Cloud Atlas

[modage]

One of the best parts of going to a film festival is being able to attend the very first screening of a film before any reviews (positive or negative) can possibly recalibrate your expectations or color your reaction. Had I not attended TIFF this year my anticipation for "Cloud Atlas" would've shot up to unhealthy proportions as reviews came pouring in after the World Premiere hailing the 3 hour epic as a masterpiece of cinema. But having attended that same screening, it would appear I was shown an entirely different film. Based on the "unadaptable" novel by David Mitchell and adapted by writer/directors Andy & Lana Wachowski (The Matrix" trilogy) and Tom Tykwer ("Run Lola Run") the film is the kind of ambitious epic that can only be summed up with a super-sized 6 1/2 minute trailer. Set in 6 different time periods both future past and present, the various stories range from 1970s-set political thriller to futuristic sci-fi love story to offbeat British comedy.

An ensemble of performers — including Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugo Weaving, Jim Broadbent, Hugh Grant, Ben Whishaw and Doona Bae — inhabit the roles of characters of different ages, races and genders across each storyline. So if you ever wanted to see Tom Hanks as both a British gangster and futuristic tribesman, now is your chance. The film aims to show how a small act of kindness can ripple across history and that our souls can be reshaped (one actors' roles begin as villains but become more benevolent throughout each subsequent chapter). The problem is that none of the storylines are particularly interesting or well executed while some are downright laughable. At one point during the languidly paced film I glanced at my watch and my friend leaned over to ask how much time was left. "2 Hours," I replied. We both squirmed in our seats. While it does get marginally better as it goes along and rescues itself from the feeling early on that you are watching a disaster of "Battlefield Earth" proportions, the film still comes off feeling like an ambitious failure.

The futuristic section fares best but the heavy prosthetics on the actors in each time period is extremely distracting, not to mention watching them switch races and genders. Headliners Hanks and Berry seem to have been cast because of their international appeal and not because they seem particularly suited to these roles. So while I have to admire the cast for their fearlessness taking on the challenge, I'm afraid their directors have left them out to dry. "The Fountain" told a similar ambitious story with its lead actors playing different characters across multiple time periods, but it was a much leaner, more focused film whose climax reverberated across each storyline. Here, the stories are too scattered and disparate to resonate emotionally. I had trouble picturing who exactly the movie is for — an independently financed $100 million leisurely paced sci-fi drama pretty much rules out every audience, doesn't it? — which is a reason to admire it. And while I can't hate "Cloud Atlas" for its ambition, that doesn't mean it works.

[picolas]

36 minutes more lana wachowski footage!! (and the other two.)

http://youtu.be/3MXR4MCuA0o

[Pubrick]

what an excellent interview, it was more like an intelligent conversation with old friends. you can really see how they all complement each other's personalities.

Tykwer is the cool efficient german, shown by the anecdote of how he came up with a new, more workable way to integrate music into the production, and also how towards the half hour mark he becomes concerned with the interview running overtime and where they have to go next. Then there's Lana who is either in LOVE or just really happy to have her self-imposed gagging order removed after all these years.. her long emotional monologues are the highlight of the interview. Then there's Andy who is like a sarcastic uncle, that dude doesn't say much but he's funny, and what he does say reveals almost as much as Lana but through concise, witty remarks.

the best part of the interview is probably the last 6 mins which i assume from Tykwer's inquietude are actually over their allotted time, where the wachowskis talk about why they are suddenly open to being front and centre of the promotional machine.  good stuff.

[HeywoodRFloyd]

Two fantastic featurettes:

This film looks pretty fucking amazing, and the actors seem to think so too.
I hope it isn't as bad as some are saying it is.

"The Fountain" told a similar ambitious story with its lead actors playing different characters across multiple time periods

Wait, in The Fountain isn't the future version of Hugh Jackman the same Tommy that's a doctor? After Izzy died he found the elixir to life, used it on himself, hence 2000+ years have passed. Also the conquistador character is obviously the character in Izzy's novel, who she based on Tommy, as he is always trying to find a solution to prevent a problem. So it's essentially the one character, the same guy, in different eras, and a fictional character of Izzy's interpretation of Tommy.

Isn't Cloud Atlas about how the soul is reincarnated through many lives. Or am I completely lost here?

[samsong]

cloud atlas is the movie equivalent of we are the world -- overreaching, naively earnest, unpleasantly long, and a bizarre group of celebrities collaborating for what is ultimately a misfire.  there are some truly breathtaking moments in terms of sheer spectacle and the talent of most everyone involved is forcibly apparent.  i found myself wishing tykwer and the wachowskis made more movies.  i sort of appreciate the attempt at conflating "high art" ambitions (whatever that means) with hollywood grandeur but if this is the best that's going to come of it then they may as well pack it in and keep the superhero franchises pumping. 

speed racer (which i genuinely enjoy) is way way way better.

[Reel]

The Wachowski's and Twyker on Nerdist

[RegularKarate]

I absolutely LOVED this movie!
I know for a fact that a ton of you will hate it... it is so ballsy and honest, but it's got some pretty flamboyant flaws that will distract a lot of people and probably make other write it off.

Yeah, the make-up is a little distracting, but it's part of the film's personality...a lot of people are going to get distracted by the make-up and some of the "cheesy" moments (the future-speak was the only thing I was really distracted by) and miss the fact that this thing is genius.

I really want it to do well because I really want the Wachowskis to be able to keep making movies the way they want to make movies. They don't give a shit if it's not for you, it's for them and I love that.

[©brad]

Contrary!

Okay fine I'll see the thing.

[samsong]

abysmal opening weekend box office numbers. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/28/cloud-atlas-argo-box-office_n_2035086.html

could this be the heaven's gate of our time?!?! 

nope.  it's a piece of shit.

[Pubrick]

it's all halle berry's fault. she's box office poison, and a critical risk as well.

i knew something was wrong if 1. she accepted the film. and 2. they let her be in the film.

the first one should ring alarm bells in the filmmakers minds to maybe overhaul the entire production because there MUST be something seriously flawed in the script if halle fucking berry is interested.. the second event though is a sign that the filmmakers were either too stupid or just desperate to believe in her "star power" in order to get the movie made.

[socketlevel]

abysmal opening weekend box office numbers. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/28/cloud-atlas-argo-box-office_n_2035086.html

could this be the heaven's gate of our time?!?! 

nope.  it's a piece of shit.

haha good comparison actually.

[BB]

it's all halle berry's fault. she's box office poison, and a critical risk as well.

Boy, this doesn't bode well for the upcoming Shoe Addicts Anonymous.

It's unfair blame her entirely for the film's looming failure, but she's certainly not doing it any favours. Toss up for worst actor between her and a woman WHO BARELY SPEAKS ENGLISH. And that lady's fine in the role where she actually plays a Korean.

SPOILERS, sorta

I get the feeling that no matter how this film was ultimately constructed, it was doomed from the start to be this sort of tepid thing, and, considering, I think the Wachowskis and Twyker acquitted themselves reasonably well. I was never bored really. At least not for more than a minute or two at a time. It could've been a lot worse in that regard. I felt certain details could've been better handled (a greater commitment to the multiple roles element for one thing. Why was Susan Sarandon in certain segments and not others? If she couldn't do more than a few weeks on the film, the part should've been recast. Why were some minor roles played by bit actors when major actors are missing altogether from the segment? Why is any actor given lines not in every segment? Or that element could've been abandoned... Also, child actors not so great with the futurespeak) and the whole thing is pretty sappy and all that. But overall, for what it is, it's not bad. At least not as bad as it easily could've been.

Although, that's precisely it. For what it is. Why make this film, I don't know. Why the two crew, two director, multiple concurrent sets thing? Maybe that's the most efficient way. Or the only available way. Seems to me like it leaves a huge margin for error and must've been terribly hard on their actors. That they managed to skirt most of the pitfalls and come away with a coherent -- at times downright impressive -- film is a feat. I appreciate its ambitions. By God, I'd rather see a movie overreaching than swatting low-hanging fruit. And sometimes I love a big mess with heart. But sometimes a smaller, tighter movie can be just as ambitious, y'know.   

[RegularKarate]

They had to get names to get money. It's a shame that it has to work that way, but it does. If this had been one of those films where studios take control, it would have been nothing like this. They got to do what they wanted to do... it's too bad this means it will be even harder next time.

Also, Halle Berry only really sucks in the future segment... for the same reason the kids do... the terrible future-speak is so forced that it makes it near-impossible to see the characters as real.

Still, I think that people are staring at the holes in the ship instead of loving the ride and appreciating that it even floats.

[BB]

Maybe I didn't communicate it well, but my post was supposed to express an appreciation that the thing floats. Only I question why anyone would build a boat like this in the first place. Why in this climate -- where every other movie is executed on this massive, epic scale -- make an excessive, over-the-top epic with limited commercial appeal? I appreciate the risk and acknowledge that it paid off better than most would expect. Still, it seems like a hollow enterprise. Now, granted I would take this over crappy studio products, absolutely. But I would take a good studio product over this.

And Halle Berry also sucks in the other future segment too, the Korean one. She's that doctor. A brief appearance, but mad sucky nonetheless.

[RegularKarate]

Why make anything then? This is what they wanted to make... something different and daring.
I guess I don't get why you would say "why make this?" when that question should be applied to things like the Footloose remake.