Cloud Atlas (Wachowski's film)
 

An exploration of how the actions of individual lives impact one another in the past, present and future, as one soul is shaped from a killer into a hero, and an act of kindness ripples across centuries to inspire a revolution.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hWnAqFyaQ5s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Holy shit, this blew my mind.

I don't really know what's going on there. But I'll probably check it out.

Neat

I'm not gonna lie, that looks pretty incredible.

The book is one of my favourites ever. It is a tremendous read, I would encourage everyone to check it out immediately (it can be difficult at the start but it is very much worth sticking with), I'm not sure how it will be translated onto the screen due to its structure. When I heard about a film being planned I envisaged Terence Malick being the perfect director for it, as the book carries the same sort of tone in novel form as his films do. He wouldn't be afraid of giving the story the time it deserves and to have the narrative play out through introspection, as it tends to in the novel.

I'm not a fan of the Wachowskis at all but I'll still watch out of interest.

Yeah I have to second ECGs recommendation of the book, I think it's the best book written in the last 15 years or so. I'm curious if they'll preserve the Matryoshka doll structure of the book. Another thing that will be lost in the film adaptation is the homage to literary styles. I also agree that I would have liked a director with more of an "art house sensibility" like a Malick or even Cuaron or Kar Wai Wong. I liked Tykwer's Run Lola Run though. :-\

Going to try and score tickets for this at Tiff as it still looks pretty good.

I didn't like Run Lola Run at all, although it may have suffered in the watching for me because it was so hyped up that when I came to watch it, it probably couldn't live up to the expectations.

Ok I will go get this book ASAP then.

Movie of the year and one of the best movies in years. I actually plan to get the book now since I loved it so much.

seems boring

Looks like one of those movies that is 3 hours long goes all over the place, and will probably get an Oscar. Looks like pretentious nonsense.

It wasn't boring at all. Didn't feel like 3 hours to be honest. It deserves an oscar for sure.

Was it better than Argo?

Loved the book. Dunno about making a movie out of it though.

Yeah I have heard of this. Sounds interesting to me from a spiritual point of view. Not sure if it 'goes there' or not.

Didn't see it.

But this is one of my favorite quotes from the movie/book

"My life amounts to no more than one drop in a limitless ocean. Yet what is any ocean, but a multitude of drops?”

In regards to the book, the thread linking the stories is essentially a single soul spanning the ages, which is about as spiritual as it gets. More overt in the story is the theme of humans who seek to feed off other humans. If the film is true to the book, then I cannot see many right-wing/conservative/capitalists being a huge fan. It's an indictment of colonialism, unfettered capitalism, homogenisation of culture and the rapaciousness of dominant human culture told through some very interesting personal stories. I cannot recommend enough that you read the book. The film looks like it might be unsatisfactory, I don't like the team behind it and the fact they have used the same actors for multiple characters is also problematic. I'll still probably watch though.

Yeah what ECG said. He's so smart.

Send me the book

I'll drop it over if I'm round your way next year.

It's 9 bucks on amazon, just buy the book.

Do you have a Kindle? I can send it to you

One of the touches I like about the book, is that the author is very liberal about using the vernacular of each time period, to the point where it would normally be a pretty difficult read. I read countless words and phrases for the first time, but the context he uses the language in, is such that you immediately understand what he's saying.

NO

BUY ME A KINDLE

I saw this last night and while I'm a huge fan of the book I lowered my expectations because of the tepid reviews.

I was surprised how well the script was reassembled while remaining faithful to the book, so my issues with the movie were not on the page but within the frame. The biggest mistake was obviously the reuse of actors in different roles, such a terrible decision. I felt embarrassed every time there were black actors doing white-face, white actors doing yellowface, black Asian faces, men in drag, Asians as freckled white women, Asian Jim Sturges looking like Keanu Reeves... if Tom Hanks would have shown up as a child I would have killed myself. Not only was it hackey and distracting but it also fractured the film tonally as some stories felt corny, cartoonish and cheap sci-fi. While other stories where the dress up wasn't as noticeable were appropriately dark and at times moving. This decision was also accountable for new-agey/reincarnation themes that were not present in the book. I don't know if this was the intent but I saw the movie with my family and my dad thought that each character was supposed to be the reincarnation of characters from other stories, dumb. Part of me thinks that the reason they did this was so the audience could relate to the characters more... but the principal cast of characters was no more expansive than movies like Magnolia, Nashville and Short Cuts.

I'll give the filmmakers credit for creating really well done and thrilling action sequences. Some of the cross-cutting was really inspired. And there were generally moving/lyrical sequences that did the book justice. Maybe I'm being too forgiving but I found the movie too original and ambitious to truly hate, it's frustrating, inconsistent but I would give it a 6/10.

umm im pretty sure the reincarnation theme was present in the book... I mean the whole people sharing the same soul in different ages is reincarnation

I guess, but it's very elusive, from what I can remember there isn't much beyond the clue of the comet shaped birthmark. Where as in the movie it's explicit to the point of Hugo Weaving showing up as the villain over and over again.

It's never outright stated, but the idea is there for you to make your own conclusions.

Timothy Cavendish mentions it when he is talking about the Luisa Ray story, although given the relativeages I think Cavendish and Luisa Rey would actually have been alive at the same time. There's also Luisa Rey finding the Cloud Atlas music familiar. Anyway, it still doesn't mean that they should have used the same actors for different roles, there's no suggestion of that in the book and it's a ludicrous device to employ in the film. I'm hoping they didn't make Old Georgie a literal person either.

Hugo Weaving is listed as Old Georgie on IMDB.

Which is kind of dumb to have the Nurse Noakes/ Bill Smoke etc. character play Old Georgie, because I was under the impression that he doesn't even actually exist, let alone that he was another reincarnation.

Unless I just wasn't taking the book literally enough, I thought Zachry's conversations with him were just metaphors for the inner struggles we all face. Like when people are tempted by something, and say the devil talked them into doing it.

No you're right, Old Georgie was not supposed to be real. I noticed that on the imdb cast list ages ago and it concerned me about the film, alongside the multiple casting. I don't know why the comet could not be used in the same way as it is in the books. Some of these characters in the different stories don't even correspond to each other in any way.

Even though he's a visible character in the movie, he appears as a hallucination to him and is shown whispering in his ear just like you said. Planting evil thoughts into his brain, etc. It was clear he wasn't an actual person in the movie.

The only part about the make up I didn't like was the Cavendish story. His brother, the nurse, and... someone else I can't remember all had ridiculous make-up on and their faces looked atrocious. As far as pigment changing make-up, white to black to asain etc, that never really bothered me and it wasn't too off-putting imo. (Maybe it's because I'm so intellectually advanced that I never see race. Or gender. Or even humans. What do you think about that? Oh, you're a human being? I didn't even notice. To me you're just an agglomeration of cells that happens to create noise.)

I'm going to have to read the book now to see what all the hubbub is about. Having the same actors to show the connected souls in each story worked fine for me but maybe there's something more to it than that in the book.

I'd like to see it again too because there's a lot to process once the movie is over. Left me a little whoozy after.

Well,

Maybe I'm just not familiar enough with his work to judge, but I wouldn't think Jim Broadbent would be a good pick for Timothy Cavendish. He's always this cheerful and delightful old man in everything I've seen him in. Feel like Cavendish needs a more rugged, crotchety actor.

Because the whole point of the story is the speech of Sonmi-451. Basically saying our lives are not our own and how we travel together. It would be inferred that the same people are around the person with the birthmark in each incarnation. The directors just made it so that each 'soul' got to be the character with the birthmark, thus giving each main character a chance to be the incarnation that makes the difference in the world which I'm not sure was not the actual story of the book but it wasnt clearly spelled out.

And yes mitch, your dad was right

Are you specifically talking about the film? There's nothing in the book to my mind to suggest what you are saying. I don't really appreciate that kind of re-interpretation either.

Loved the movie, will get the hardcover book when it is released.