I'm just going to say up front that I kind of enjoyed Cloud Atlas. Yes its a bit of a mess, and some of the mechanics are a bit gimmicky, but its an incredibly ambitious film and I'm surprised at how much vitriol its seems to have generated. Rather than getting into a detailed review here's some random thoughts.
1) it is a problem that the ending falls into the 'everything is connected' message that marks most of these interlocking story films (Babel, Crash, etc.). While I usually find this annoying, what keeps the film from being insufferable is that it actually intersperses a fair amount of humor throughout (particular within the publisher story line). This helps from keeping the whole thing feel like an overly pedantic slog, and stays entertaining for most of the 2 hour and 45 minute running time.
2) Using the same actors to play different characters is hit or miss. I actually think it helps a bit to have the principles (Hanks, Berry, etc) do this, but when they have repeat characters playing incidental roles in some of the stories it does become distracting. On the other hand we do get Hugh Grant looking like this:
3) There's been a lot of talk about how difficult the film is to follow, and I don't agree at all. Yeah you have to pay a little bit of attention, but I think everything actually flows together pretty smoothly. If anything you could argue that it ties together too nicely, and might have been more interesting had the ending not been so conventional (or as conventional as a film following six stories can be).
4)More than anything I just appreciate the balls on the Wachowski's and Tom Tryker for even making a film like this. Even when it doesn't work, you can't help but admire their ambition. The film is never boring, and really only the ending is where it completely falls apart (though I'm not sure there's a good way to tie the six different stories together). I'll definitely check out the novel its based on, and it would just be nice to see more filmmakers make an effort like this. Even if it doesn't work at least it would be interesting.
1) it is a problem that the ending falls into the 'everything is connected' message that marks most of these interlocking story films (Babel, Crash, etc.). While I usually find this annoying, what keeps the film from being insufferable is that it actually intersperses a fair amount of humor throughout (particular within the publisher story line). This helps from keeping the whole thing feel like an overly pedantic slog, and stays entertaining for most of the 2 hour and 45 minute running time.
2) Using the same actors to play different characters is hit or miss. I actually think it helps a bit to have the principles (Hanks, Berry, etc) do this, but when they have repeat characters playing incidental roles in some of the stories it does become distracting. On the other hand we do get Hugh Grant looking like this:
3) There's been a lot of talk about how difficult the film is to follow, and I don't agree at all. Yeah you have to pay a little bit of attention, but I think everything actually flows together pretty smoothly. If anything you could argue that it ties together too nicely, and might have been more interesting had the ending not been so conventional (or as conventional as a film following six stories can be).
4)More than anything I just appreciate the balls on the Wachowski's and Tom Tryker for even making a film like this. Even when it doesn't work, you can't help but admire their ambition. The film is never boring, and really only the ending is where it completely falls apart (though I'm not sure there's a good way to tie the six different stories together). I'll definitely check out the novel its based on, and it would just be nice to see more filmmakers make an effort like this. Even if it doesn't work at least it would be interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment