Comments on: The Most Polarizing Film Of The Year? What Did You Think Of ‘Cloud Atlas?

By: Arn

Arn — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:17:32 +0000

great movie…time flew by….had to stay with it for the first 30 minutes to get my bearings throughout time but it was well worth it….highly recommend it…big message love is eternal and knows no limits

By: George

George — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:17:32 +0000

I'm with the positive reviewers – and then some. I thought the film was fantastic. I may be ahead of the curve on understanding the plot, having read the book in advance, so the plot didn't frustrate or confuse me. I could see that being an issue. But one standard for a good movie is: after credits rolled, all I could think about was this film. I wanted to watch it again, have my friends watch it, discuss it with them, etc.
The most powerful stories, the 1930's 'Cloud Atlas Sextet' composition, Sonmi 451's and Post-Apocalyptic Hawaii could have easily been stand-alone films, indeed, they were so short I wanted more. The other half were really good, particularly Cavendish's Ghastly Ordeal. The weakest, The Pacific Voyage of Adam Ewing and Luisa Rey were still effective and enjoyable. My only minor complaint was the directors' strict adherence to their usage of the same actors for every role – Doona Bae just wasn't believable as Jim Sturgiss' wife, nor was Keith David as an old Korean general. The movie was thus a little uneven, but the highs were so high, and the lows not particularly low, so as to make the whole a thrilling viewing experience. I would be a happy man if studios would start sacking-up and releasing more bold, visionary, movies like this every year.

By: Angela

Angela — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:17:32 +0000

I have to say I'm closest the most negative review here. It wasn't one of the worst movies I've ever seen, but it was certainly the worst movie I've seen this year (which, full disclosure, is about 10 films total, including this one, and I at least somewhat liked all the others I've seen so far). As someone who thought David Mitchell's book was pretty much as close to a masterpiece as you can possibly get, maybe it was impossible for any movie to fulfill the lofty expectations set by the source material. Still, I feel like it should've been possible for the movie to be at least a little better. The score was good, as were a couple of performances (Doona Bae as Sonmi and Ben Whishaw as Frobisher, probably most notably), but everything else was kind of awful. Tom Hanks and Halle Berry were especially cringe-worthy in all of their roles, and all the prosthetic/makeup use was distracting, made even more so by its fairly poor quality. Frankly, it was a bit of a corny mess that was ambitious in scope but arguably safe from a narrative perspective. For me, none of the subtleties and nuances that made the book so good, many of which were more related to the story's form/structure than anything else, translated onscreen.

By: Steven Flores

Steven Flores — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:17:32 +0000

I thought it was really good. I just hope more people would see it. Here's my full reviews: http://thevoid99.blogspot.com/2012/10/cloud-atlas.html

By: Zinjo

Zinjo — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:17:32 +0000

Inception it is NOT!… The difference between Nolan's Inception and Cloud Atlas, despite the obvious, is that I actually WANTED to see Inception again, not so much with Atlas. I didn't see the threads that linked the characters so I didn't really care much for them. If one is to make a film about Kharma, then the principles of Kharma need to be present and re-enforced. If existential connections are the theme, again those connecting threads need to be made clear, in addition to the visuals. The film was visually epic without a doubt and an actor's wet dream (which explains the cast), however there seemed to be, perhaps, too much shoe horned into the 3 hours which made our sympathies for the character suffer. We viewed this film as outsiders and I never felt like I was ever invited in to the story. Unfortunate, as I am a fan of the Wachowskis and when they innovate they rock the show, but this really didn't do that for me. I wanted it to, but alas, nothing…

By: Drew

Drew — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:17:32 +0000

John is correct in citing Roger Ebert, who loved the film: you really have to see it twice. This is not a movie where you see and it's done. It's too layered, too many things going on to rush to judgment. You have to hand to to the Wachowski's and Tyker to come up with something this ambitious outside of Hollywood.

Although a film like this is far over the heads of the "Expendables" crowd, it really needs to be seen by as many people as possible. I think if you really liked the film, go see it again and bring somebody with you who has not seen it before. It may not make Skyfall-kind of money, but it deserves a much better fate. We all need to get word out on this film this week.

My big problem is: why did they open this film in so many theaters? This is the kind of film that needs to open in small select theaters first to get word of mouth, then opened in more theaters. I think this would have served it better.

By: lane

lane — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:17:32 +0000

it was brilliant

By: John

John — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:17:32 +0000

After seeing âCloud Atlasâ at TIFF I felt like Roger Ebert when he said in his initial review: âI know Iâve seen something astonishing, and I know Iâm not ready to review it.â Itâs a massively ambitious success. Made outside the Hollywood system thereâs a feeling that the directors got to do everything they wanted on âCloud Atlasâ and the results are beautiful and sprawling. A big risk project itâs a film that manages to interweave six storylines (jumping in and out like different instruments in a orchestra) across continents, time periods, and genres. The multi-level structure could have easily become a complete mess, and for people who like to leave their brains off at the theater it will definitely overwhelm, but The Wachowskis and Tom Tykwer have pulled off an epic, complex, piece of filmmaking. The film isnât without its flaws (some of the makeup renders the actors âoddâ looking), but when you have such a winner overall itâs easy to overlook a couple issues. The cast playing many different characters (some of which I didnât even realize until the end credits montage) isnât a cute stunt, itâs very much motivated by the storyline. A subject thatâs been done in different ways before, but never so grand as on display here. If youâre patient, open-minded, and donât go in expecting Matrix-like action scenes you should not be disappointed in the least. We all knew âCloud Atlasâ would divide both audiences and critics and bomb with the masses, but for those who appreciate the skill (and balls) on display here, the rewards are numerous.

By: lookf4r

lookf4r — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:17:32 +0000

I'm generally with you in that its more ambitious and admirable than it is good, but it is surely hyperbole to compare to something like Battlefield Earth. I wish they had taken a less populist approach to the film. Intelligent audiences can piece together the cosmic relation between these people with the comet birth mark alone. The multi-role casting as well as the ultra broad "this is what the movie is about" dialogue towards the end could all have been jettisoned and the film would probably have been better for it.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:17:31 +0000

The movie could have been done better. Instead of a nesting as the book has it, or the back and forth blender mode the movie had, it really should have just gone through each section in order and kept it linear. It also needed to put bigger emphasis on how each person influence things later. It was probably a bad move to have everyone play different characters, especially ones that were obviously tacky. Having Hank's very old version in the far off future start talking with the devolved English was really bad. Right off the bat you're trying to figure out what he's saying. It's bad enough it's wonky english to begin with. I wonder how they'll subtitle it for foreign audiences. Overall tho, the movie is good. It has a great message for humanity that will probably get lost in translation. In case you are one of those that hated it here's the deal. Our actions of kindness and crimes influence others and not only create our future, but that of future generations far off in the future. BAM! That's it. Why they needed a 2.5 hour movie to say that through 6 different stories I'm not sure, but I got it. Definitely daring. I do hope it is more successful when it goes global. It deserves merit for what it is trying to accomplish.

By: Terry Busch

Terry Busch — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:17:31 +0000

On walking out of the theater, my wife said, "That's the worst movie I ever saw'" and my friend Bob said, "That's one of the best science fiction movies, ever," and I said, "It's right up there with The Postman," and he said, "Is that good or bad?" and I laughed.

By: hayley

hayley — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:17:31 +0000

By far one of the worst movies i have ever seen i would like too know wat people are smokin foreal i want sum!

By: Nikola G

Nikola G — Fri, 13 May 2016 11:17:31 +0000

I'm in the yay camp as well. I'm actually eager to write up my own little review for it, but in a nutshell: I loved it. Parallel lives and multiple intertwined storylines have always been a fascination for me and something that movies in particular can tackle much better than any other art. It's an understatement to say Cloud Atlas is an ambitious project, and the box office results are no surprise at all, but the density of the story I think is really scaring a lot of critics away from seeing the good stuff: terrific acting (Tom Hanks hasn't been this good since, well, a very long time), wonderfully realized characters (Hugo Weaving's Tom Waits-ian Old Georgie has become one of my favorite characters of 2012), visuals that speak for themselves; action, suspense and humor perfectly balanced on large and small scales. Best part is that the food for thought that's left behind can feed an entire army. It's one of the best of the year, really is, and it's destined for cult status. A tough watch no doubt because of how much attention you have to pay for almost 3 hours if you don't want to get completely lost, but Hugh Grant's bad make-up cant' stop me from absorbing a truly unique cinematic experience.