![Picture](/uploads/2/1/9/0/21903072/7867447.jpg?197)
Cloud Atlas
Rating: 3/4
Even though "Cloud Atlas" may run a bit to long (164 minutes) and even though the Film contains to many stories in it (which reminded me of Paul Thomas Anderson's 1999 hit Film "Magnolia"), I still enjoyed most of it because of the Film's strong attempt to actually tell a decent type of story ark. Along with all of the great performances by the large ensemble cast as well.
This Film consists of about six stories that span from different places in time (1849-2144). Which, again, reminded me of "Magnolia" because like "Magnolia" "Cloud Atlas" was a nearly three-hour Film ("Magnolia" actually WAS a three-hour Film) and both of those two film had a huge ensemble cast in them along with about so many different stories happening. While 1999's "Magnolia" featured Tom Cruise, Julianne Moore, John C. Riley William H. Macy, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jeremy Blackman, Jason Robards, and Phillip Baker Hall "Cloud Atlas" features Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Susan Sarandon, Keith David, Hugh Grant, and so many others. But unlike "Magnolia", through this whole Film ever actor associated with this Film plays a different character per story. It's like we Tom Hanks play a scientist in one story and then he plays a hotel manager in the next. That was by far the most interesting thing that they did in this Film.
Now I never read the 2004 Novel that this was based off of. So, I really didn't understand a lot of it. I just saw "Cloud Atlas" because of the fact that when it came out it polarized critics and audiences. After I finished watching this Film I kind of understand why. Perhaps because (I'm going to bring up "Magnolia" one last time) just like "Magnolia", was the fact that when that Film first came out in theaters in 1999 (actually, in 2000 for a wide release) it polarized audiences -- with some reported walkouts -- because of all of the story and plots being added into the Film along with some people complaining that the Film was to long (about 188 minutes). So I'm assuming audiences where complaining about the same exact thing and the fact that they where wondering a bit on why each of the actors later played different characters in the Film alone.
But in spite of my complains about this, the reason I think that this was a pretty decent Film was because even though I didn't really understand a majority of this Film, I could tell that it was AT LEAST trying to attempt to form some sort of (freaking huge) story ark to boggle the viewers head. And this Film succeeded in that. Not that it confused me or anything, but that the whole point of "Cloud Atlas" was to boggle and mess around with you to keep watching all the way through. The cast was also pretty good in this, giving good, strong performances (Heck, I wonder if they even understood this Film). Tom Hanks, Jim Broadbent, Halle Berry, Susan Sarandon, and everybody else where all pretty good in this. Giving deep, emotional performances to every single one of there various, new character in this Film (which I still think they probably did not get the Film themselves).
So, while "Cloud Atlas" ran a bit to long, with two much happening, I still thought it was a fairly enjoyable Film because of how the Film's strong attempt to bring a huge story ark (not at all meaning that in a bad way) and with some great performances by the Film's large cast playing one different character from the next. But sadly, I can't re-watch this Film again because not only was this Film to long for my blood, but I couldn't understand a lot of this!
Rating: 3/4
Even though "Cloud Atlas" may run a bit to long (164 minutes) and even though the Film contains to many stories in it (which reminded me of Paul Thomas Anderson's 1999 hit Film "Magnolia"), I still enjoyed most of it because of the Film's strong attempt to actually tell a decent type of story ark. Along with all of the great performances by the large ensemble cast as well.
This Film consists of about six stories that span from different places in time (1849-2144). Which, again, reminded me of "Magnolia" because like "Magnolia" "Cloud Atlas" was a nearly three-hour Film ("Magnolia" actually WAS a three-hour Film) and both of those two film had a huge ensemble cast in them along with about so many different stories happening. While 1999's "Magnolia" featured Tom Cruise, Julianne Moore, John C. Riley William H. Macy, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jeremy Blackman, Jason Robards, and Phillip Baker Hall "Cloud Atlas" features Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Susan Sarandon, Keith David, Hugh Grant, and so many others. But unlike "Magnolia", through this whole Film ever actor associated with this Film plays a different character per story. It's like we Tom Hanks play a scientist in one story and then he plays a hotel manager in the next. That was by far the most interesting thing that they did in this Film.
Now I never read the 2004 Novel that this was based off of. So, I really didn't understand a lot of it. I just saw "Cloud Atlas" because of the fact that when it came out it polarized critics and audiences. After I finished watching this Film I kind of understand why. Perhaps because (I'm going to bring up "Magnolia" one last time) just like "Magnolia", was the fact that when that Film first came out in theaters in 1999 (actually, in 2000 for a wide release) it polarized audiences -- with some reported walkouts -- because of all of the story and plots being added into the Film along with some people complaining that the Film was to long (about 188 minutes). So I'm assuming audiences where complaining about the same exact thing and the fact that they where wondering a bit on why each of the actors later played different characters in the Film alone.
But in spite of my complains about this, the reason I think that this was a pretty decent Film was because even though I didn't really understand a majority of this Film, I could tell that it was AT LEAST trying to attempt to form some sort of (freaking huge) story ark to boggle the viewers head. And this Film succeeded in that. Not that it confused me or anything, but that the whole point of "Cloud Atlas" was to boggle and mess around with you to keep watching all the way through. The cast was also pretty good in this, giving good, strong performances (Heck, I wonder if they even understood this Film). Tom Hanks, Jim Broadbent, Halle Berry, Susan Sarandon, and everybody else where all pretty good in this. Giving deep, emotional performances to every single one of there various, new character in this Film (which I still think they probably did not get the Film themselves).
So, while "Cloud Atlas" ran a bit to long, with two much happening, I still thought it was a fairly enjoyable Film because of how the Film's strong attempt to bring a huge story ark (not at all meaning that in a bad way) and with some great performances by the Film's large cast playing one different character from the next. But sadly, I can't re-watch this Film again because not only was this Film to long for my blood, but I couldn't understand a lot of this!