• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Cloud Atlas

KickballDeac

Bernie Eskimo Bro
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
3,464
Reaction score
458
Location
Vermont Republic
Very highly recommended. I read the book and thought the movie outdid it in some ways--it had a higher emotional impact on screen. It's not told linearly like the book, rather the stories are very interwoven, flashing between each other and back. I saw it with someone who hasn't read it and she loved it too. I expect nominations for editing, cinematography, art direction, make-up and costume design are coming; it was beautifully filmed. Tom Hanks and Hugo Weaving were their usual great-in-everything selves throughout. A Saturday well-spent at the movies.
 
I'm going to see this tonight at the Carmike on Hanes Hall.
 
I'm definitely going to see this movie again.
 
whoever left the tag for me forgot a question mark. This is a really polarizing type of flick because it's not linear at all, and the story lines don't come together until far into the film and even when they do, it still isn't overarchingly coherent. Plus it's 3 hours long, so if you've got a short attention span or small bladder you're gonna have a bad time.
 
This didn't even make $10M in opening weekend. It couldn't even beat Argo's 3rd week.
 
This didn't even make $10M in opening weekend. It couldn't even beat Argo's 3rd week.

Very few movies with ambiguous plots like it are financially successful. The major Hollywood studios predicted that Cloud Atlas wouldn't make a profit and that's why they didn't fund it, which is how it ended up being the most expensive independent film of all time.
 
Not sure if it was how it was marketed or just how the movie is but I have no idea what it's about given the previews and that isn't going to make someone that knows nothing about it go to see it.
 
This movie was a mind fuck. I cant decide whether that is good or bad
 
Just watched it and thought it was a steaming pile of shit. Sure, it was well acted and filmed and even paced, but it was stupid. Perhaps the book delivers better?

To me, it came off as a more sanctimonious version of Life Of Pi in that it tried to be profound and fell flat on its face. I mean, do I really need to have 5 or 6 stories wrapped into 3 hours to tell me to treat others well? I've seen that lesson put into lighthearted kids fare, or pretty much every Simpson's episode, for fuck's sake. And save all the mystical past lives shit. I guess that's a device that is necessary to tell what amounts to a series of short stories and provide an excuse to put them all together, but it does not make the story more interesting. At all.

Nevermind that the bogeymen in this case were absurd evils. Well let's throw slavery and bigotry out there because we know that's bad. Now let's throw in the poor gay guy in the 1930s. And we can't forget Big Oil...but hey let's throw in a danger there about nuclear power too even though they'll be good compared to Big Oil. And I guess we'll throw in the old farts for comic relief. Hmmm, and now since we're in the future, let's throw in genetic discrimination and show that authentic Asians are being screwed over by a bunch of white men in bad Asian makeup. And then to further flip things, let's show that Halle Berry and her fellow dark skinned friends are superior to Tom Hanks, his white buddies, and the white cannibals that terrorize him. It's just so clumsy and so fucking obvious. One typically big and bloviated Hollywood preach fest that passes for profound only among the idiots of the world.

But maybe the book was better and had a point.
 
Two scenes in the movie worth viewing (other than the parts with boobies)... Tom Hanks as the ill-tempered gangster/author confronting his critic and the old farts at the bar.
 
Just watched it and thought it was a steaming pile of shit. Sure, it was well acted and filmed and even paced, but it was stupid. Perhaps the book delivers better?

To me, it came off as a more sanctimonious version of Life Of Pi in that it tried to be profound and fell flat on its face. I mean, do I really need to have 5 or 6 stories wrapped into 3 hours to tell me to treat others well? I've seen that lesson put into lighthearted kids fare, or pretty much every Simpson's episode, for fuck's sake. And save all the mystical past lives shit. I guess that's a device that is necessary to tell what amounts to a series of short stories and provide an excuse to put them all together, but it does not make the story more interesting. At all.

Nevermind that the bogeymen in this case were absurd evils. Well let's throw slavery and bigotry out there because we know that's bad. Now let's throw in the poor gay guy in the 1930s. And we can't forget Big Oil...but hey let's throw in a danger there about nuclear power too even though they'll be good compared to Big Oil. And I guess we'll throw in the old farts for comic relief. Hmmm, and now since we're in the future, let's throw in genetic discrimination and show that authentic Asians are being screwed over by a bunch of white men in bad Asian makeup. And then to further flip things, let's show that Halle Berry and her fellow dark skinned friends are superior to Tom Hanks, his white buddies, and the white cannibals that terrorize him. It's just so clumsy and so fucking obvious. One typically big and bloviated Hollywood preach fest that passes for profound only among the idiots of the world.

But maybe the book was better and had a point.

So to summarize: meh
 
reading ELC's review makes me think the film is a large departure from the book. there was not a preachy/sanctimonious element to the book, though it definitely tells the story of how we prey on others on the personal and societal level and how we rise and fall. it's more about the universality of our actions, about how similar people are throughout time and space. it's also just fantastic storytelling, so if the film was overwrought (though I definitely trust kickballdeac's opinion over ELC's), then that's a failing of trying to put it to screen, and not the stories themselves.
 
reading ELC's review makes me think the film is a large departure from the book. there was not a preachy/sanctimonious element to the book, though it definitely tells the story of how we prey on others on the personal and societal level and how we rise and fall. it's more about the universality of our actions, about how similar people are throughout time and space. it's also just fantastic storytelling, so if the film was overwrought (though I definitely trust kickballdeac's opinion over ELC's), then that's a failing of trying to put it to screen, and not the stories themselves.

book>screen play nearly every time. I loved the book and the movie, but I agree that they have different tones.
 
reading ELC's review makes me think the film is a large departure from the book. there was not a preachy/sanctimonious element to the book, though it definitely tells the story of how we prey on others on the personal and societal level and how we rise and fall. it's more about the universality of our actions, about how similar people are throughout time and space. it's also just fantastic storytelling, so if the film was overwrought (though I definitely trust kickballdeac's opinion over ELC's), then that's a failing of trying to put it to screen, and not the stories themselves.

There was that element to the film as well. It was quite central, actually. But again, why bother? To me, that's hardly some fantastic revelation.
 
Back
Top