make one story that makes any sense at all. Anyway, I think its worth watching it.

2013-01-05 06:24:00 Author: yugnar Posts: 1478

---

I thought the movie was pretty entertaining, enjoyed every segment on it's own & how they were cut together. I saw it down the street at a movie theatre/drafthouse where they serve beer/alcohol, so I was fairly drunk & got up for the bathroom several times throughout the movie... this means, I have to give it a second chance because I didn't see how everything was related either, not that it necessarily needs to be, in order for it to be a good film, but I do feel like I missed some things. I don't know if I was a big fan of the actors playing multiple characters, other than Tom Hanks as the writer, that was excellent, but it did feel like a film with very ambitious aspirations.

2013-01-28 21:54:00 Author: ApeCheese Posts: 369

---

* spoilers * GOOD * Bae Doo-na A fantastic and fascinating-to-watch actress who picks great scripts. If she's in it I feel reassured that there's quality in the thing, and I am much more forgiving. I'm also extremely impressed with how she crosses the language barrier bravely, tackling stories in Korean, Japanese and, of course, in Cloud Atlas going full English. She elevates the films she's in. * Great as a sci fi miniseries... if only! Especially around the halfway point, after we were introduced to every character and timeline and there was quite a lot of meat to gnaw on, there was this great montage where one of the Tom Hanks characters narrated a thing about recurring lives and how time is all connected. The movie really came together in that moment but in a way that felt like the end of part one for a two-part TV miniseries. It was a perfect cliffhanger moment, and I soon found myself wishing there had been an intermission at that point. It might have made the second half fresher and more digestible. Because... BAD * It's too long. The second half drags I think it's a problem where there's all this setup and it comes together at 90 minutes, which is a movie in itself, and then fails to come together as strongly again in the next 90 minutes. Nothing significant happens besides the breakout scene in futuristic Korea, and the breakout scene with the old folks from the British hospice. I didn't care for a second about the stakes in the other timelines, or most of what happened in any of the timelines. Might have helped if I'd had a day or a week to look forward to it, clear my mind, or something. As a miniseries this movie could work. Dice it up, spread it out. Sitting in the theater I just zoned out, and I am someone who does actively engage movies as much as possible. Zoning out isn't an attention problem, it's a problem with the pace of the movie. I don't even remember how most timelines were resolved. Just some good feelings here and there, the death of island future Tom Hank's wife (?), snippets of confrontation and (being most interested in her and the sci fi future storyline) Bae Doo-na's execution... the end credits just started happening and I remember snapping out of my bored daze to enjoy seeing who played who in the clips for about 30 seconds, then got out of there. Not a great cinematic experience, in my opinion. Good buildup, bad wind down. * Everybody is one dimensional Every. Single. Character. is ridiculously saintly and good, or blatantly simplisticly bad, from the moment they appear on screen. In a few cases there's the slightest hint of ambiguity, but then they spell it out literally. I actually laughed out loud and rolled my eyes when the Tom Hanks bucktoothed doctor decided to drop the n-bomb and establish he's an evil baddie, and then he tells the guy he's killing that he's killing him. I haven't read the book but I can imagine this somehow working on the page, in the literary way where motivations and reveals can be sometime spoken. Doesn't work for movies, not since the 1950s. It's trite. * The awkward makeup I spent more time playing "spot the actor" than paying attention to any of the plot. I don't fault anyone for their hammy performances, it seemed like a lot of fun for them, and I know the point was neither to hide or highlight the fact it was the same actors -- yet it's such an important theme of the movie and so obvious a style choice. How do I explain it: I don't think the quality of the makeup contributed to any failing of the movie. But it's there, and it's distracting. Especially in the overlong second half, I realized the scenes I enjoyed the most were the ones with people in minimal or no prosthetic makeup. Then when someone was clearly in asianface, or whiteface, or wearing a rubber nose, or whatever, my mind uncoupled from itself and I farted my way through a few minutes of plot wondering what it was like for the actors on set, etc. Then I'd get back into things when Halle Berry or Tom Hanks or whoever was just a plain old fairly normal version of themselves. OVERALL It's not a deep or complex movie, I don't think I can be convinced of that. But I was more or less entertained... for a while. It's technically coherent and fun to watch until it gets overlong. I should admit that I read a number of reviews and prejudged it probably, before going in. I expected something technically impressive but ultimately lacking in execution, which is about right for the Wachowskis. Maybe I haven't given Cloud Atlas a fair shake, and will give it a go on DVD whenever it comes out, breaking it up in small nightly viewings to see how it plays re: the miniseries idea. Still... I think I agree with the reviews. Cloud Atlas has big ideas, it gamely puts them on screen, but they don't quite come together. However this film also deserves a bit of appreciation for coming out of Europe rather than the USA. It's kind of an oddball, not exactly mimicking but definitely challenging the conventions of Hollywood blockbusters. So I want to like it more, just for that. Definitely excited to listen to all the DVD commentaries from the directors, book author, actors, etc.

2013-01-29 14:55:00 Author: Unknown User

---

I should admit that I read a number of reviews and prejudged it probably, before going in. Most accurate sentence in the text. Maybe I haven't given Cloud Atlas a fair shake, and will give it a go on DVD whenever it comes out Do it please ! ... No, I don't think the movie earned maximum rating, and i'm not fan of Hanks acting at all, but the movie generally presented certain ideas in a special and original way. For me it grabbed high place and it stepped forward from today's movies mostly made on cold assembly line. I think that all the settings are intentionally (and successfully) made ​​this way, including obvious game with multiple roles of few actors, and that's all part of a bigger picture of the relationship of different lifes and their mutual influence. I even wanted that lasts longer, which means that I enjoyed the movie very much.

2013-01-30 09:29:00 Author: goranilic Posts: 332

Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.