Cloud Atlas

Ultimatehero said:
One thing I'm intrigued about is this film cost 100 mil.... WTF? Hoping whoever financed this can give a hollywood seminar on how to get this production quality for that amount to other financiers because that's amazing. Grade A actors, expansive locations, and their future is beyond amazing in vfx. To me seeing that, there's no real reason for some other films to cost what they do. That can raise the bar for production quality for several films I think...
Click to expand...

Well, I think actors like Hanks and Berry foregone their usual big upfront payments in exchange for a percentage of box office. Same thing with the Wachowskis. Plus, a lot of the filming was studio-based in Babelsberg, Germany. So the directors were able to control the shooting conditions most of the time and get filming done efficiently.

And if Cloud Atlas is a hit, Jeff Robinov should go begging on hands and knees for Lana & Andy to direct Justice League.
 
I saw this last night at a screening in St. Louis. Overall I really liked the film. It is certainly ambitious, actually has something to say rather than vaugely hinting at ideas, and I think for the most part acheives what it sets out to do. The film certainly has its problems though, largly having to do with how and when the film decides two switch between its several stories. While overall I think each story recieved enough screen time, the way it is broken up can make things seem too short. Rather than following the format I've heard the book takes, telling half of each story and then following up with the second of each story later, the film cuts between things based on certain story beats, or events or even just similar shot framing. To a certain point I can see why they did this but in others it felt like they didn't trust the audience to see the parallels and felt necessary to show them, even if that meant cutting to another story after only a minute and then back to the story they were telling. Most of the individual stories told in the film are compelling. In someways this is actually problematic because even with some of the smaller stories, like an escape from a nursing home, I felt I'd rather just watch them as their own films. There was only one story that I felt was unengaging.

The experiment with the casting was certainly interesting and often entertaining in its own right and never all that distracting or disruptive. I could certainly see their aim in some respects, especially with Hugo Weaving consistently representing a force of Evil. With some of the casting their was no real logic though. Some of Tom Hanks casting is particularly problematic.

Some I spoke to, including my girlfriend, found the film a bit of a slog to get through. It is certainly long, just short of 3 hours, but I had never felt it was tiresome. Some were disappointed that the connections between stories were more thematic rather than explicitly through the consequences of actions. I can understand this complaint, since one of the major stated themes of the film is how your actions echo throughout time and seal your future but the ways we affect one another is certainly represented in the film.

Personally one of my only major complaints with the film is that for the majority of the stories, the climax take place offscreen. It can be a bit frustrating or at least underwhelming after almost 3 hours.

All of the acting is top notch, as can be expected.

Its certainly a film I want to see again though I plan to read the book before I do. There's a lot to chew on.
 
Last edited:
Several of the stories just cut to the resolution. What happened is implied. It doesn't quite work in all respects.
 
redhawk23 said:
I saw this last night at a screening in St. Louis. Overall I really liked the film. It is certainly ambitious, actually has something to say rather than vaugely hinting at ideas, and I think for the most part acheives what it sets out to do. The film certainly has its problems though, largly having to do with how and when the film decides two switch between its several stories. While overall I think each story recieved enough screen time, the way it is broken up can make things seem too short. Rather than following the format I've heard the book takes, telling half of each story and then following up with the second of each story later, the film cuts between things based on certain story beats, or events or even just similar shot framing. To a certain point I can see why they did this but in others it felt like they didn't trust the audience to see the parallels and felt necessary to show them, even if that meant cutting to another story after only a minute and then back to the story they were telling. Most of the individual stories told in the film are compelling. In someways this is actually problematic because even with some of the smaller stories, like an escape from a nursing home, I felt I'd rather just watch them as their own films. There was only one story that I felt was unengaging.

The experiment with the casting was certainly interesting and often entertaining in its own right and never all that distracting or disruptive. I could certainly see their aim in some respects, especially with Hugo Weaving consistently representing a force of Evil. With some of the casting their was no real logic though. Some of Tom Hanks casting is particularly problematic.

Some I spoke to, including my girlfriend, found the film a bit of a slog to get through. It is certainly long, just short of 3 hours, but I had never felt it was tiresome. Some were disappointed that the connections between stories were more thematic rather than explicitly through the consequences of actions. I can understand this complaint, since one of the major stated themes of the film is how your actions echo throughout time and seal your future but the ways we affect one another is certainly represented in the film.

Personally one of my only major complaints with the film is that for the majority of the stories, the climax take place offscreen. It can be a bit frustrating or at least underwhelming after almost 3 hours.

All of the acting is top notch, as can be expected.

Its certainly a film I want to see again though I plan to read the book before I do. There's a lot to chew on.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the book just literally ends the first half of each story, sometimes in mid-sentence, and then picks it up later, in reverse order. The first story in the book is the last story you read the second half of. When I heard they were making a movie I had the feeling they were going to tell all the stories simultaneously rather than in the format from the book, though. I'm not sure how they could have done it otherwise--the audience may have totally forgot what was going on in the first story by the time they finally got around to ending it in the second half.

What you say about the climaxes for some of the stories is interesting--this is because in the book some of the stories are just a journal someone was keeping at a certain point of time, another is a series of letters, etc. Obviously if a character is killed or something there is no final letter detailing how they were killed. Again, this seems like something they maybe should have altered for the film version, just including scenes that bring the stories to a close.

In any case, the book seemed unfilmable, they have apparently created some sort of film version of it, so I guess the real question will be whether they succeeded in creating a version of it that is watchable.

EDIT: What you say about Hugo Weaving and Tom Hanks--are you saying that particular actors play different characters in the different stories/eras? Not sure if I like that. That seems to be putting things a bit too on the nose in connecting the stories themes together...
 
Yeah almost all of the actors are in every story, in some cases they're more or less extras in the other stories though.

Some might see it to be a little too on the nose, but really it works as an interesting choice in using the different potentials available to film. Also though it gets to be kind of nuts when actors play across gender and racial lines. (The makeup to portray Asian actors as Caucasian characters is the only makeup work I found particularly distracting, and its only for very small roles.)

The problem is that the casting doesn't always achieve what they were going for.
 
This movie's divided reception despite it's noble artistic ambitions remind me of Artificial Intelligence and The Fountain.

and I loved both those movies so I'll give this one a shot on netflix (can't afford the theater right now).
 
A similar sentiment being seen around the internet. It's a very ambitious movie.

Go big or go home
 
I figured that. Ebert does dig the Wachowskis, and gave Speed Racer the same rating. Chi-Town favorites.
 
It was accurate to the show as far as the aesthetics, and I liked the casting choices.
 
To me this feels more like a movie I'd want to grab some popcorn and watch on the couch rather then go out to see.
 
I'm still not sure about this movie, I want to see it cause I'm a bit familiar with the material but looks like it's a movie that's just gonna drag out. I really don't like Hanks and Berry either, but I'll give it a shot.
 
I cannot wait to see this movie. I love the Wachowskis and have really missed them. I thought the Matrix sequels were criminally underrated and it's about time they unleash something that gets moviegoers talking and thinking again. I'm glad the critics seem to be getting behind them for this. Hope the movie lives up.
 
This is gonna be a gamechanger. A flop probably, but a gamechanger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blitzkrieg
Last Human | Sony Pictures
Replies
3
Views
460
2kt09
2kt09
Crockett
Yorgos Lanthimos' The Lobster
Replies
4
Views
724
NosfeRomas
NosfeRomas
green
Hairspray:The Second Spraying
3 4 5
Replies
107
Views
9K
Manic
Manic
H
Horror 28 Years Later
10 11 12
Replies
282
Views
24K
Kane52630
Kane52630
Doctor Jones
Atlas Shrugged Finally Coming To The Big Screen?
Replies
3
Views
1K
ChickenScratch
ChickenScratch

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 2,153 (members: 28, guests: 2,125)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,265
Messages
22,075,776
Members
45,876
Latest member
Pducklila

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"