Does anyone else here love the movie "Cloud Atlas" as much as I do?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

Just for the sake of background, Cloud Atlas was a 2012 movie (can't pigeonhole the genre) based on the 2004 David Mitchell novel of the same name. It's not as much one movie as it is six movies in one, with each story taking place in a different era with a different type of genre.

You have a historical period piece from 1849 about a sick lawyer on a ship in the Pacific with his doctor and a runaway slave, a romance set in 1936 about a young composer hired by another composer to write a symphony for him and his correspondences with his lover, a 1973 action thriller story about a journalist exposing corruption at a nuclear power plant, a 2012 comedy about a publicist who is unwittingly sent by his brother to live at a repressive old folks home and his comical attempts to escape, a 2144 Sci-Fi story about a cloned waitress in Korea who starts an uprising, and a story about a post-apocalyptic goat herder in Hawaii who goes on a journey with a woman from an off-earth colony and battles both cannibalistic tribesmen and--quite literally--his own inner demons.

The stories are not presented chronologically but rather interwoven between each other (it's not anywhere near as complicated as it sounds). There are connected themes and dialogues between the different stories, and it's revealed that each story plays an inspiration to the one that follows (just for example, Luisa Rey--the protagonist in the 1973 story--is reading the letters that Frobisher--the protagonist in the 1936 story--wrote to his lover, and Frobisher in turn had been reading the journal of Ewing, the protagonist of the 1849 story)

Even more unique to the movie is the fact that the same actors play different characters in the different respective stories. So you have Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugh Grant, Jim Broadbent and Hugo Weaving, amongst others, all playing multiple roles. Probably the only weakness of the entire film for me was Caucasian to Asian (and visa versa) character switches, which are a bit awkward and forced. However, some of the other makeup jobs are just phenomenal.

The movie more or less bombed when it came out in the fall of 2012. Reviews were mixed. However, from what I see, it's beginning to gain a strong cult following. The movie was made by the Wachowski siblings (of The Matrix fame) and by Tom Tykwer (who did Run Lola Run), who also wrote the movie's soundtrack.

I have to say, I've become rather obsessed over this movie as of late. I actually saw it on its opening weekend. I had never even heard of the book before. And I was immediately intrigued by it and it's epic feel. I was at first a little worried that even though it was an impressive movie, it might just be a bunch of pretentious nonsense (and people have attempted to reduce the movie to simply being about reincarnation or the connectivity between human beings). But after I read Roger Ebert's glowing review of the movie (which he wrote only a couple months before he died), I realized that it should be simply enjoyed as a beautiful, incredibly well-crafted movie and not to get so hung up on an ultimate message behind it.

For me, it has to be one of the most literally awe-some movies I have ever seen. It's been over a year since I first saw it, and I still can't help thinking about it on a daily basis and wanting to delve as much into the story as I can.

It's a bit of a love-it versus hate-it type of movie. Some people complained that the switching between stories was too confusing for their tastes, or that they had problems understanding the dialect in the post-apocalyptic portion of the movie. But just as many people seem to be as utterly intrigued and fascinated by the movie as I have been.

Hell, even the trailer for the movie is epic:

So has anyone else here seen it? Does anyone else here love it like I do? Hate it? Confused by it? I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on it.

[Xyzse]

1. I enjoyed it.

Took me a while since it was slow going.
I also had to adjust my attitude since I had to change my thinking in regards to the acting, telling myself that, that is how they were supposed to be.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

2. A lot of people have said they needed to watch it more than once to appreciate it.

And even I think I've benefited from multiple viewings of it.

As you say, you do have to get a little used to the pacing of the structure. When I saw it in theaters, I saw a few people walk out about 30-45 minutes in. But I think those who said really appreciated what they saw. To borrow the cliché, they laughed, they cried.

Also, even though it was nearly 3 hours long, it didn't feel long at all to me. Not once do I recall looking at my watch.

[Xyzse]

3. I had to watch it at an odd mood.

There are movies that I can not start or finish if I am not in the mood for it. I had to make sure I didn't have anything else to do at the time.

Was worth it though. Took me a while to figure things out.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

4. I almost watched it last night

I saw it listed on one of the satellite movie channels but then I saw that Tom Hanks was in it (I'm usually not a real big fan of his movies except maybe for Saving Private Ryan). I just looked it up on the imdb website and the movie receives a very good fan rating of 7.5 which is excellent for imdb. It sounds like a unique movie with interwoven storylines and the same actors playing various roles as you describe. On that basis alone, I'll be sure to watch it the next time I see it listed, if for nothing else than to see how such a challenging structure for a film succeeded so well with its fans.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

5. I think it's on Cinemax now. I was watching it last night.

It was on HBO. And it's been available on DVD for a while.

I liked Tom Hanks in it. He's a bit of a ham at times, but in the story where he's the main protagonist, he comes through as very heartfelt and earnest in his portrayal. Closed captioning might help for the uninitiated, though.

Whether you love it or hate it, it's worth seeing at least once.

[Trailrider1951]

6. This movie is now one of my all time favorites

I think it is brilliant, and absolutely epic. I did not see it when it was released to theaters, but someone sent me a link to the trailer and I remember thinking that it was a movie that would probably interest me, as I love both historical and sci-fi genres. I'll also recommend the second or third viewing along with the captioning. I use captioning anyway, because I'm hearing impaired. I give it 5 stars out of 5. YMMV.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

7. It really does epitomize the epic movie.

Which is why, despite the six different stories, I didn't find it at all confusing to follow. Especially given that the six stories were all set at different times and fall into their own distinct genre.

In fact I found it less confusing than other epic style movies with multiple characters because of this fact.

[femmocrat]

8. I recently saw it on HBO.

I liked it a lot, but I would like to see it again. One viewing isn't enough to understand all the complexities. I had to read about it in wikipedia to decipher some of it.
Yes... it is one of those movies that you keep thinking about.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

9. Definitely watch it again.

It can only grow on you.

[LissaMac]

10. I love the Wachowski Siblings!

I thought Cloud Atlas was great. I have to say, in my opinion, The Matrix is their best and still one of my all time favorite movies.

[NRaleighLiberal]

11. we tried - didn't work for us...but we don't care for The Matrix either.

Just not our type of movie...more of "Lost in Translation" or "Remains of the Day" or "Babel" types, we are.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

13. Well, at least you tried.

I'm not going to knock anyone for not liking it. Taste in movies, like taste in music, is subjective. At least for the most part. If someone came in claiming "Grown Ups 2" was the best movie ever and a life-changing experience, then I would question their judgment.

And for the record, I was "meh" on The Matrix. Only saw it once, didn't really do much for me. Never bothered with the sequels. The 2144 storyline in Cloud Atlas definitely gives off a Matrix-like vibe, but the movie as a whole is a lot more diverse.

[NRaleighLiberal]

15. I will probably try it again - I need to be in a particular mood for that sort of movie

yes, the thing I love about the arts is that it is all up to individual reactions and tastes!

I actually really liked Tree of Life the first time I saw it. Went back to rewatch it and couldn't get through it.....interesting.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

16. Tree of Life....

I found it visually stunning. But that's Terrence Malick for you.

My problem was that as stunning as it was visually, it was hard to carry a full length movie without some semblance of a story. Other Malick works--The New World, The Thin Red Line--worked better for me just because there's something more going on than just a series of visuals.

[NRaleighLiberal]

17. Yes - and the whispering bothered me (esp the second time). Thin Red Line is one of

my favorite movies - everything worked in that film - juxtapositions, music, themes. Tree of Life aimed high - the first time through I actually found myself in the "world" he tried to create and it made sense to me....second time through it came across as a bit ponderous and even pompous.

of course, we are now zooming through Breaking Bad - just about to end Season 3 - talk about something completely different!

[orleans]

12. "Does anyone else here love the movie "Cloud Atlas" as much as I do?" answer: no. n/t

[edhopper]

14. I liked it a lot

But my enjoyment was about each story, I thought they were all engaging. The larger metaphysical issues the seemed to be alluding to were either half baked or too simplistic for me. But as a movie looking at the recent past and future of mankind, with characters and stories that hold you, it was very good. And I liked all the actors, Jim Broadbent in particular.
Read the bits about it on IMBD, some interesting stuff. i.e. Natale Portman gave the book to the Wachowskis and was supposed to be in the roles that the Korean actress took, but she became pregnant and had to pass it up.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

18. Apparently Ian McKellan and James McAvoy were also considered for roles.

Perhaps McKellan was slated for the Broadbent roles and McAvoy was intended for either the Ben Winshaw or Jim Sturgess characters.

I think it's tempting to want to overthink the movie in terms of its metaphysical issues and assign a specific meaning to it. It's better just to leave the ultimate issue somewhat a mystery, understand that there are connections between the stories, and enjoy the movie for art's sake.

Loved Broadbent's 2012 character. Watching the movie in theaters, it was really interesting to see people in the audience laughing hard at the 2012 story, and then it would switch to one of the darker stories and those same people would be on the verge of tears. It did play with your emotions a lot like that. But it felt organic to me, not forced.

My favorite actor of the bunch had to be Hugo Weaving, who was pretty much the bad guy in every role he played. He has wonderful gravely type voice that delivered a monologue towards the end of the 1849 story perfectly. But his best character hands down was in the post-apocalyptic story. Without spoiling too much for people who haven't seen it, I'll only say that there's no other character in the entire movie like it.

[rrneck]

19. I listened to the audiobook and liked it so much I bought the DVD.

It comes as close to a sense of transcendence as any movie I have seen. Even though there are big name actors in it they do not dominate the movie. In fact, the characters themselves don't dominate the content of the film. Most movies are basically a study in how a particular person deals with a situation. Cloud Atlas gets beyond parochial issues of personality.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

20. I know I'll have to read the book eventually.

I've been holding off on it just because I'm afraid either:

a) The book is vastly superior to the movie and it ruins my enthusiasm for the movie

or

b) The book is inferior to the movie and spoils my opinion of the movie as well

However, from what I've heard, most fans of the book were fans of the movie. Including David Mitchell himself.

[rrneck]

21. In a way the audiobook was better because I could understand what Zachary said.

The guy that read it did a much better job than Tom Hanks. I couldn't understand a word Hanks said.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

22. I would watch it again. I am not sure it was edited in the best way as to present the truth of it

all.

It was kind of a messy, beautiful chaotic film that was kind of about chaos but, lost some in the storytelling for being chaotic for the sake of being chaotic.

That is my first thought about it all.

I need to see it again and probably need to read the book.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

23. Once you rewatch it, the transitions make a lot more sense.

For example, in the post-apocalyptic story, Zachry (Tom Hanks) agrees to take Meryonym (Halle Berry) up the mountain if she agrees to heal his sick niece, and tells her, "I will lead you through the devil's gate."

And just after he says that, the movie shifts to the 2012 story, and you see a shot of Cavendish (Jim Broadbent) literally driving through the gates of Aurora House (which he believes is a hotel but is actually an old folks home where his brother has enrolled him against his will as an act of revenge).

There are so many of those transitions that are well done like that.

IIRC, the book doesn't have as many transitions. Instead, it presents the first half of the 1849, 1936, 1973, present day, and 2144 stories, then it presents the post-apocalyptic tale in its entirety, and then it presents the second half of the other stories in reverse order.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

24. It has been several months since I watched it. I just remember that my first

reaction was one of: Damn! This movie missed it by "just" this much. A really good film that could have been a Great Film.

Irritating to me because I wanted to "fix" it but, I didn't know how/where/why.

Films that "just" missed the mark are more aggravating to me than a true "B" or "C" movie.

Could be that I just need to see this one again and really it is a Great Film, I just did not receive it correctly.

However, there again, isn't a truly great film one that exposes the truth in the first sitting ...

It works for me though because for me to even say that I would watch it again is high praise from me because I rarely say that about a film.

Sounds like I need to read this book.

Thanks.

[HappyMe]

25. We had to watch it twice.

The first time we were kind of . I did like it a lot.

[sinkingfeeling]

26. I think my son saw it about a dozen times.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

28. It's really interesting how some movies click with some viewers on the deepest emotional level....

...and other viewers are just left scratching their heads and unaffected by it all.

And by the way, I'm not saying that either is the "right" reaction. It's entirely subjective, like a Rorschach test.

If someone didn't get much out of Cloud Atlas or was left confused or unimpressed by it, I'm perfectly cool by that. But it's just fascinating that those who do like it really seem to like it, enthusiastically so. And I have to count myself in that crowd, for reasons I can't fully explain.

[riderinthestorm]

27. Saw it. Still in a wtf mode about it. Didn't hate it just didn't grab me

Im thinking its like Napoleon Dynamite for me, one of those quirky films I liked a lot the second time around

[Xipe Totec]

29. No. Pretentious and overbearing.

The premise held such promise.