For the Wachoski brothers, it may be that lightning only strikes once. Many directors have felt this sting before, and between the Matrix sequels, Speed Racer and now Cloud Atlas, it is beginning to seem more and more like The first Matrix may be the Sixth Sense of the brothers’ careers. To be fair, none of those aforementioned disappointments are anywhere near the level of cinematic disaster as The Happening or The Last Airbender, but they still are evidence of a creative mind (or minds) reaching its peak too early.
Let me back up. I really wanted to like this movie. I love bold film making, and the amount invested into the project by Warner Brothers gave the impression of the studio having immense confidence in the movie’s quality despite it’s clear un-marketability. The premise’s parallels with Darren Arronofsky’s The Fountain (Another highly philosophical story which spanned the relationships of several characters over a number of different time periods) made me think that, to have had $100 million spent on it, it must avoid the same audience-alienating faults of that film. I managed to fully avoid reading any sort of review of Cloud Atlas before I saw it tonight, but as I go back through the ones I’ve seen posted as well as Rotten Tomatoes and the like, I quite bring myself to go against the film’s overall lukewarm critical reception. Cloud Atlas features some wonderful performances and a set of sub-plots that are intriguing on their own, but the overall lack of substantial connection between the six central stories rob it of most of the depth it seems to be shooting for.
Oh boy, where to begin. Cloud Atlas is told between six different eras, each weaving in and out of each other throughout the entirety of the film. We rapidly jump from between mid 1800s Oceana, 1930s Scotland, 1973 America, 2012 London, 22nd century Seoul and an undefined post-apocalyptic wasteland. Each story involves characters played by different assortments of the 11 top-billed actors and a variety of vastly different story lines linked by themes of love, responsibility and the embodiment of the film’s tagline, “Everything is Connected”.
Going through the plot of each of the six parts would be too much for one review, so I’m just going to dive straight into the Players section.
As I said above, there are some great performances here that really served to lift the movie up from it’s disjointedness. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to isolate these performances since every character plays 5-6 different roles over the course of the movie. I didn’t even realize the extent of this until I visited the movie’s IMDb page and read through the list of each actor or actress and the characters they play. Often times the actor or actress appears under heavy makeup or, several times, in varying degrees of effective cross-dressing that many viewers might notice while watching without quite identifying who is who. To be perfectly honest, this is one of the movie’s weaker points from my perspective as it comes across as very gimmicky a lot of the time and gives the movie the feel of a seriously-toned Monty Python movie. There are a great deal of characters which feel as if to give they were included to give the audience another chance to say “hey, it’s that guy again”, but simply having the actors play parts from different time periods isn’t enough to justify those time periods being connected.
That being said, there were a few individual characters that really stood out for me. Jim Broadbent as Timothy Cavendish provided some great levity in his “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”-resembling subplot, even if that entire story line was likely the most weakly linked to the rest of the film. Jim Sturgess is also memorable as Hae-Joo Chang, respectively, a resistance fighter and rescuer of Doona Bae’s Sonmi-451 who drives some of the most exciting action sequences of the film. For me though, it was really Ben Whishaw (Bright Star) who stole the show as Robert Frobisher, a composer in the 1930s who’s efforts to work with renown composer Vyvyan Ayrs (Also Broadbent) results in the composition of the titular Cloud Atlas sextet as well as Frobisher’s eventual suicide. Frobisher’s character was by far the most moving and engrossing from my point, and of all six story lines I felt like his would have worked best as it’s own film.
– I absolutely love Hanks, but his face was just too recognizable here to really allow him to sink into any of his roles here (especially considering how terrible his British accent was in the 2012 story line)
– Keith David is still a badass
– Hugh Grant just plain and simply didn’t have to be in this movie
– Cloud Atlas offers the first time we’ve gotten to see Hugo Weaving in drag since The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert
– New Seoul looks GORGEOUS
– The ridiculous language spoken in the post-apocalyptic story line made it impossible for me to take any of the dialogue seriously
The Verdict: 7.0/10 Good
Cloud Atlas is a rare example of a movie who’s individual components are stronger than the sum of its parts. One of the biggest faults in the marketing was that we never really were given any concrete understanding as to how the separate stories were linked together, and the film itself did very little to assuage that issue. There are plenty of small details that call back to a previous story line (a recurring birthmark, the Cloud Atlas Sextet, and one character’s journal to name a few), but none of those small details do anything to link the events of one story with any other and instead of an elaborate web of cause and effect we end up with a sort of six-degrees-of-separation between stories. Bottom line, the acting, dialogue and beautiful special effects make Cloud Atlas worth the price of admission but in the end it just left me with a resounding feeling of “So what?”
The Daily Rich – N/a
Dan the Man Movie Reviews – 8.0/10
Fast Film Reviews – 2/5