Cloud Atlas movie review
Content
Cloud Atlas
(2012)
Tom Hanks. Halle Berry. And a host of lesser known but excellent actors like Jim Sturgess, Hugo Weaving, High Grant, Jim Broadbent, etc. And yet, oddly enough, most people I spoke to had somehow never heard of this film, or had no idea what it was about. Score one for marketing. On the other hand, I’ve sat through all 172 minutes of it, and I can’t really say what it’s about either. We are presented with six different time frames (the 19th century, the late 30s, the early 70s, present-day, about a hundred years into the future and a more distant post-apocalyptic future where everyone speaks in annoying semi-English gobbledygook). The same actors inhabit different roles in each time period, and I’ve read that they are supposed to represent a sort of reincarnation of souls throughout time, but that’s only vaguely hinted at in the movie by the fact that some of the characters share a comet-shaped birthmark. Events in one timeframe often effect the next one; the journal that Jim Sturgess’ character keeps in the 18th century time frame is read as a published book by one of the characters in the 30s; and the sextet that he writes, as well as his letters, are read (and listened to) by Halle Berry in the 70s; and so on. But those are tenuous connections at best; we do see that certain souls seem to be drawn to one another across time (Hanks and Berry, primarily), but still. The individual stories themselves vary in effectiveness, but intercut as they are, some of the more engaging ones are robbed of some of their impact. Each has its moments, and all of the stories feature connecting with other people, usually strangers, but some are simply more compelling. We spend a lot of time with Hanks and Berry in their linguistically challenged future, but there’s not much of interest transpiring; the aspiring musical composer in the thirties attracts the viewer’s attention far more, but we go longish stretches of the movie not checking up on him. The Seventies piece, where Berry is a reporter investigating a potential nuclear disaster, is little more than a stale China Syndrome retread; yet the almost savage attack on futuristic consumption culture in South Korea was the strongest thread (for me, anyway) in the film, even though we’re presented with non-Asian actors in, essentially, ‘yellow-face’, who never for a second fool you into believing they’re Asian. It held my interest strongly enough to sit through all three hours in a single go (allowing for bio-breaks, natch), and the cumulative effect is enjoyable, even if the Wachowski siblings linger at times when you want them to hurry, and hurry when you want them to linger. Parts of the film are highly engaging and reel you in easily; others are a little more work and don’t really seem to pan out. I would gently suggest this film to others, with the thought that maybe if you split it up an hour at a time (my initial plan) it would be easier to swallow; but even all at once it can be a challenge keeping up with six story threads, and I suspect dividing one’s attention through multiple viewings would only heighten that hurdle. It’s not something I would run out and buy, but I’m glad to have seen it; on balance there’s
more good than bad here, despite the unevenly engaging stories, but at three hours without a huge payoff I can’t in good conscience recommend this to any who aren’t intrigued by it already. June 18, 2013
(2012)
Tom Hanks. Halle Berry. And a host of lesser known but excellent actors like Jim Sturgess, Hugo Weaving, High Grant, Jim Broadbent, etc. And yet, oddly enough, most people I spoke to had somehow never heard of this film, or had no idea what it was about. Score one for marketing. On the other hand, I’ve sat through all 172 minutes of it, and I can’t really say what it’s about either. We are presented with six different time frames (the 19th century, the late 30s, the early 70s, present-day, about a hundred years into the future and a more distant post-apocalyptic future where everyone speaks in annoying semi-English gobbledygook). The same actors inhabit different roles in each time period, and I’ve read that they are supposed to represent a sort of reincarnation of souls throughout time, but that’s only vaguely hinted at in the movie by the fact that some of the characters share a comet-shaped birthmark. Events in one timeframe often effect the next one; the journal that Jim Sturgess’ character keeps in the 18th century time frame is read as a published book by one of the characters in the 30s; and the sextet that he writes, as well as his letters, are read (and listened to) by Halle Berry in the 70s; and so on. But those are tenuous connections at best; we do see that certain souls seem to be drawn to one another across time (Hanks and Berry, primarily), but still. The individual stories themselves vary in effectiveness, but intercut as they are, some of the more engaging ones are robbed of some of their impact. Each has its moments, and all of the stories feature connecting with other people, usually strangers, but some are simply more compelling. We spend a lot of time with Hanks and Berry in their linguistically challenged future, but there’s not much of interest transpiring; the aspiring musical composer in the thirties attracts the viewer’s attention far more, but we go longish stretches of the movie not checking up on him. The Seventies piece, where Berry is a reporter investigating a potential nuclear disaster, is little more than a stale China Syndrome retread; yet the almost savage attack on futuristic consumption culture in South Korea was the strongest thread (for me, anyway) in the film, even though we’re presented with non-Asian actors in, essentially, ‘yellow-face’, who never for a second fool you into believing they’re Asian. It held my interest strongly enough to sit through all three hours in a single go (allowing for bio-breaks, natch), and the cumulative effect is enjoyable, even if the Wachowski siblings linger at times when you want them to hurry, and hurry when you want them to linger. Parts of the film are highly engaging and reel you in easily; others are a little more work and don’t really seem to pan out. I would gently suggest this film to others, with the thought that maybe if you split it up an hour at a time (my initial plan) it would be easier to swallow; but even all at once it can be a challenge keeping up with six story threads, and I suspect dividing one’s attention through multiple viewings would only heighten that hurdle. It’s not something I would run out and buy, but I’m glad to have seen it; on balance there’s
more good than bad here, despite the unevenly engaging stories, but at three hours without a huge payoff I can’t in good conscience recommend this to any who aren’t intrigued by it already. June 18, 2013
