A multi-time, multi-dimensional, multi-star movie with very few clouds and no atlas

Cloud Atlas
Directed and Screenplay by Tom Tykwer, Andy Wachowski, and Lana Wachowski
Based on the novel by David Mitchell
Starring: Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Doona Bae, Ben Whishaw, Keith David, James D’Arcy, Xun Zhou, David Gyasi, Susan Sarandon, and Hugh Grant
172 minutes

Long movie, short review.

Cloud Atlas is a seemingly complex movie with an ultimately simple message: everyone is connected. If I say it’s a philosophical discussion of what connection means, don’t picture boring old philosophy text books. Rather, this movie is six separate, interwoven stories that only slowly show us connections between them. But each of those movies is an interesting story set in a different time.

I heard several people saying it took them a little while to get into the film, to finally get a feel for what was going on. I didn’t have any such problem; I suspect a better grounding in speculative fiction makes this movie easier on the viewer, but for non-sf folk, it may be a complex story that takes a lot of effort to view. Each of the main actors playing multiple roles certainly doesn’t help ease that difficulty (though it will probably make the film a shoe-in for the Best Makeup Oscar next year).

My biggest problem with the film (other than its length: make sure you’re in a comfortable theatre) is the sound of the dialogue. There are many accents and dialects, which the unsophisticated ear may have trouble hearing through. But beyond that, the sound levels aren’t quite right, meaning a lot of the dialogue is hard to understand. I struggled at first, but eventually decided to sit back and accept the movie for what it was. Rather than looking trying to focus on the individual words I couldn’t make out, I tried to take in the entire gestalt of the film as a whole, and it worked. Don’t get bogged down in the word or line you didn’t quite hear: you’ll get the meaning from context. Along that same line, marvel at the makeup and costuming to make a few actors look like many, but don’t struggle too hard to connect the various avatars of each actor; you’ll get there in the end. And the first closing credits are there to show you just who was who.

The six different time frames—1840s, 1930s, 1970s, present day, one hundred years from now, and an indeterminate time after that—are gorgeously filmed, each presenting a different story (but, fair warning: the segments you see may not appear in chronological order) (think Big Fish). And the true sf aficionado will see several references or borrowings from other movies (the most I caught are in future Seoul, a century from now): they’re fun, but again, don’t get bogged down in them (not even The Matrix echoes: thanks, Wachowskis).

This is a movie that can be viewed simply, as you’re watching it. But you’ll probably want to think about it and discuss it after you’ve seen it. It’s not a relaxing popcorn-for-the-mind Saturday matinee, but it’s well worth the effort.

[Edited much later in the day:] After further discussing the movie, and reading several other reviews, it occurs to me that I made no mention of the fact that the multiple characters each actor plays are, in some cases, supposed to be a representation of their reincarnations, that the soul continues through the different lives, meaning they’re connected through time with each other. I didn’t discuss that aspect for a couple of reasons: first is that it’s not completely obvious while watching the movie. Sure, such an argument can be made for some versions of some of the actors’ characters, but it’s just as clear that other characters are in no way reincarnations of previous or later entities. The second reason is that I didn’t feel any potential reincarnation aspects added anything to the story (well, stories). It just isn’t worth the viewer’s effort. For the same reason, the birthmark shared by several characters seems like an idea the film-makers had that they simply ran out of time to use. It appears, in various places, on a few of the characters, but it’s equally lacking on others, making it a hit-and-miss artifact of the film that didn’t seem to add anything to the story. But you be the judge. Let me know if I’m wrong, if you’ve got a different opinion, or if you agree with me. Comments encouraged!