Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cloud Atlas - First watch...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cloud Atlas - First watch...

    I'm watching Cloud Atlas at the moment. About two hours in, and I'm impressed. Definitely the best thing the Wachowskis have done. Will report back when I get to the end. Definitely a palpable influence from Twyker, who brings a more arthouse feel to the production. I like what I'm seeing, gives me faith Sense8 will be great.
    Captain John Sheridan: I really *hate* it when you do that.

    Kosh: Good!

  • #2
    I loved it a lot. Haven't opened the package yet but this was one of the *very* few movies I bought. I'm certain that I missed a lot of nuances. I *know* I missed many of the multiple roles played.

    Let us know your thoughts.

    Jan
    "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization contracts...as we're seeing now.

    Comment


    • #3
      One of many thousands of movies I didn't buy. In all seriousness I enjoyed it, but I think I may need to watch it again because I can't say I loved it and it seems like the type of movie I usually love.
      Susan Ivanova, "I'll be in the car."

      Comment


      • #4
        So, I just finished up watching. It's a solid film, not 'classic' by any means, but far better than I'd expected it to be. I liked the thematically linked stories, and some of the deaths were quite affecting. The produciton values were great, and it was enjoyable seeing the cast take on different roles across the many stories. Although, I think Hugh Grant is somehow always playing himself in every film he's in!

        The Timothy Cavendish segments were amusing to begin with, but the old peoples' home story rubbed me up the wrong way when it descended into crass British comedy territory, and ended up feeling like an especially cringe worthy episode of 'Last of the Summer Wine'. That was perhaps my only complaint!

        All in all, I very much enjoyed it. Very impressive for an independent production. The central theme of love and change was very well played out, and I found it quite touching. It's flawed, but it is massively ambitious and sprawling, and I can't help but respect that.
        Last edited by Ubik; 06-24-2014, 01:05 PM.
        Captain John Sheridan: I really *hate* it when you do that.

        Kosh: Good!

        Comment


        • #5
          Out of curiosity, what do you mean when you say 'it's flawed'. What isn't?

          Jan
          "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization contracts...as we're seeing now.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jan View Post
            Out of curiosity, what do you mean when you say 'it's flawed'. What isn't?

            Jan
            I just mean it has some issues here and there. The film was good, but doesn't tip over into being something exceptional. It’s not something I’d repeat watch or keep in my film collection. It’s slightly overlong, and some of the shifts in tone clashed a bit for me (as per the above mentioned foray into bad BBC sitcom stylings). Using the same actors was an interesting feature, but occasionally some of the heavy makeup was distracting (closing Edward Ewing scene with Donna Bae as his wife). I had the same problem with Jim Sturgess playing Hae-Joo Chang (Neo Seoul, 2144), he acted it well, but looked like Keanu Reeves after a botched trip to the plastic surgeon. The less said about Hugo Weaving as Nurse Noakes the better, it was amusing for all of five minutes then started to grate a bit, but I had issues with that whole storyline (oh look at the pensioners, aren’t they funny and quaint! Ugh.. The whole old people’s home thing just felt a bit ‘dumb’, which was a shame as I loved the Cavendish story up until that point).

            So, some of the switch ups are more successful than others. It sometime broke my suspension of disbelief, which is never a good thing. I appreciate they were trying to emphasise the shared human experience across the ages / stories, but no matter how good your make up artists are, it just isn’t always going to work. I appreciate this choice may have also been a budgetary one. It’s an interesting way to get around using a small but expensive cast. In general, the film throws a whole lot at the wall, and some of it really shines, some of it… not so much.

            There are only a handful of films out there that I hold in high regard, things that I don’t consider flawed, or that are so powerful and arresting that I can look past any apparent flaws, things like Tarkovsky’s ‘Stalker’, Herzog’s ‘Aguirre Wrath of God’, Bella Tar’s ‘Damnation’, Michael Haneke ‘s ‘Cache’ (Hidden), Park Chan Wook’s ‘Chungking Express’, to name but a few. Of course, it’s all down to personal taste. When I say ‘flawed’, I’m just trying to be objective, holding it up against things that really wowed me. This didn’t have the same impact as the films I’ve mentioned above, but it was a fun watch, and far better than I’d have expected based on my past experience of the Wachowski’s films. I enjoyed the first Matrix film, but the rest of their oeuvre doesn’t do much for me. So, this was a pleasant surprise.

            Hope this clarifies my statement! It’s fun to debate these things. I’m really picky when it comes to cinema!
            Last edited by Ubik; 06-25-2014, 01:37 AM.
            Captain John Sheridan: I really *hate* it when you do that.

            Kosh: Good!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Ubik View Post
              The Timothy Cavendish segments were amusing to begin with, but the old peoples' home story rubbed me up the wrong way when it descended into crass British comedy territory, and ended up feeling like an especially cringe worthy episode of 'Last of the Summer Wine'. That was perhaps my only complaint!
              That was my response to the story when I read the book, so that one can't be blamed entirely on the filmmakers.

              Because I had enjoyed the book so much, this was one of those films I was both really looking forward to and utterly dreading, but was very pleasantly surprised. The way they have structured the movie means the disparate stories, and the connections between them, make more immediate sense but for the same reason you never really get immersed in the individual stories in the way you do in the book.

              Like any good adaptation it does something a little different with the same material to provide a complementary piece and both book and DVD sit happily on my shelf ... although I do tend to watch it when it comes on Sky, so I can see it in HD.

              The Optimist: The glass is half full
              The Pessimist: The glass is half empty
              The Engineer: The glass is twice as big as it needs to be

              Comment


              • #8
                CLOUD ATLAS (2012) – Okay so I just sat through Cloud Atlas for a second time. I think I figured out why I didn’t love it the first time - the prosthetic makeup is just too obvious, especially Jim Sturgess as Hae-Joo Chang as Ubik pointed out. The difference between the good makeup and the bad makeup is absolutely incredible. The bad really detracts from the overall movie experience, but on a second viewing it was much easier to look past that problem to the real brilliance of the film. It is pretty incredible that this movie didn’t win multiple awards, especially for acting.
                Susan Ivanova, "I'll be in the car."

                Comment

                Working...
                X