(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.circleofconfusion.com%2Fposters%2Fcloudatlasposter.jpg&hash=7e21ff17fc0c39b3512098da8c0b0d77fae9e251)
Release date: October 26, 2012
Starring: Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Susan Sarandon, Hugh Grant, Ben Whishaw, Keith David, Jim Broadbent
Directed by: The Wachowskis; Tom Tykwer
Premise: 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.
"This video contains content from
Warner Bros. Entertainment, who
has blocked it on copyright
grounds"
Warner Brothers: "Oh, you want to voluntarily watch an advertisement for our movie? Fuck you, you'll be advertised to when we say you'll be advertised to!"
Quote from: polkablues on July 26, 2012, 02:08:53 PM
Warner Brothers: "Oh, you want to voluntarily watch an advertisement for our movie? Fuck you, you'll be advertised to when we say you'll be advertised to!"
Oh, and Tom Tykwer, Andy and Lana Wachowski need to say a few words first. (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/cloudatlas/)
(very) full trailer in link
It's nice to see Lana (in her first official public appearance?) but that introduction and extremely long trailer are just not necessary.
People who know the book will know what the movie is about and those who don't will either be interested in the premise, which is not hard to summarise, or be turned off by the overly convoluted/condescending hand-holding nature of this intro.
What they should be saying is "look, hear us out, we know we cast Halle Berry in this but we assure you it does not mean the movie is a piece of shit, not this time.. no siree" and then Scorsese pops his head in and says "did someone say Siri?".. And the other three directors facepalm in unison.
Quote from: Just Withnail on July 26, 2012, 02:33:33 PM
Oh, and Tom Tykwer, Andy and Lana Wachowski need to say a few words first. (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/cloudatlas/)
They shouldn't have. Why is the trailer nearly SIX minutes long? Good God man. This looks chronic. Tom Hanks borrowed one of Lana's wigs. Did anyone else see Hugh Grant as an Amazonian tribesman? & Hugo Weaving reprising his role of Agent Smith?
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fq2qeFxgGpM0%2F0.jpg&hash=030b963b88116ee6f0b2c4b2b3e73bdb2e5bdd7f)
DAAAAAAAAAMMNN HOMIE
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.eonline.com%2Feol_images%2FEntire_Site%2F2010108%2F%2F300.fifty.lc.110810.jpg&hash=67aa156cc98666e7e8c12008f298786b59ea5265)
IN HIGH SCHOOL YOU WAS A MAAAAAAANNN HOMIE. WTF HAPPENED TO YOU?
alright, I'll admit that was pretty cruel. It's late.
This trailer has generated a lot of buzz. What I saw when I watched it was three very distinct trailers chained together--I assume this has something to do with the fact that this movie has three directors. The first segment is a somewhat plodding trailer for an average romance movie. The second segment is a fairly dull trailer for your average Hollywood sci-fi action movie. The third segment is a pretty amazing, goose-pimple inducing music video for M83's Outro. IMO, the first two segments of the trailer are extraneous. It's that final segment that everyone seems to be reacting to.
Hopefully the movie itself is more than one-third good.
Holy shit..... This movie must be like AT LEAST 4 and a half hours...
Now I'm legit excited.
2:44 according to imdb.
At that length, it could work. The out-of-context sentimentality and the goofy Jim Broadbent material are making me skeptical, but I suppose they're just trailers.
this is gonna be great, but i'm still worried by the presence of Halle Berry.. she never picks good movies.
i love the wachowskis tho, i even liked speed racer (one of the most underrated movies of the 2000s).
they're like kubrick but permanently stuck in 2001 mode. when they tried to stray into Clork territory, they had to use their assistant director as a front.. with mixed results.
I agree about them being stuck in 2001 mode.
I always wondered what Kubrick would had thought about The Matrix if he had not passed before it's release.
Because The Matrix to me, sort of feels like it unofficially takes place 200 years after 2001: A Space Odyssey, sharing the same universe.
Like HAL was the first sign. Here's where humanity is 200 years onwards.
But I really love the Wachowski's, even a big fan of the sequels, especially when I studied philosophy at uni last semester, a lot of parallels between what I learned and what was explored in the sequels (Schopenhauer etc.)
Anyway here's the new poster for Cloud Atlas from TIFF.. I actually really like it.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_ma0w4vTT8k1rcxkteo1_1280.jpg&hash=d8df438486a8994ea50de022373bf9e478a9d9ef)
Can't wait for this film. (Australia gets it 21 February 2013, fucking bullshit)
^
that is a great poster, i just wish it got the Struzan treatment...
I dunno, the giant Tom Hanks head is disconcerting, with his faux-concerned expression bespeckled by generic sci-fi glyphery.
Quote from: Reelist on July 27, 2012, 05:03:56 AM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fq2qeFxgGpM0%2F0.jpg&hash=030b963b88116ee6f0b2c4b2b3e73bdb2e5bdd7f)
lana doesnt look that bad actually...kinda like runlolarun franke potenta (sp?) :bravo:
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on September 08, 2012, 03:21:25 PM
I dunno, the giant Tom Hanks head is disconcerting, with his faux-concerned expression bespeckled by generic sci-fi glyphery.
LOL... I'm not in love with that poster either.. feels kinda cliche for some reason.
Quote from: NEON MERCURY on September 08, 2012, 09:05:07 PM
lana doesnt look that bad actually...kinda like runlolarun franke potenta (sp?) :bravo:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Foriginal%2F000%2F000%2F554%2Ffacepalm.jpg&hash=7d10910b673fa6541acc79dfc428cbe2440b87c8)
Oh No....
TIFF 2012: 'Cloud Atlas' is a Cinematic Revelation on a Grand Scale
by Alex Billington
"Fear. Belief. Love. Phenomena that determine the course of our lives." It's the movie of the year. A bold, ambitious, grand storytelling accomplishment that I dare say is a true cinematic revelation. I have been anxiously/impatiently waiting to finally see filmmakers Andy & Lana Wachowski and Tom Tykwer take on adapting David Mitchell's epic novel Cloud Atlas, which seamlessly blends six different storylines in an attempt to look at the meaning of life and the decisions that impact this universe. I will forever be able to say - I was there, at the Cloud Atlas premiere, that ended with an enormously deserving standing ovation.
Cloud Atlas found me at the perfect time in my life and the paths I happen to be on myself, converging at the right time and the right place tonight for this experience to pay off perfectly. In short - they pulled it off. The Wachowskis and Tykwer have made a movie that truly pushes the boundaries of cinematic storytelling. It pushes, even challenges, the audience itself to seek the brilliance within it, while also ask that they try to discover something about themselves while watching it. Not many movies come close to doing that, in any way. And those that are unmoved by the way this pushes the audience must be, unfortunately, blind to the revelations within. Cloud Atlas is an achievement of the grandest of scales. It may forever change your life.
As most should already familiar from the trailers, Cloud Atlas attempts to intertwine six century-spanning storylines. Everything from: a ship traveling across the Pacific in 1800s harboring a freed slave; a legendary composer working on his final moving piece with a young amanuensis; a journalist putting integrity above all else; an elderly book publisher living out his final years; a "fabricant" clone becoming independent and fulfilling her destiny in future Seoul; and the transcendence of love across time and space in the far future. There's no point in me attempting to explain the stories, how they intertwine, or why, because that is the revelation itself. It may take 3, 4, even 10 viewings to fully understand, and that's the brilliance within it.
I have always believed, and will continue to believe, that the Wachowskis are filmmakers who make movies that are ahead of their time. They make the kind of movies that stand as strong, and even grow, with time; that years down the line will be recognized as achievements (even if they're not the biggest financial hits). The kind of movies that, those who look for more out of experiential entertainment can find in them, if they choose to. If you accept their challenge in this, as the audience, to embrace what is presented, you too will discover the revelation, but it's truly up to you and you alone - to look for and find that magnificence within.
Cloud Atlas blends the various storylines and actors used throughout into a masterpiece of storytelling. It cuts between each segment, but never leaves the viewer confused or out of touch, unless they're too lazy to follow along. The dialogue in each timeframe is unique, but nonetheless lyrical, sometimes poetic, used in ways to convey the sense of depth they're exploring simply by living. I can see where some might gloss over the more revelatory nature of the segments, and instead scoff at the occasional levity and absurdity (Tom Hanks as a gangster? Wow no way!), but I believe that speaks more about them that it actually does the film.
Whether or not I understood every scene, I certainly felt the emotion, deep down within me. By the end I was wiping away tears. Tears of joy, out of pure happiness, from realizing that they have accomplished what I thought might not be possible. Tears because, remarkably, my mind might have been starting to come to an understanding of life and this universe merely through a presentation of a few different meaningful stories. How do they all connect? What does it all mean? What is life about? These are questions that I kept asking, and will continue to ask, every time I see it. Every person in the world could give a different answer, a different interpretation, again it comes down to what the watcher him/herself is looking to get out of it.
Not only is Cloud Atlas an achievement in storytelling, it is a technical masterwork as well. Especially the cast, and their make-up. Many of the actors do indeed appear in all six stories, playing people of different race and sex. Here it's not even asking the viewers to suspend their disbelief, because it's all pulled off with perfection, making it look like there isn't even a make-up job to be worried about. This is who they are, their soul captured in a different character. Again - what does it all mean? Why is Tom Hanks' character bad in one storyline, good in another? I honestly think it's just the century-spanning, multiple-lifetime character arc that we get to see many of these individuals go on. That is their path to one of the big revelations in this.
As for the cast, everyone shines. Tom Hanks runs the show appearing in all six, but is matched by Hugo Weaving (a total badass as always), Halle Berry (stands out in many ways), Jim Sturgess (particularly impressive), Hugh Grant (in his best roles yet), James D'Arcy (very endearing) and Doona Bae as the pivotal Sonmi-451. Tykwer and the Wachowskis' give us a taste of almost every genre, every kind of emotion, entertainment and intrigue in every form. While it could have been even longer, exploring each segment further, it's concise enough to my tastes, and gave me more than enough to believe in each storyline. I didn't want to find myself disinterested with one waiting for the next, and thankfully never felt that was the case.
What more can I say besides see it yourself and go in optimistic? Movies to me have always been about what you, personally as the viewer, take from them. How they impact you. What they mean to you. And I truly believe if you keep yourself open to it, Cloud Atlas can be a revelation and change the way you view life on this world. At the very least, it's a massive cinematic accomplishment on the grandest scale, an utterly enchanting, moving, remarkable storytelling masterpiece. Let it affect you. Discover the revelations yourself.
Alex's Toronto Rating: 10 out of 10
http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/tiff-2012-cloud-atlas-is-a-cinematic-revelation-on-a-grand-scale/?uid=626de62d6d118488324589d7289fc7e886d474a6 (http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/tiff-2012-cloud-atlas-is-a-cinematic-revelation-on-a-grand-scale/?uid=626de62d6d118488324589d7289fc7e886d474a6)
Really interesting review, other reactions have not been so great, but I'm also hoping this to be one of the films of the year.
That review is legit nuts. I saw it. Lower your expectations y'all. Closer to Battlefield Earth than 2001. Can't fault it for its ambition but that doesn't mean it works.
guys this is gonna be awesome even Mod hated it
Quote from: pete on September 09, 2012, 05:38:37 PM
this is gonna be awesome even Mod hated it
Marquee this... Quote from: modage on September 09, 2012, 05:26:48 PM
Closer to Battlefield Earth than 2001.
I kinda liked Battlefield Earth and I ain’t ashamed (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-137845.html)
Fuck L. Ron Hubbard and $cientology though.
I also realized that Mod's going to hate The Master
For anyone who isn't discouraged yet and wants to know more, here's the 50 minute Press Conference at TIFF
Quote from: pete on September 09, 2012, 08:38:55 PM
I also realized that Mod's going to hate The Master
Nope. Twice and counting. It's so good that it's kinda unfair to other movies that they be judged in the same viscinity as The Master. PTA is back, y'all. Move out the way, pretenders.
It's kinda great that WE were right all along but feels a little weird to have everyone else showing up to the party late like 'Heyyyyyyy' isn't it?
PTA has always been back. Unfortunately it has taken this long for others to notice outside of here.
The Wachowski's on the other hand did one thing right in their life and then destroyed it completely.
Quote from: Kal on September 10, 2012, 03:11:24 AM
The Wachowski's on the other hand did one thing right in their life and then destroyed it completely.
You mean Larry's genitals right
They also did Bound, which is nice. And at the time, I also enjoyed Matrix Reloaded... that was until I found out that in Revolutions they were not going to even try for the second movie to make sense in the end.
I loved Speed Racer, they successfully switched from darkness to a vibrant color palette in the way Tim Burton keeps trying and failing to do. It's also their most well paced film.
Yeah, I'm pretty much the opposite with the Wachowskis. They fucked up the two Matrix sequels, but I love everything else.
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.
36 minutes more lana wachowski footage!! (and the other two.)
http://youtu.be/3MXR4MCuA0o
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.
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.
Quote from: modage on September 29, 2012, 10:41:10 PM"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?
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.
The Wachowski's and Twyker on Nerdist (http://www.nerdist.com/podcast/nerdist/)
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.
Contrary!
Okay fine I'll see the thing.
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.
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.
Quote from: samsong on October 31, 2012, 10:30:17 PM
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.
Quote from: Pubrick on November 01, 2012, 12:45:43 AM
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 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1318004/).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: RegularKarate on November 01, 2012, 12:06:56 PM
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.
You're right, I'm being stupid. Suffice it to say, I think it's a noble effort with many glaring shortcomings.
AFM 2012: 'Cloud Atlas' Hoping for International Recoup After Soft Domestic Landing
Source: THR
The $100 million fantasy epic bows Nov.1 in Russia, the first stop on its international roll out.
After a soft domestic bow, Cloud Atlas is looking to foreign shores to recoup its $100 million budget and pay back the international distributors who invested in the ambitious fantasy epic.
The sweeping drama from Tom Tykwer and Andy and Lana Wachowski will get its second shot at box office success November 1, when it premieres in Moscow, the first stop on Cloud Atlas' international roll out.
A Company Russia in cooperation with 20th Century Fox, will bow the film wide on more than 1,700 screens in Russia next week. A Company will do near day-and-date releases across most of Eastern Europe. Cloud Atlas will then roll out across most of continental Europe before the end of the year.
Performance in those European territories will likely determine whether Cloud Atlas can bounce back from its shaky U.S. start. The film opened to a soft $9.6 million on its first weekend in the U.S., notably less than the $12 million - $15 million domestic distributor Warner Bros. had been targeting. While the title did have the best pre-screen average - $4,787 - of any new release, it was easily beaten by Ben Affleck's Argo, which seized the number one spot on its third weekend. Based on its performance, Cloud Atlas could struggle to hit $30 million stateside.
"Of course the U.S. release was disappointing, but it hasn't changed our release plans," A Company topper Alexander van Dulmen told THR. "Cloud Atlas has a more intellectual approach and the European audience is more open to movies where you have to think a bit."
In fact, Cloud Atlas's domestic performance mirrored that of a classic art-house release, drawing its best numbers in cities on either coast.
Van Dulmen points to Tom Tykwer's Perfume: The Story of a Murderer as an example of how a film judged too art house for the U.S. mainstream market can be global blockbuster. Tykwer's 2006 period drama earned just $2.2 million in limited release in the U.S. but upwards of $130 million internationally, including an hefty $53 million in Germany alone and more than $9 million in Russia.
Dulmen also argues that Argo wouldn't be a major box office threat to Cloud Atlas internationally.
"Argo is such an American movie, I can't see it having a huge appeal in Europe," he said.
But even if Argo doesn't challenge Cloud Atlas outside the States, there are plenty of other holiday tentpoles that will be vying for international eyeballs – from the new James Bond film Skyfall to Ang Lee's The Life of Pi to Peter Jackson's fantasy juggernaut The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.
Cloud Atlas has had a tough start but things aren't looking to get much easier as the most ambitious indie this year rolls out worldwide.
I feel like I'm in the minority for having no strong feelings one way or the other after watching it. I like the movie okay, but I can understand the hate. I admired that it was a different sort of movie, such that I didn't know exactly what to expect. I did find it pretty funny, though. I was more charmed by the comedic aspects of the movie than the dramatic/profound aspects. I also have no idea what was actually happening in most of the stories, and I don't really care.
I read one review that said that it felt like a sci-fi/fantasy LOVE, ACTUALLY, which sounds pretty right to me.
I thought it worked pretty well as an experience and was never boring, but ultimately I found its ideas to be mostly dismissible, which is a shame because I think that somewhere in there was an opportunity to bring up some useful ideas. The ideas in this movie are romantic but not really useful. This "our lives are not our own; we are bound to each other" idea is a really rich one, but instead of focusing on how we are all tied together in this moment, the past-lives/future-lives/reincarnation angle ultimately anchors this supposed egolessness back into ego via having the same actors show up again and again. Then the story becomes about how what you do now affects your future incarnation, and you have the same two people who are connected through multiple lives (Berry/Hanks; Sturgess/Bae) instead of all of us connected in the present moment.
The simple morality of it, I think, also lessened the potential profundity of it--the sense of good/bad, right/wrong is very traditional Hollywood stuff. It all really came down to "Love triumphs over Hugo Weaving; harvested clones revolt against the faceless system." Basically, it became The Matrix all over again.
That said, I liked a lot of the stories. I liked pretty much everything with Ben Whishaw and Jim Broadbent. I was also reminded of how much I love Tom Hanks. He's always got such a good-natured spontaneity going on in his performances. He was having a lot of fun and that made me have more fun.
I think that's just one interpretation of it though, Matt. I don't think it was necessarily saying Tom Hanks' character is being reincarnated. I think they were using the same actors to represent connectivity in general, perhaps karmically, perhaps not, but I don't think it's coming out and saying what you seem to assume it is saying.
I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong just that I think there are more ways to look at it.
Why is it NOT saying that we are all connected now? Isn't the point of the movie that despite the fact that it takes place throughout time with different characters and scenarios, it flows like it is one continuous story? Everything affects everyone everywhere at every time. Romantic and simple, sure, but what's wrong with that?
I would say it's definitely NOT a sci-fi Love, Actually though... I think there is far more thought in the connectivity between characters and storylines.
As far as I can tell, it's a mix between the notion of reincarnated souls and the "idea of inter-connectivity." There are moments, though, such as when Hanks says to Berry, "I can't explain it, but when I walked through that door..." that strongly suggest that there are connections made in past lives that are felt again in the next life. The "Cloud Atlas Sextet" was written imagining "meeting again and again in future lives." But I don't think that all of Hanks's roles are meant to be that same soul or whatever. He does play some very different sorts of people throughout the film, as do some of the other actors.
But even ignoring all of any possible interpretation, the using of the same actors over and over necessarily links it to ego because any audience will always see Tom Hanks as Tom Hanks and Hugh Grant as Hugh Grant, etc. It makes me curious about how the novel is, because it won't have this element to it.
I like that it flows as one continuous story (though I am unsure of what that story is, exactly).
I like the movie okay, but I am still left feeling like it had more of a profound feeling than profound content. I congratulate it on its ambition and thoughtfulness, but I feel like the content ultimately went back to people shooting guns at each other and falling in love with each other with these general ideas of "humanity" and "revolution" but losing its boldness in exploring those ideas beyond the general. I think it's the very traditional and plain sense of "good v.s. bad" that lessens the power of the film for me.
I don't feel like movies need to offer profound content, but this is a movie that teases you with a sense of profundity and new ideas without actually offering that. I suppose it seems like a radical approach to the same old stories. That would be fine if new meaning could be dug up from a new approach to these same old stories, except that in the moments of actually telling each story, the movie devolves back into something fairly traditional in terms of storytelling. I guess the movie feels disappointingly normal to me, which is odd, given how weird a lot of the elements are. I admire it a lot, but it feels like it only went half-way somehow.
It seems to me that people are more interested in talking about whether or not the approach worked or didn't work. The people who love it seem to love it because they think it works, and the people who hate it seem to hate it because they think it doesn't work, but nobody seems terribly interested in talking about the content of the film, because that stuff is mostly just stuff we've all seen before in other movies, except condensed and wrapped up with a bunch of other familiar stories.
SPOILERS
Gotta give a hand to those three film makers, they essentially filmed something that many would deem unfilmable.
What I liked:
There is a lot to love about this movie. Hugo Weaving kicks so much ass with what little he had. I really like how he represents temptation in all of his characters. While it's easy to say he is evil, it's not the type of evil with an agenda. Like Loki he drifts around acting as the subconscious desire to lean towards evil. They used him so well in this film, much like agent smith, he is the perfect henchmen. Hugh grant is the true evil of the movie, because unlike Weaving, he is a man of action. Whereas weaving is simply a force. Together they make a great duo of destruction, and I'm not even sure they share a single scene together.
I loved the neo-souel segment and reveal. It symbolized the perfect fascism of where commerce and communism meet. The shots of the decommissioning of clones was utterly chilling. The machine that spears the akelease tendon and drags the boddies into the factory made me shiver. then moments later you see in the distance the precise gutting and stripping of the bodies down so that no material is wasted. Even though I think the audience knows what's coming, that the clones are being killed, the idea that they are fed back to themselves leaves you so cold. It really makes me think about farming practices in a way that a film like "meat is murder" could never achieve, it lets us feel like our lives as livestock, only then can we have empathy for animals.
the retirement home segment was great as well, a beautiful British broad comedy. I love underdog, little-engine-that-could, comedies. One of the best ways to make an audience love characters is by laughing at them. when they're doing their "jail break" segment my heart was cheering.
I thought the story of the composer was very touching. And while I still don't fully understand why he committed suicide, I guess that's kind of the point. The way that he lived his life, being so free and wanting to connect with everyone, only to be let down and possibly attracted to that kind of abuse hit me right at home; the last woman I loved was a very similar soul. It's very easy for the world to call him a whore, and in part he is without a certain restraint that would do him well, but more importantly there are some people who are too empathetic; somewhere in the process they lose their identity. I think this film perfectly painted the exquisite and beautiful sadness that existed within this man's heart. I was deeply affected. As Halle berry's 70s persona says while reading his letters "why do we keep making the same mistakes?"
What I didn't like:
The costumes and set design of the "after the fall" segment looked right out of a bad episode of star trek the next generation. It seemed overly obvious and derivative.
The whole film felt like a trailer. I really hope there is a 4 hour home video cut, I would really like to see some of these scenes played out longer.
In the end I'd have to say it's an astonishing film about freedom, and it uses situations that we're familiar with but also creates some others that push our own ethics. It teaches the audience to fight for everyone's freedom, not just the issues that feel safe or hit close to home. I'm in a little awe of this film; not what it did, as it is flawed, but rather what it tried to do.
This came and went fairly quickly through my town and I missed it before I could finish the book.
To those of you who have seen it, any chance that you predict another theater run early next year around awards time?
After watching Lincoln and Life of Pi and being underwhelmed by both, this film was a welcomed surprise. A lot of films are made about freedom, but I think this one made a point that is seldom mentioned when dealing with the subject, and that comes from a favorite quote a teacher once told me (don't remember the author though), which said that "freedom is like the horizon, once you get there it has already moved farther down the road". the idea is that freedom is a never ending pursuit, and that achieving one level of freedom is only another stop in a never ending road. by jumping through time with different stories in which freedom means different things, I think the filmmakers got close to illustrating this idea than any other film I can remember. Also the idea of love as the ultimate liberating force against oppression.
I agree that the "inter-connectivity" subject is dealt in general terms, meaning that the use of the same actors in different roles with no particular relation between them gives hints at both the idea or reincarnation and just simple connections through time, without a definite recognizable pattern. Perhaps on subsequent viewings, any clear connections would be more obvious. I don't think so, though. I think the film tries to eliminate patterns as to allow viewers different interpretations of that aspect. To be honest, I don't know. But I like it.
Coincidences and random connections are Tykwer's favorite subject, and freedom of the mind (in which bodies and gender, and even personalities can be interchangeable) are the Wachoski's, and it's great that they found a way to make the film consistently about those two obsessions.
The editing, telling the whole thing as one single story poses several questions. Is the film saying that everything affects everything else, including from future to past? There's no clear answer, and the whole universe becomes a kaleidoscope, where everything is happening at the same time all the time. What I like the most about the film is precisely what many people find insufficient, which is that is never takes itself too seriously, so the ideas are shown in the simplest of ways. Taken as an exercise in pop spiritualism, as a very ambitious anime fantasy, it works fantastically. And it's never boring, which really is quite an achievement all things considered. Every actor is having a lot of fun, and you can tell.
The film, weirdly, reminded me of Magnolia, another movie which deals with a lot of different subjects not always in the most clear of ways and that tells many stories as a single one. What Cloud Atlas lacks (and aims for but fails) is an emotional punch. There is a moment near the end when the film is clearly hoping for the audience to be fully emotionally involved, but everything is so crazy and fast I guess is too difficult for that to happen. The thing is, the spectacle is such and manages to be so exciting that the moment of true feeling gets a little lost. That said, I don't think is that big of a problem, and maybe when I see it again that opinion will change.
^i wish more people talked about movies this way.
the wachowskis only got boring in the matrix sequels cos exploring the core fun ideas became too much of a chore and the movies consequently felt deflated. i think most ppl have never forgiven them and just assume they were one trick ponies. i expect one day their reputation will be reassessed by some intrepid film lovers who will cause a slow but steady rediscovery of their output. they are just incredible filmmakers fighting the good fight despite constant temptation to sell out. extremely rare.
and tykwer, well, he always has his heart in the right place.
I don't like to deeply analyze films. I'm more interested in why some stories works and other don't.
The Pacific Journal of Adam Ewing. This is one of my favourite parts of the movie. Thanks to the way story is partially told (reading/writing journal) it feels very connected to next one. It also helped to quickly get into the story. Only bad part is the ending: dinner with father in law. It felt like it was overwritten and taken away some magic.
Letters from Zedelghem. Best story in the movie. Young naive and doomed from start protagonist? It is hard not to love this character. Ben Whishaw was perfect cast. This can stand on its own as short film, I would also pay my money to see it extended to feature film.
Half-Lives: The First Luisa Rey Mystery. First part that doesn't work. As much I dislike Halle Berry, this isn't her fault. I also trust in Tykwer, when it comes to thriller. Making short thriller is very hard and with structure of Cloud Atlas is almost impossible. Whole momentum is ruined by cutting to other stories and without that not much is left. I didn't feel any thrill watching this.
The Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish. Much needed comic relief, especially since movie is pretty long. It was huge variety compared to other parts. As British comedy it fits perfectly - all you need is good sketch and few tens of a second. It was funny and it worked, not much else to say.
An Orison of Sonmi~451. Dystopian love story from Wachowskis? They done that before, more than once and once again is was pleasure to watch. On top of that great monologue - not surprisingly this part was used in trailers. Makeup of Sturgess was disturbing, which was minor and only flaw of this part.
Sloosha's Crossin' an' Ev'rythin' After. Post-apocalyptic adventure in fantasy vain from Wachowskis? Sounds interesting, but thanks to neo-speak is almost unwatchable. Annoying makeup? I can stand that, but this was too much for me. Maybe it looked good on the paper, but on screen... Heck, I would guess that even going all the way - imaginary language and subtitles - would work better. Shame, because basic premise was good.
Overall only two parts were bad. I don't know why thriller was attempted at all - film could make without it. I believe they would find a way to connect stories again. As for neo-speak, it is lesson how not to do it. Tom Hanks is miscast in my opinion, on other hand he is probably main reason why Cloud Atlas happened. I liked the movie, but it is far from perfect. I don't feel like watching it again right now. Still congratulations for sheer boldness, there aren't that many films of this kind.
I expected this to be a "love it or hate it" scenario, but I find myself somewhere in the middle. It was decent. Could have been great of course, but it's just so goofy. For example, a scene will start, and you'll see some normal people, then you'll see some rubber-faced people; the distinction is kind of shocking. The stories, action sequences, everything... it's mostly just "pick a cliche out of a hat" with some serviceable movement/rebellion themes. This is just way too silly to achieve what I think it was going for.
the wachowskis had this problem with speed racer. and to a lesser extent the matrix.
what they are aiming for is always more than people are willing to pay attention to. and what they do to keep your attention turns out to be hokey or overly convoluted. they simply cannot engage the audience at the pace they are thinking. at that's a shame.
they are SO well intentioned it's embarrassing. that's also why i love everything they do, i'm too forgiving even of the shitty final scene of Cloud Atlas. I'm thinking too much of what they were trying to achieve and it's actually tangible. it's much more than most shitty movies try for, and i will always give them credit for that.