A muddled attempt at piecing together life.
Cloud Atlas is a near three hour mess adapted
from the 2004 book, of the same name, from David Mitchell. The film has three
directors, Andy and Lana Wachowski (The Matrix Trilogy), and Tom Tykwer
(Run Lola Run). These directors have the task of attempting to weave six
stories from six eras in time, with each member of the cast portraying a
different character in each story. These eras range from early 19th century to
hundreds of years into the future. These stories are as follows; first of
all set in 1849, centred around an American lawyer sailing home with a
slave; secondly in 1931, about a gay Englishman acting as an amanuensis to an
elderly composer; part three, in 1973, about a reporter looking into
a conspiracy surrounding a nuclear power company; in 2012, about a
weird and wonderful publisher stuck in a Scottish care home; in 2144, centred
around a clone, slaved in Neo-Seoul stirring rebellion; and finally, in 2321,
when life has returned to savagery and anarchy.
The film is just too messy, and those who have not read the
book (like myself) may find it hard to stick with the constant chopping and
changing of time periods. I feel that although the film is nearly three hours
long, it's too simplistic in its approach to each segment of the overall story.
With the movie being split into six sections, it was moving too quickly from
one part to another. It fails to tell six short stories (as presented
in the book); instead we are left with a jumbled narrative.
Due to the lack of depth afforded to each character, it only
results in one thing, unconvincing characters. I do not feel that the acting is
below par, but due to the quick changes from one character to the next, all I
see is the star-studded ensemble cast. Instead of believing that Tom
Hanks is a loud-mouth Irish novelist one minute, and then a futuristic
tribesman plagued by hallucinations the next, all I see is Tom Hanks. This
problem follows suit for the rest of the cast, as Hugh Grant moves from
a cannibalistic warrior, to a sexist nuclear power company owner. As a
spectator I found it near impossible to invest in any of the characters.
Possibly the most expensive independent film of all time is
a flop, something shown in its box-office performance. A tough project to even
attempt to make successfully.
J.Henderson.
4/10.
Whilst I agree that not all the segments had much depth, and individually may appear pretty weak I think the purpose of these 6 tales was to create a collaborative philosophical message which I think half-worked. Would personally give it a 7, as the wachowski's did a great job in balancing each story simultaneously by having the tone shift like a domino effect from one to the other to make it as seamless as they possibly could. It is one of those projects which really aspires to be more than it could ever hope to deliver, but I think films like this are important if we still want to maintain some creativity in reasonably big budget films. Was never going to be to everyone's cup of tea though that's for sure, and there were so many miscast actors (probably had to choose relatively famous people with star power to get the funding!).
ReplyDelete