Film Perfection

Best movie of this year hands down!

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

This movie was, for me, doomed by one thing and on thing only: the editing. I HATED HOW THIS MOVIE WAS EDITED. At first, you'd get introductions for each story. Those intros are merely glimpses of each stories. After the glimpses, we'd jump back and forth from the 1800s to the 1930s, 70s, present day, the "high-tech" future and the apocalyptic future. This choice of editing bothered me throughout the entire film. I was unable to identify and connect with the characters. Also, because of the editing, I didn't spot the connections between the stories. I only noticed them after reading the film's plot on Wikipedia.NOTE: After reading "Cloud Atlas'" Wikipedia article, I actually thought the movie had a strong plot (hence, I gave it half a star). If I reviewed this film and not read the Wikipedia article, I'd give the movie 0 stars if I could. P.S. I'm not really sure if the 3 "past sequences" take place in the 1800s, 1930s or 1970s. I can't remember. ALSO, I'm new here. I don't know if I could actually give 0 stars.

A number of interwoven stories that work synergistically so that the the overall appreciation of this film is somehow greater than the simple addition of the individual parts. It put me in mind of Crash but with the added dimension of time.

This film is nearly three hours long. It bounces back and forth between half a dozen different milieus in as many different plots. And, those are back and forth between past and future generations. The milieu are Hawaii, London, San Francisco, Seoul, the high seas, a place on another plant in our galaxy, and various other places around the globe at different times. If it sounds confusing, well, that's because it is. I doubt that anyone who sat in a theater and saw this film when it came out, immediately afterwards could write down the different scenarios, varying periods of time for each, and who the main characters were of each plot. My guess is that few people could even list half of the plots, characters and time frames. As for messages, this is a very hodgepodge of mores and morals covering family, creativity, sexuality, freedom, oppression, love, a type of pagan faith, and more. Numerous social issues are included in the movie. Among them are murder and mayhem, corruption and killing, stealing and betrayal, lying and cheating, fantasy and sci-fi, oppression and revolution, slavery and racism, tyranny and torture, fame and fortune, pride and power, music and creativity, superstition and mythology.Seven actors appear as six different characters in the various scenarios and time periods. They include Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugh Grant and Jim Broadbent. Another dozen actors have three to five roles. Several more have two roles. Perhaps the filmmakers were trying to set a record for a film with multiple roles. They probably succeeded in that.My guess is that the high rating many people give this film is solely for its entertainment in the plethora of scenes, settings, period costumes, and makeup. That and some imaginative camera work and lots of special effects. If those things are one's idea of entertainment, then "Cloud Atlas" is a winner. But it wasn't a smash hit at the box office. I prefer good stories that I can relate to someone after seeing a movie, with specifics. No one without a photographic memory would be able to do so after watching this film. The various film genres in this movie are mind numbing. There's no comedy, sports or Western, but it has about everything else. Drama, mystery, murder, action, war, sci-fi, horror, fantasy, romance - all are here in "Cloud Atlas." Outside of the music, which received widespread praise, reviews of the film varied. It received a standing ovation for its premier at the Toronto Film Festival, but it wasn't otherwise widely lauded. The movie finally topped its $128.5-million budget with worldwide release that netted a total box office of $130.5 million. The movie was based on a 2004 novel by English author David Mitchell. Mitchell said that he doubted a movie could be made of his book. Well, a movie was made. But my guess is that readers of the book would have far more recall and memory about the stories. After all, who could expect an audience to remember much of a 500-page book, with multiple plots, time frames and characters, crammed into a movie of just under three hours?

This is a beautiful and thought-provoking film. It is confusing. It requires at least two viewings in order to get things straight.I wonder if it would be just as good if the six stories were presented in strict chronological order.