This movie is perfection. If any movie ever received a 10 out of 10, it's this one.
But, I honestly don't understand why people were having trouble making sense of it? If you simply don't like it, fine. But to not "get" it? Really?
Well, I thought I had more to say about this, but all I can say is... Really?
If I had seen it in the theaters, I probably would have hated it. Fortunately, I saw it at home on DVD and about 20 minutes in, I decided to put on the English subtitles. Sometimes I'll do that if dialogue is hard to understand or spoken too quickly. And there is no WAY I would have understood all that was being said during the Zachary, Big Island Hawaii scenes with all the weird terminology and dialects being used, and I would have been totally lost. I think that's where a lot of the difficulty is coming from that people are having with the film.
HARUMPH!share
Well, that is a good point. I have found that most or at least many lines of the film are connected in a way that is not typical in film and ironically, I always use subtitles so I may have had a slight upper hand for this reason, along with the strange language used in the Big Island scenes.
I still don't understand why in one viewing, so many didn't like it... I loved it in theatres, but granted I had an idea of the film's plot before going in. I didn't make most connections in my initial viewing, but I knew the gist of the film, and from that I loved it, and in subsequent viewings I've only become more infatuated and more impressed as I make more and more connections with each viewing. (I'm up to at least 5 viewings now haha, however I'm a weirdo in that I like to watch my favorite movies over and over again anyway..)
Thanks for the reply, you have a great point!
The problem for many people is there is way to may stories wowen into one movie.
In one scene we laugh our butts off at a few elders escaping the home while there caretakers follow them. Next there getting a beating from the local fotball fans. Hillarious for sure. But cutting this to a serious scene where people are getting murdered and killed doesen't work. Same type of cutting from one mood to another happens all the time in CA. In fact it feels like 7 movies in 1. So take your favorite 7 movies with similar themes and cut them up into a mishmash and volia.. You have just made CA 2 ...
Works for some but i fully understand why many hated this editing. I score it 5 based on its art and and production value. As a movie alone with story in mind i would rate it at 2-3. Its all over the place.
---------------------------------
* My God!.. Its Full of Stars! *
I disagree entirely. Contrasting a comedic scene with a much darker scene enhances both the comedy of the one scene and the drama of the other. I've been both an editor and a writer and the juxtaposition of scenes that oppose each other in mood is a staple of good editing and writing.
"I don't reckon I got no reason to kill nobody."
So you would find it "a staple of good editing and writing." if i showed you a scene from Shindler's List and edited this together with the scene where moty python are nailed to a cross singing "always look on the bright side of life"?
It would leave a foul taste in my moth. You don't joke about 6 million people beeing murded. CA jumps from to people eating eachother both as canibals and as soap to comedy in the same way i described Shindler's List and Mony Python.
Thats why CA fails in my opinion. Some stories are intresting and dramtic. Some pure comedy. And some really futuristic. And then some truly gruesome and violent. I love both candy and Steak. But i eat them separatly couse they don't mix. Just like the 7 stories in CA could have all been great on there own they make a poor mix in the same stew..
---------------------------------
* My God!.. Its Full of Stars! *
Please don't take absurdly contrasted texts and use them to try and win an argument I'm not having. Cloud Atlas is fiction, and is in no way presented as seriously as the true story Schindler's List.
Look, I'm just telling you that I disagree with your point. I'm sorry if that upsets you but we live in a world where opinions are permitted to exist in conflict. I'm not about to start an argument on the matter - mainly because I'm usually accused of 'intellectual bullying' when I argue with people on the Internet.
Let's just agree to disagree, shall we?
"I don't reckon I got no reason to kill nobody."
Just take Dr. Strangelove.
In my view, it is the fact that Kubrick (via Peter Sellers) makes you laugh, and then have you choke on that laugh that makes it´s greatness. Life is at the same time horrible and funny. True art should never shy away from that fact.
On the other hand, I didn´t find the Cavendish plot particularily funny, and think it´s the weaker part of this movie. The central theme throughout the movie (greed) could have been high lighted in a better way in the contemporary segment, I think.
I think the Cavendish story was there to show that every person's story is significant, and that even in seemingly innocuous and unassuming people's lives great stories and meaning can be found.
the fact that story became a movie in a dystopian society across the world hundreds of years in the future is perhaps one of the only bits of the movie that didn't sit well with me, because it seemed too far fetched. but from a narrative point of view, I suppose it also served to show how we dress things up and take the narrative value of stories to inspire and reinforce our own.
I saw this film in the theater first. I too had trouble with the true-true speak of beyond the fall and was a glad when it was finally released on disc so I could watch it with subtitles. But I still understood those scenes for the most part, I just didn't get all of the dialog. That didn't break the film for me.
The editing in this film is brilliant. To take these 4 main stories and weave them together like this was a tremendous undertaking and was done so well, it should have one an Oscar.
I agree that the scenes were chosen well. The flows from one timeline and situation to another were meaningful and impactful, quite moving. I loved how in many edits, the dialog audio from the previous scene would continue into the next scene where they related strongly enough.
Be sure to proof your posts to see if you any words out
I totally understand that. Nice that you are a writer, and an editor. I painfully think that audiences, especially American ones (now I am gonna get in trouble), want very simplistic stories.
As for me, it is because it was so entangled that despite the long movie, I could not move away from it!
Totally Agree!
shareYep, loved it from the get-go.
I think that a big problem that some may have had with the film is that they wanted the stories to have a more concrete connection. While the stories do have some literal connections, they are more connected through theme, and I think a lot of people watching may have felt they were just watching 6 separate stories.
And I think there were probably also a lot of people that 100% 'got it' but that just didn't dig it. I think you need a certain personality and a certain love for the optimistic/sappy/emotional part of the film to really love it.
While the stories do have some literal connections, they are more connected through theme, and I think a lot of people watching may have felt they were just watching 6 separate stories.
Truth, faith, power, corruption, death, prejudice, change, etc.
Every story deals with people searching for the truth, dealing with 'the strong preying on the weak,' standing up against that prejudice and oppression, and the lasting ripple effects that those people can have, as well as the influence and power of media.
It was a very safe film. It didn't really take any risks, or spend too much time on each story. Having read the book, I noticed a lot of elements were simply cut due to the film's lightning-fast pace, a lot of riskier, more interesting story threads. Sonmi's story in particular was butchered almost unrecognizably, and my favorite part of the entire story was cut, as well as interesting scenes in Luisa's story, and in all the others. Yes, they had to, but as a result each story felt much more lifeless than the book with so many nuances and intricacies removed. If there is a longer director's cut or something, I'd love to see it.
shareIt was a very safe film. It didn't really take any risks, or spend too much time on each story. Having read the book, I noticed a lot of elements were simply cut due to the film's lightning-fast pace, a lot of riskier, more interesting story threads. Sonmi's story in particular was butchered almost unrecognizably, and my favorite part of the entire story was cut, as well as interesting scenes in Luisa's story, and in all the others. Yes, they had to, but as a result each story felt much more lifeless than the book with so many nuances and intricacies removed. If there is a longer director's cut or something, I'd love to see it.
I've read the book and seen the film so I know what you mean. For me, I think that Luisa's, Robert's and Sonmi's stories were better in the book.
I do think a longer cut of the movie would be truly mind-blowing. Apparently, a four cut of the film exists, it just hasn't been released yet. The sad thing is, I doubt it ever will be... I only hope that one day I somehow get to see it.
No intermission is a problem. I watched this twice on dvd so far and loved it, with my own intermissions inserted of course.
The first time i saw it was a bit confusing. Only on the second serious viewing was it a masterpiece. The actors did such a great work of art. Tom hanks and the beach teeth scene.. Then how he was poisoning the rich guy to get his gold... apparently back in the day people never questioned doctors lol. Even to this day if youre healthy, you best stay away from them. Because illness is doctors job. The longer you are sick the more they get paid. Drink more pills to get more diseases.
The increase in human knowledge is the cause of the decline of religions.
Were you king Tut's mom for real or is that just a bunch of BS?
10s are personal favorites IMO. Its hard to dignify a perfect score. 8 was really generous from me. If I could I'd give it like a 7.6, which is a pretty good movie.
You've also got to consider the pretty strong liberal bias this film is littered with, coming from a left leaning guy, the who anti-democracy and corporation thing shined through heavy, and a lot of people still hate gays. Plus it asks you to sit through nearly 3 hours of it.
I don't get why some of the same actors were "bad guys" too, mostly they were like the same good people over and over if you look at the scenes.
In general most people have trouble thinking hard this much for three hours.
I like the movie and get the messages.
Ultimately in the end we are watching a Halle Berry / Tom Hanks version of Ground Hog Day.
Given enough iterations and the right choices Love eventually finds us all.
[deleted]