8.5/10
The fact that a film like Cloud Atlas exists, due to its high budget, unorthodox structure, and non-consumer-friendly pitch is a tremendous achievement. That the movie actually works is nothing short of a cinematic miracle.
That’s not to say that the film doesn’t have its flaws, some rooting all the way to the source material itself… but ultimately the good outweighs the “meh”, and we’re left with a movie that will be hotly debated, and I believe highly revered, for quite a long time.
To share too much of the story specifics would be a disservice to the film; it plays like six miniature films that all have a definitive three act structure and compelling characters. They overlap one another and jump around with a rabid glee that make “Magnolia” look like “The Straight Story.”
The principle actors inhabit different roles in each “when”, all ranging greatly in their intent and moral code. The makeup and prosthetics are utilized pretty liberally, sometimes making the character look near inhuman, but you get the gist of it. (In fact, everyone should stay and watch the credits, when they show every role played by each actor. You think you see them as they show up, but oftentimes a major star will have a singular line or role that passes in the blink of an eye. I missed a couple afterwards and was absolutely blown away.)
But while the actors have a lot of fun with their various roles, this feels like a truly singular vision from three talented directors. Tonally the film remains consistent across space and time, the narrative unraveling with such grace and verve that I was absolutely floored. It’s not just eye candy, although the look is absolutely stunning and poignant. I wouldn’t even consider it brain candy either… people may say it’s tough to watch, but I felt perfectly comfortable watching the film, letting the story sort of flow over me.
If I had to claim it as any type of candy, I’d say it’s that of the heart. It totally appeals to the most humanist sensibilities in us and I think that’s one of the reasons the film could even have some mainstream legs upon release.
Now I’ve already said it isn’t perfect. Structurally there are points where the film suffers just because of the ambitious scope. We are forced to abandon certain stories for either too short or too long before we revisit them, creating an unsettling effect. There are also some strange performance choices…
I’ll first offer effusive praise for Halle Berry. I’m not a fan of hers, but she was likable and believable in each of her segments, and may have been the strongest performer in the film. Hanks, on the contrary, is either brilliant or almost hysterically bad. Fortunately for us, the “bad” performances are typically the more cameo-like ones in stories that don’t feature his role prominently. On the other hand, the far future segment (in which he employs a language that is hardly English anymore) he does some of his finest work I’ve seen. Weaving is fantastic in two of the segments, especially the one where he plays Hanks’ inner demon, but in others he feels like he’s chewing scenery.
But ultimately the cast does a serviceable job overall and the film does feel like a complete sentence, albeit one that had lots and lots of commas and ellipses. I don’t expect this film to get much award recognition; the structure doesn’t really cater to that, and it will split critics right down the middle (maybe for good reason), but I think it will continue to be looked at as an overall win for everyone involved.
I look forward to watching it again.