Cloud Atlas (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


Empire Admin -> Cloud Atlas (2/2/2013 12:02:04 PM)

Post your comments on this article




J_BUltimatum -> 2013 John Carter (2/2/2013 12:02:04 PM)

This flopped in the States, and for good reason! While the book is enjoyable and does well to intertwine the stories together, this does not. It just is simply a few stories bunged together with bad acting, direction and special effects. The main thing that should put people off seeing this is the Wachowski brothers (sorry siblings now) attachment. They manage to kill every good thing they get and spectacularly as well.




Stephen Munro -> RE: An absolute masterpiece and a cornerstone for film (3/2/2013 11:30:38 PM)

1




elab49 -> RE: An absolute masterpiece and a cornerstone for film (3/2/2013 11:57:23 PM)

It's the risk you take with review threads. In this sub-forum the threads are automatically created from the main site once posted and the comments thread is also linked to the main site. Empire threads take precedence in the sub-forum as a result. User created threads don't have main site links I'm afraid.




Olaf -> RE: An absolute masterpiece and a cornerstone for film (4/2/2013 12:26:41 PM)

I applaud this review for using the phrase 'itinerant amanuensis'. Good show.

(looking forward to seeing this soon. I have faith that it does the book justice at the very least, which is probably the hardest thing it had to do.)




Stephen Munro -> RE: An absolute masterpiece and a cornerstone for film (5/2/2013 9:52:37 AM)

Thanks for the info, I bare that in mind




talpacino -> RE: An absolute masterpiece and a cornerstone for film (5/2/2013 12:00:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

I applaud this review for using the phrase 'itinerant amanuensis'. Good show.

(looking forward to seeing this soon. I have faith that it does the book justice at the very least, which is probably the hardest thing it had to do.)

I think as you're a fan of the book you're likely to get more from it than those who haven't read it. I'm not saying those who haven't read the book won't enjoy it but while watching it I kept thinking, thank god I've read the book because this would really annoy me.

It was always going to be a really tough book to adapt and they do an admirable job mostly but I did find it a little frustrating. It hops around way too much and you don't get time to settle with each story before you're taken off again. I know it would have been tough to stick to the structure of the book where most of the individual stories are only cut in half but that works so good as you get plenty of time to get into it and to get to know the characters and then you can't wait to get back to them. Still, it's mostly very good, somewhere between a 3 and a 4 for me.

Lol at the Irish accents though. [:)]




Stephen Munro -> RE: Cloud Atlas (5/2/2013 2:47:29 PM)

NO SPOLIERS**** I was fortunate enough to see this movie  a few weeks ago, and with some bad press coming from the US  ahead of its much delayed UK release of the 22nd Feb, I have to say only Roger Ebert has got it spot on with his review on the Chicago Sun Times. Ian's review in March Empire is good ( but please can I suggest not reading it till after you have seen the movie ) The four stars given on the Empire review is broadly fair, but this is one of those ocassions when I wish you where able to give a half point for sheer scale and ambition ( or even the superb soundtrack ) It's a breathtaking movie and it challenges the audience in ways that no other "mainstream” movie ( if I can call it that ) has ever done before. You can let it wash over you but I wouldn't recommend it. I was concerned about the use of actors playing multi characters, but to my suprise even that works in reinforcing the message of reaccuring souls through the ages. I havent read the book, and didnt feel it a pre-requisite to understanding the movie, although Im sure it would have added another layer.  Dive in to all its weird and wonderful complexity and enjoy the ride. I think what the Trio have achieve with this movie is nothing short of a miracle. It will divide many no doubt, UK critics will be split and some movie punters going to see "those guys from Forest Gump and Four Weddings.. " will come out wondering watch they just watched, there is very little middle ground.  I want everyone to appriciate this movie for what it is; challenging, visionary, daring, gorgeous and complex not what it isn't; confusing, but I have a feeling that's not going to happen. I sence it may become that unfortunate metaphor  "a Cult Classic". 




spamandham -> RE: Cloud Atlas (6/2/2013 1:07:39 AM)

Pretentious, shallow, hugely full of itself, overconfident drivel. It's one redeeming feature is Weaving do a pretty good impression of Mrs Doubtfire.




Qwerty Norris -> RE: 2013 John Carter (6/2/2013 10:04:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: J_BUltimatum

This flopped in the States, and for good reason! While the book is enjoyable and does well to intertwine the stories together, this does not. It just is simply a few stories bunged together with bad acting, direction and special effects. The main thing that should put people off seeing this is the Wachowski brothers (sorry siblings now) attachment. They manage to kill every good thing they get and spectacularly as well.


I'll give you another....

I can't remember the last time I was aware of a mainstream film being illegally obtained quite as much as this one.





Hippolyte -> Awesome (18/2/2013 8:59:20 AM)

Nah the film was fantastic one of the best most unique and awe inspiring I've had the pleasure to see probably since The Dark Knight. Cloud Atlas made me laugh, cry, coo in wonder and put the hairs up on the back of my neck due to the multiple genres it successfully incorporated over vast time and space, it went for the word Epic and took it very seriously. The Wawchowski's are going to bring us some spectacular pieces of art in the years to come, on the basis of the Matrix and this I can pretty much guarantee it. Should have at least been considered at the oscars.




Jezzman -> (19/2/2013 9:51:53 AM)

I loved the book and love the movie for being so thematically rich and technically ambitious in turn. Even if I didn't agree with the verdict above (which thankfully I do) this is such a well-written review. Well done Empire for such a measured and thoughtful review.




johniebg -> What a beautiful review (19/2/2013 6:04:41 PM)

A huge fan of the book and dismayed by America's failure to grasp the movie it's a huge relief to see that Empire love it, but also speak so vividly. Great review. Hopefully as is often the case with Empire, the film will match their observation.




johniebg -> BTW (19/2/2013 9:32:32 PM)

I often don't agree with Empire's Ian Nathan but I have to say this review, possibly the opening gambits above all, are the best and most literary of any review I've ever read. Worth a prize alone. A superb review.




moviemaniac2 -> flawed but fantasic (21/2/2013 8:38:05 PM)

Cloud Atlas is ambitious film which is ultimately flawed, but at the same time fascinatng.




AxlReznor -> RE: flawed but fantasic (22/2/2013 3:14:48 PM)

This film seems to be faring a lot better with UK critics than it did in the States. Hopefully the additional buzz it's getting over here manages to convince people to actually go out and see it, because it would be a shame for it to be a complete flop.
I'll be going to see it tomorrow afternoon, after which I'll post my thoughts. I read the book in preparation, because I've heard only people familiar with the book will understand most of it. After waiting nearly half a year for it, I'm hoping that I'm at the "love it" end of the "love it/hate it" scale.




demoncleaner -> RE: Cloud Atlas (22/2/2013 5:40:04 PM)

Quite honestly the single most hellishly awful film I think I have ever seen...and I own a Godard boxset.

I enjoyed the book, the thing about the book is that it's absolutely an anthology of unconnected stories, any attempt by Mitchell to join the novellas is Mitchell being cheeky. He's a cheeky scamp trying to pass his anthology off as a novel, but we absolutely forgive him this because in one volume he's exhibiting a varied and comprehensive talent for tackling, (and succeeding at) disparate literary styles. It's a while since I read it but I would contend that Mitchell's interconnecting devices are by and large witty in-jokes. The in-jokes being centric to this one volume of stories. The Wachowski's either misunderstand this, or are wilfully ignorant of it, jealous of the epic one-piece they set about humping these different tales into a shapeless and maddeningly indulgent melange. The irony is that if they and Twyker had separated the stories out, "Black Mirrored" it then what they have in the can could, to some degree be considered as successful as Mitchell was in accomplishing their different cinematic genres. But this abuse of structure means that watching this film is like watching TV with your grandad, when something is actually in danger of getting good they turn it over and I'm like "Oi! Grandad! I was watching that you prick!"

I have to say that I did find potential in it, maybe for the first hour, Jim Sturgess seemed quite good. Hugh Grant for a time seemed like he could pull off the unlikely feat of being the dark horse talent of the piece. I actually really wanted him back on screen when he was off (that was a first). The Timothy Cavendish piece became quite funny at about the hour and a quarter mark. After spending what seemed like a fucking month in a kibutz with Tom Hanks and Halle Berry I realised I wasn't enjoying it. I realised it was quite rubbish but I had a kind of giddy masochistic thing going where I began to relish the idea of certain people I know seeing this, or the general public seeing this. I began playing a bit of a game in my head where I thought of everyone I know who has ever irritated me and I wondered if I could diagnose them as being actual paid up wankers by estimating if they would be the sort of people to like Cloud Atlas. I thought of the wasted lives of wankers writing thesis after thesis about the meaning of this doggerel. Michael Jackson, if he was still alive, would love this film I decided. It's practically fucking Moonwalker after all. This would be Michael Jackson's favourite film I decided. All this gave me a certain masochistic thrill. I have never walked out of a film in my life and I don't see a reason why I ever will, so such is the pleasure one has to glean in a moribund 3 hour imaginative fucking hammock like this. But then there was another hour to go, and I stopped enjoying even the masochism. I began to think that the Wachowskis probably love the same films I do, like me, they probably love 2001 and The Tree of Life (to name just two famous patience-testers). But they seem to have come away from those films with a different message. What they seem to have elicited from those films is a sense that people (patient people like me) really will sit through fucking anything. (And I have a Godard boxset). The defence of cultural idiocy like this is that the creators are just ahead of their time. If that is true, then in this case then the future is one of an appreciative open-minded public of bilious bores and spectacled wankers.

In summation, this is the Wachowskis of the Matrix sequels, absolute intellectual charlatanism and the only hint of Eternal Recurrence I got from this was the sucker feeling of having gone back to take another punt on them. If I wanted a 3 hour seminar on the profundity of things from a bunch of clueless, moneyed, over-indulged intellectual fucking midgets I would join the Scientologists.

There will be worse films than this. There will be far less competent films than this. But there won't be many that over-estimate their worth doling out quite so long a punishment of a bewildering inarticulate regime as this does.




AxlReznor -> RE: Cloud Atlas (22/2/2013 6:35:35 PM)

Actually, the book at numerous points hints that the stories are of the same soul travelling through time... some characters remember things from previous stories, or have premonitions of later stories, etc. It was always the intention that they were connected (they're also connected to his other books, Ghostwritten, number9dream and Black Swan Green).
The Wachowski's haven't misunderstood anything... in fact, they passed the script over to Mitchell for approval first to make sure they hadn't misunderstood anything. Seems to me that you misunderstood the book.




sam89 -> RE: Cloud Atlas (22/2/2013 6:35:49 PM)

^ I don't think the Wachowskis/Tykwer misunderstood the book. Here's an interview with David Mitchell about the adaption:

http://www.wordandfilm.com/2012/10/bringing-the-unfilmable-cloud-atlas-to-screen-an-interview-with-author-david-mitchell/

He loved it.




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Cloud Atlas (23/2/2013 12:55:57 AM)

This is an amazing film. I am utterly in love with it.




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Cloud Atlas (23/2/2013 12:58:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

I began playing a bit of a game in my head where I thought of everyone I know who has ever irritated me and I wondered if I could diagnose them as being actual paid up wankers by estimating if they would be the sort of people to like Cloud Atlas. I thought of the wasted lives of wankers writing thesis after thesis about the meaning of this doggerel.






Darth Marenghi -> RE: Cloud Atlas (23/2/2013 1:06:51 AM)

Awkward. [:D]




MonsterCat -> RE: Cloud Atlas (23/2/2013 1:25:44 AM)

What's a doggerel? Is that what you call it when you have sex in car parks?




fang -> RE: Cloud Atlas (23/2/2013 1:39:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

Quite honestly the single most hellishly awful film I think I have ever seen...and I own a Godard boxset.

I enjoyed the book, the thing about the book is that it's absolutely an anthology of unconnected stories, any attempt by Mitchell to join the novellas is Mitchell being cheeky.


Quite honestly the single most hellishly awful "review" I think I have ever seen...and I manage to stomach Kim Newman's reviews on a monthly basis. To say that you have missed the point would be the greatest of understatements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleanerHe's a cheeky scamp trying to pass his anthology off as a novel, but we absolutely forgive him this because...


Please, don't speak for anyone other than yourself. It simply makes you look even more arrogant and foolish than you already are.




paulyboy -> RE: Cloud Atlas (23/2/2013 5:30:26 PM)

I loved it. Sprawling, ambitious, funny, touching, bewildering, over-reaching, loopy and endearing.

My only real critisms would be that some of the story strands resonate less than others and the make-up effects vary from mesmerising to flat-out awful in places.

I can see why it's been so polarising, the screening I saw seemed to enthrall half the audience and irritate the tits off the rest, I'm glad to say I'm a member of the former. It's a shame it's been largely ignored awards wise, especially where the editing is concerned, but again, I'm not suprised in the least.

Genuinely one of the most entertaining and interesting films I've seen in a long while.

4.5/5




AxlReznor -> RE: Cloud Atlas (23/2/2013 9:51:34 PM)

After the long wait since the US release in October - a period in which I read the book, and saw the wide difference of opinion the film had created - I was actually kind of dreading watching this. What if the film's many detractors were right? What if the trailer was a highly entertaining advertisement for a huge lumbering mess of a movie as had been feared?


So let's get that out of the way straight off the bat. All of my fears were completely unfounded. I was waiting for the moment that the film's huge ideas would collapse in on themselves and leave me bewildered, but it never came. In fact for a movie that deals with six separate narratives in six time periods with six sets of characters and six different genres, it is amazingly paced. A lot has been made of the failure of either BAFTA or the Academy Awards to recognise the make-up in this film - more on that later - but I think the runaway success of the movie which really deserved recognition from the major awards is the editing. Seriously... being able to take the book and bring it to the screen so successfully with only minimal (and forgivable) changes is a feat for the ages.


There have been a lot of comparisons to Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain, and I can see where people are coming from. But that book takes a more literal approach to reincarnation and is really all one narrative despite taking place in different time periods using the same actors, etc. I think this movie bears more of a resemblance however to something a little bit before Aronofsky's time. 1916, to be exact... D.W. Griffith's silent epic Intolerance was itself a triumph of editing in its time, and the way both movies jump between time periods with increasing frequency throughout its extended running time is eerily cinema. Griffith used the top technology available to him at the time, and that's something of a hallmark of the Wachowski's (and Tykwer's to an extent) unconventional careers in cinema. To think that in a world saturated with sequels and teenage literature adaptations, that a movie of such epic scope is still possible is not only highly uplifting, but also incredibly inspiring.


I do have a criticism of the make-up, however. Halle Berry's transition to a white woman in the 1930's section of the story, as well as Doona Bae's white/Mexican makeover are all done extremely well. I could almost believe that they are the races they are presented as. But for some reason, when white people appear as Korean's, the make-up makes them look more like Star Trek aliens to me. I was talking to my wife about this, and she brought up that it might be because I'm white, and it might get the opposite reaction from Asian viewers, so it'd be interesting to find out if that's the case. That criticism really isn't enough to stop me from enjoying this awe-inspiring, epic, emotional rollercoaster ride of a movie. The American market don't know what they were missing when they failed to see this in their droves.


10/10




Groovy Mule -> RE: Cloud Atlas (23/2/2013 11:35:52 PM)

I haven't read the book so I don't come to this film with a great deal of knowledge other than being intrigued by the trailer and having been impressed by Tom Twykwer's previous adaptation of a tricky novel, Perfume by Patrick Susskind, which showed a flair for literary adaptations. I have to say that I was incredibly disappointed with Cloud Atlas.

Not such much a singular film as much as an anthology piece, Cloud Atlas, is six separate stories across time and space with characters played a small company of luminary actors - Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Ben Whishaw and Jim Sturgess to name just a few. What is lacking is the sense that these stories are connected beyond a birth mark and a collection of actors. Maybe this works better in the book but it fails in the film. As such, it makes it difficult to review the film as a whole - it's closer to a Paris I Love You or, whisper it, Movie 43 than The Matrix or Perfume notwithstanding that the filmmakers jump around between narratives.

Some segments of the film work and others outstay their welcome. The Neo Korea segment with Doona Bae and Jim Sturgess and the 1936 piece led by Ben Whishaw with Jim Broadbent are the finest parts of the film and either one could stand as a film on its own. Other segments are irritating in the extreme - the futuristic segment uses its own bastardised English which grates very quickly and loses its way once the novelty of Hugh Grant as a cannabalistic headhunter wears off, the present day farce with Jim Broadbent in an old folks home and Tom Hanks inexplicably as an Irish(?) gangster turned novellist isn't half as funny as it thinks it is and the 70s nuclear thriller loses its way.

Feeling like Hollywood stars playing dress-up with more CGI and prosthetics than your average dressing-up box, I found this an unsatisfying and overlong mess with too many elements that feel derivative. All of this is not helped by the fact that Tom Hanks is uniformly dreadful in everyone of his guises - this may be the worse set of performances I've ever seen from the usually reliable Hanks.

5/10




Prophet_of_Doom -> RE: Cloud Atlas (23/2/2013 11:41:41 PM)

Absolutely loved this, having gone in fully expecting to be disappointed (having loved the book). Interestingly enough, my wife who hated the book, also loved the film. My only criticism would be that because it used the same cast from story thread to story thread, it joined up some of the dots in a slightly patronizing and unnecessary way. However, I did enjoy the curiosity of seeing the same actors turning up in different (almost absurd) guises throughout and in many cases actually pulling them off, so in an odd way the bit that frustrated me slightly also added to my enjoyment. If that makes any sense at all?!?! I can't quite rationalize it myself. I'd probably give it an 8.5 out of 10. I genuinely think it's one of those films that will get revisited in years to come and gain a much bigger and more appreciative audience (and I'm not just saying that because I liked it!)




paulmitchell -> Four stars,REALLY ? (24/2/2013 10:27:21 AM)

What a mess,I didn't get it,on the other hand it is a beautiful looking and well acted film.i don't trust empires reviews




Hood_Man -> RE: Four stars,REALLY ? (24/2/2013 3:59:33 PM)

I've seen a house fly, I've seen a circus fly, and now I've seen Hugo Weaving wearing a dress [:D]

I need to see it again as I don't really know what I just watched, but I still loved it.




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.222656E-02