Cloud Atlas

[AgentofChaos]

Directed by Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) and Andy and Lana Wachowski. The three of them adapted the screenplay from the David Mitchell novel.

Starring Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugo Weaving, Hugh Grant, Jim Sturgess, Susan Sarandon & Jim Broadbent.

Billed as a sweeping sci-fi epic, 'Cloud Atlas' is 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.

No photos, no trailer, not much of anything yet, but it will be screening at TIFF this year (Sept 6th-16th). Colour me pretty damn interested.

[onthewall2983]

There is a trailer (http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/watch-staggeringly-ambitious-visually-impressive-6-minute-trailer-for-the-wachowskis-tom-tykwers-cloud-atlas-20120726#), albeit for international markets.

[Alexandros]

It seems a bit all over the place! I am very interested in this now that I've seen the trailer, but it feels like one of those hyper-ambitious movies that can go horribly, horribly wrong. Plus, the all-star cast is going past "cool!" and into "distracting!" territory.

It seems it's based on a book. Now I'm thinking whether I should read the book first. Probably not.

[dominik]

Matrix is my favorite movie and I love The Wachowskis (and yes, I love all of the Matrix movies), so when I heard their new movie is based on a book, I immediately bought it. And let me tell you, this book is excellent. So so good. It's about six different times and stories that are all somehow connected to each other. In the book every story ends halfway and the next story starts, and the stories are closing in opposite direction. And this movie is also going to be good, because the trailer looks awesome, and it has Hugo Weaving in it. Hugo. Fucking. Weaving.

[aggroculture]

I'll read the book first. David Mitchell's Ghostwritten is great.

[sentient02970]

Yes reading the book reviews has me intrigued as it sounds like the kind of novel I love to read.

[onthewall2983]

Here's the U.S. version of the trailer, in HD (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/cloudatlas).

[ImTheWiseJanitor]

Here's the U.S. version of the trailer, in HD (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/cloudatlas).

I was kind of looking forward to this, but that trailer just completely put my faith in this movie. This is gonna be a LOT of fun.


And this movie is also going to be good, because the trailer looks awesome, and it has Hugo Weaving in it. Hugo. Fucking. Weaving.

Judging from his little moment in the trailer, am I the only one who thinks he seems to be playing Mr. Smith, but with mutton chops? :P

[theruiner]

Am I the only person who was completely underwhelmed by that trailer? Bleh.

And Tom Hanks' hair in the 70s portion looked RIDICULOUS. Like, distractingly bad.

[littlemonkey613]

Eugh way to sentimental and oddly sappy for my taste. Might check it out still though.

[Deadpool]

I didn't really hear about this movie until yesterday when it caught my eye on Apple's site. I watched the 5 min. trailer and the director commentary, and I'm intrigued! I'd be lying if I said I wasn't. I could see it collapsing under the weight of its own ambition, but I respect the massive undertaking it seems to be. I definitely want it to be good. Did anyone else say to themselves "This movie looks like it's going to be at least 8 hours long" while watching? The sci-fi 'reveal' about 2 minutes into the trailer most definitely got my attention.

[Rabbit]

been waiting for this. looks amazing

[AgentofChaos]

Just came from the world premiere.

It was honestly brilliant. So ambitious, epic, and wonderful. I fell in love with it. It was 2 hours and 45 minutes, but it did not drag on whatsoever.

Crowd gave a huge and long standing ovation at the end. Quite emotional.

I am very intrigued to see how it will be received.

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

AV Club's Scott Tobias anticipates this will be extremely polarizing. Says so far it seems to be drawing a major "poo fight", with a bunch of people that hate it on one side and a bunch of those who think it's really brilliant on the other.

It's the Wachowskis, so I'm skeptical, but interested. Basically, they've made no great movies, but most of them have been worth watching. And by most, I mean The Matrix. (Personally, I think the trailer for this looks retarded, which has me even more interested than I might be otherwise.)

[thevoid99]

I just saw the film earlier this morning. I thought it was really good. Here's my full review (http://thevoid99.blogspot.com/2012/10/cloud-atlas.html)

[carpenoctem]

This was amazing. For a three-hour movie, I was totally entertained throughout. The common themes shared by all the different stories seemed to be love surviving through time and some form of paradigm-changing revolution happening on a grand scale, but at the same time I feel like you could enjoy the stories for what they were, without having to analyze the significance of comet-shaped birthmarks and reincarnation or whatever. It'll be sure to invite a lot of discussion, but it's not necessary.

This is the kind of thing I hoped The Tree of Life would be, but failed so horribly at.

[Collin]

Saw this yesterday. I really enjoyed it, might be my favorite of the year. All of the stories were good, although the 1970's Halle Berry one was probably my least favorite. Good performances from Hanks, Weaving, dude from Across the Universe and even that D'Arcy guy. It seems like freedom and segregation were large themes in all six of the stories, but each can be enjoyed for their individual aspects. Overall, a great film.

EDIT: oh yeah, did anyone else catch in the when Ben Whishaw was Hugh Grant's WIFE in the Timothy Cavendish storyline? He's only on-screen for a few seconds but I found that to be a really interesting choice...

[thevoid99]

I did see that. I was wondering who was the woman. Yet, I was more intrigued by Halle Berry playing an old Asian doctor and a white Jewish lady.

[Nappyp]

Blown away by this one. Its heavy on the mind and equally as light hearted. Everything else you guys has said is spot on. My only complaint is that I must see it again to "get" everything. I found myself reflecting on previous sequences, who that actor was, and if they are the same "soul." It was distracting.... correction. I was distracting myself. I LOVE it when a movie does that to me.

[DVYDRNS]

I dont get why everybody is raving about this movie.

I saw it tonight.

It is hands down, the most bloated, self absorbed, pretentious and self indulgent, pile of crap that i have ever seen...

they did a damn terrible job of tying everything together, and even at 2:45 it felt like they were rushed to tie together what little they could.

they claimed this was the book that nobody could make a movie out of? well whoever said that, was right...

ugh just terrible.

[ManBurning]

I dont get why everybody is raving about this movie.

I saw it tonight.

It is hands down, the most bloated, self absorbed, pretentious and self indulgent, pile of crap that i have ever seen...

they did a damn terrible job of tying everything together, and even at 2:45 it felt forced to tie together what little they could.

they claimed this was the book that nobody could make a movie out of? well whoever said that, was right...

ugh just terrible.

THANK YOU!

I too saw this movie tonight and thought it was rubbish! I came here to read what people were saying about it, and decided against leaving a comment as I didn't want everyone to "rip me a new one" and say "you just don't get it man, ya just don't get it".

But, since you openly admitted it was garbage, I don't feel as bad now admitting I hated it as well. Least we have each others backs on this one. =)

Honestly, I don't even see how this could have been from a book at all. Just hearing this was based on a book is mind blowing, It's probably the most jumbled up hodge podge, mix-matched session that would make reading a "chose your own adventure" from start to finish in order without jumping the pages, more of an enjoyable reading session.

It's a very artsy movie, you definatly need to like random/obscure movies to enjoy this, you know the "Tree of life" fanbase will eat this all up.

[littlemonkey613]

It's a very artsy movie, you definatly need to like random/obscure movies to enjoy this, you know the "Tree of life" fanbase will eat this all up.

Is this actually true? Tree of Life is pretty much my favorite movie now (Wall-e was dethroned and it breaks mah heart wah), but for some reason the trailer for this movie turned me off and made me hate it. What I love about Tree of Life is how it plays around with images, narrative and structure to say something true and interesting. I have literally never even seen a story told with the method that Tree of Life was told. Are they actually similar? Should I pay for this? Is it as impressionist or are you commenting more on the fact that it happens to come off as extremely artsy?

[DVYDRNS]

I actually really enjoyed tree of life, and I actually really enjoy artsy films. but this movie failed in so many ways that I cant even sit here and say i liked it because it was artsy.

For one thing, the horrible makeup and facial prosthesis totally takes you out of whatever "artsy" moment the scene might have been able to pull off.

To reiterate.

Its Terrible.

[october_midnight]

My wife and I actually enjoyed it, though I get why people wouldn't...it's pretty ambitious and wasn't too successful in certain aspects for sure. Would much rather that studios continue to pump out films like this than the common drivel though. Even if they fail, you have to admit that the quality of this film was leagues ahead of almost all others playing right now, even if it wasn't spectacular.

[ManBurning]

Is this actually true? Tree of Life is pretty much my favorite movie now (Wall-e was dethroned and it breaks mah heart wah), but for some reason the trailer for this movie turned me off and made me hate it. What I love about Tree of Life is how it plays around with images, narrative and structure to say something true and interesting. I have literally never even seen a story told with the method that Tree of Life was told. Are they actually similar? Should I pay for this? Is it as impressionist or are you commenting more on the fact that it happens to come off as extremely artsy?

On second thought, you're right. Tree of Life at least had Dinosaurs. Save your money!

I beleive if all 6 "stories" were shown together in chronological order, the movie might be a tad more entertaining, but not much. Doing that would lose the meaning it's trying to accomplish though. I think there is a better way this film could have been told while giving us the same experience.

The visual aspects are great, and the scenery of each of the different times is definatly something to commend them for, but in the grand scope of things this movie isn't for everyone. It certainly wasn't meant for me. I knew from the trailer I probably wasn't going to like it, but my girlfriend really, really wanted to go see it, so I agreed to go with her. Funny thing is, she ended up not liking it either, heh.

But some of our friends said it was the best movie ever. So, it literally your opinion can swing one way or the other. I say if the trailer hasn't grabbed you, don't bother wasting your hard earned cash on it. Wait for the DVD to come out in 4 months and check it out.

[bobbie solo]

is there enough sci-fi in it?

[october_midnight]

I'd say so. One of the stories is pretty much pure sci-fi while another has a good foot in the realm as well. As for people not liking it:

1. Showing it chronologically? Why? That'd serve literally no purpose other than to dumb it down for people that would have issues with it bouncing around as it did.

2. Have to like 'obscure, artsy movies'? Nah. Just not true. If the fact that a movie forces you to really pay attention, isn't chronological, etc. etc. is enough to make it 'artsy', I disagree.

In my opinion, it was pretty successful in touching upon ideas like how similar the issues people face, no matter where or when. The very notion of having replicants in the future face the same fears as people hundreds of years ago was fairly poignant to me. Kind of showed how interconnected humanity can sometimes be, without even knowing or believing it.

[ManBurning]

Yep, all the stories boil down to one thing: There is a fucker in every time period, and for us, it's Stephen Harper. (Anyone who's not Canadian probably won't get this).

[orestes]

Umm, I'm not Canadian but I know who is your PM. ;)

[ManBurning]

Umm, I'm not Canadian but I know who is your PM. ;)

But, do you know how much of a terrible animatronic Jim Hensen Puppet he is? :p

[Collin]

The movie's certainly polarizing. The connections between some of the parts are definitely subtle, and certain sections can get a tad cheesy. Honestly though, the more I thought about the film, the more I fell in love with it. The fact that each story affects another one somewhere in time is brilliant, like how Sun-mi in the future watch the re-enactment of the old man escaping from the nursing home influences them to escape. I also really loved Hugo Weavings' speech at the end in the earliest segment, the whole "There's a natural order to this world," great stuff. I can respect someone disliking it, because it is a bit messy at times, but personally I just got a lot out of this film and plan on seeing it again.

[Bluegirl]

So I just saw the movie and I really liked it. I was a little nervous because people kept bringing up The Tree of Life and I did not like that movie, but people also mentioned The Fountain which I did like.

The movie was a lot less abstract then I thought it would be. The individual stories were straight forward and the theme was comprehensive, which is helpful with all the jumping around with the stories. The jumping around was confusing at first but once you identify each story line it was easy to understand (I think I might have lost more detail in the beginning then in the end when I was use to it).

My problem is that the connections did not feel that strong. You see the parts of one story that are in another. You see the birth mark. The monologues all emphasized the same ideas. I liked that the climax of many of the stories coincided (even though that is when the jumping around happens the most). But it felt less like stories that were connected and more like stories that they were trying to tell you are connected so look here is a birthmark, look she is reading the letters. There was something missing, like if they would have pushed it more or tightened the story telling it would have all come together more naturally. But the individual stories were all very entertaining and interesting so even as a collection of stories I really liked it. Someone mentioned it before and I will agree, I makeup was terrible. It was helpful to keep track of the actors, but I doubt the intention was for everyone to look like themselves with weird eye makeup.

[sentient02970]

I really liked it and I had only got through about the first 1/3 of the book before seeing it. The way they thread the stories in the film seemed to hit better than the book could.

[Alexandros]

I won't say I didn't enjoy it, but it was a bit of a mess. 3 hours went by with no problem sure but, in the end, it all seemed way too elaborate, not in the sense of being difficult to understand, but rather in the sense of being overzealous with all the juggling between stories, trying to make a point. I think they could probably cut one or two of the stories without hurting the overarching theme. I detected two major themes by the way: If I understand correctly, one was "The weak are meat and the strong do eat", but love, friendship and compassion is always there to fight back and the other was that the choices we make and the stories we create through these choices have an effect in the future. Right?

I am interested in checking out the book though, I'd like to see how the ideas are managed there.

[Rabbit]

my favorite movie of the year.