Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

The Most Polarizing Film Of The Year? What Did You Think Of 'Cloud Atlas?

by The Playlist Staff
October 29, 2012 10:00 AM
  • |

Halle Berry Keith David Cloud Atlas
There’s no simple way to discuss the maddening, problematic, certifiably insane “Cloud Atlas.” One could say what it is, which is the most adventurous American movie in years, noting that is not a recommendation or condemnation. So it is for the binary power of “Cloud Atlas,” at times ridiculously brilliant and brilliantly ridiculous, an adaptation that shows great integrity of preserving the mad genre dash of David Mitchell’s tilt-a-whirl novel into three exhaustingly cinematic hours. As a film, it’s not equal to the sum of its parts, and how could it be? For the interconnectedness of the premise (hammered home by too-obvious cross-generational casting) it’s hard to see the relationship between the longings of poor Robert Frobisher (Ben Whishaw, excellent) and the future-world caveman Zachry and his relationship with space mentalist Meronym (Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, both awful). Still, the hold of “Cloud Atlas” is undeniable -- as compelling as the existential crisis undergone by Timothy Cavendish (Jim Broadbent), so thrilling is the segue to this storyline following the tense, shootout-laden journalistic thriller that spotlights how Keith David has been one of Hollywood’s most ubiquitous but underused resources for years. Most importantly, the Wachowskis and Tom Tykwer have made “Cloud Atlas” cinematic - big, sweeping, grandly ridiculous, visually austentatious. Even when it gets bogged down in endless chit-chat about the themes being addressed, “Cloud Atlas” is always moving, always reckless, always brave. Not the best film of the year, by a long stretch, “Cloud Atlas” is sure to be one of the most memorable. [B] - Gabe Toro

Cloud Atlas, Jim Broadbent and...?
Is “Cloud Atlas” that imaginative and “insane”? I was under the impression that the author of the book, David Mitchell invented the characters, the storyline, the connectivity themes  and the very fabric of the entire movie. So maybe we should give credit where credit is due? Still, props to the Wachowskis Starship and Tom Tykwer for trying to pull off this ambitious adaptation, but I do take a small amount of umbrage for those that call it one of the most imaginative and adventurous movies ever made (maybe from a financial perspective, sure, but let’s face it this is a commercial venture and the product has commercial appeal). Had it been made from scratch, an original idea, then yes, it might be up there. I digress: “Cloud Atlas.” Well, you have to give it up to the film and filmmakers that they can make an almost three hour movie this entertaining and engaging. There’s about seven different movies in “Cloud Atlas” and the way they cut together despite being unwieldy and muddled tonally... well it’s a miracle the film isn’t more of  a mess than it should be.  My issue is that “Cloud Atlas” aspires to be soulful and moving with this deep “everyone’s connected” motif, but I personally didn’t find it that profound or moving. I found it to be entertaining, but the “we’re all connected/love is all you need/ truth will set you free from every oppressor” theme -- the three main ones that seemed to be weaved throughout the film -- a little bit simplistic and a little bit like platitudes.  And then little things threw me out of the movie, like the ridiculous make-up and the silly British rom-com section and just some of the outlandish sections that were too goofy to lend an air of overall profundity.  That said, I enjoyed it more than I thought I would, I thought some of it was somewhat impactful and again, it’s pretty entertaining for a 3 hr film about the way humanity is tied across the sands of time and space. However, paraphrasing a tweet Kevin once wrote, I don’t think it holds a candle to emotional, spiritual and metaphysical impact of the “The Fountain” and the films of Kieslowski that generally say just as much in much richer, less clunky and more resonating manner.  [C+] - Rodrigo Perez

Cloud Atlas, Doona Bae
I remember the breathless hype coming out the TIFF World Premiere for “Cloud Atlas” where the film was hailed by some critics as an epic, sci-fi masterpiece. Having attended that same screening, it would appear I was shown an entirely different film. The film I saw was epic and bold certainly but also deeply silly and kind of a disaster. (A completely admirable disaster, sure, but a disaster nonetheless.) While I have to respect the cast’s fearlessness taking on a variety of roles, races and genders, I’m afraid their directors have left them out to dry. Headliners Hanks and Berry seem to have been cast because of their international appeal and not because they seem particularly suited to these roles and the heavy prosthetics they (and the rest of the cast) are saddled with are extremely distracting. While the film does get marginally better as it goes along and rescues itself from the feeling that you are watching a disaster of “Battlefield Earth” proportions, it still comes off as an ambitious failure. “The Fountain” told a similar ambitious story with its lead actors playing different characters across multiple time periods, but it was a much leaner, more focused film whose climax reverberated across each storyline. Here, the stories are too scattered and disparate to take on any emotional resonance. As I struggled to stay engaged, I tried imagining who exactly this movie is for — an independently financed $100 million leisurely paced sci-fi drama pretty much rules out every audience, doesn’t it? — which is a reason to admire it. And while I can’t hate “Cloud Atlas” for its ambition, that doesn’t mean it works. [C-] - Cory Everett

Your thoughts? Sound in below

  • |

More: Cloud Atlas, The Wachowskis, Tom Tykwer

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    


  • Bryan | October 31, 2012 11:34 PMReply

    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.

  • Terry Busch | November 3, 2012 2:44 PM

    I agree with you about the need to tell it in a linear fashion. I mean, it was about reincarnation (lifetime following lifetime). There needed to be more connections between them; a flow. I wanted to like this movie but got lost, confused and in the end, disappointed. It was daring. I remember this division of opinions over 2001 A Space Odyssey, which I liked.-TB

  • Terry Busch | October 31, 2012 7:09 PMReply

    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.

  • hayley | October 31, 2012 1:52 AMReply

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

  • Nikola G | October 30, 2012 1:38 PMReply

    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.

  • Arn | October 30, 2012 8:20 AMReply

    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

  • George | October 29, 2012 10:19 PMReply

    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.

  • Angela | October 29, 2012 9:00 PMReply

    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.

  • Steven Flores | October 29, 2012 7:25 PMReply

    I thought it was really good. I just hope more people would see it. Here's my full reviews:

  • Zinjo | October 29, 2012 3:55 PMReply

    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...

  • Drew | October 29, 2012 1:49 PMReply

    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.

  • lane | October 29, 2012 12:06 PMReply

    it was brilliant

  • John | October 29, 2012 10:56 AMReply

    After seeing “Cloud Atlas” at TIFF I felt like Roger Ebert when he said in his initial review: “I know I’ve seen something astonishing, and I know I’m not ready to review it.” It’s a massively ambitious success. Made outside the Hollywood system there’s a feeling that the directors got to do everything they wanted on “Cloud Atlas” and the results are beautiful and sprawling. A big risk project it’s 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 isn’t without its flaws (some of the makeup renders the actors “odd” looking), but when you have such a winner overall it’s easy to overlook a couple issues. The cast playing many different characters (some of which I didn’t even realize until the end credits montage) isn’t a cute stunt, it’s very much motivated by the storyline. A subject that’s been done in different ways before, but never so grand as on display here. If you’re patient, open-minded, and don’t go in expecting Matrix-like action scenes you should not be disappointed in the least. We all knew “Cloud Atlas” 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.

  • lookf4r | October 29, 2012 10:24 AMReply

    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.

Email Updates