There are reviews which tell you the story line so I won't bother to do that again. It is a mammoth undertaking to watch as the film meanders through time with six stories connected, not because the same cast are in each story, but by the purpose of the film which I didn't get until about the last 30 minutes (not having read the book or the synopsis). Halle Berry says it all about then "Why are we continually making the same mistakes?". It's about people speaking out for their beliefs, fighting against oppression etc. pretty much what is going on now. It has a strong message and suggests it won't be resolved for the next few centuries.
Much like other reviewers I didn't like the film. I was able to follow the 6 stories but only because I had just read the book, my wife, who hasn't read it gave up after an hour or so. The issue is mainly the editing: trying to lead the 6 stories in parallel, at the same time just doesn't work. It was nice at times to be able to make connections between them but the end result is a mishmash.
Whilst I thought the acting was good, the idea of using the same actors for different parts in different stories makes it even more difficult to follow.
Although this is a very long film, the directors made the choice to cut an awful lot of good elements of the book and for what? replacing them with pointless action scenes. The stories that suffer most from this process are that of Sonmi and Robert Frobisher, missing out some crucial pointers.
When reading the book, I thought the mise en abyme didn't work that well, particularly with the outermost stories because I found it hard to remember the characters and where the action had stopped. However it was still better than having a soap-opera style structure jumping from story to story randomly.
At best he result can be described as salami slicing.
You should know the deal with Cloud Atlas (CA)'s premise, so I won't repeat it.
You should also know, then, how ambitious a task it is to translate CA to the screen. It is one I believe the Wachowskis were overall very successful in undertaking:
GREAT THINGS ABOUT CA
First, the film's ambition and scope is something to praise by itself. CA darts between history, place, genre, mood. All six stories are gripping, and there's a breadth of emotion, a diversity to the cast of characters, and an accomplished effort at building up these six worlds visually that makes for stimulating viewing.
As to how these storylines are tied together, the film tells all six side-by-side, darting rapid-fire between scenes from each. This is in contrast to the novel, in which readers are given stories one half at a time. Some reviewers here feel this "scene-slicing" aspect is confusing. I personally found it an enormous improvement on the book, creating a more vivid sense of the work's themes of connectedness between human lives - scenes link into one another in creative ways, one always ending with a line of dialogue or event that is somehow echoed in the start of the next.
With that, I found the film also improved greatly on the novel by streamlining its stories - the novel is filled with unnecessary fluff and side characters who are largely excised here. Sonmi 451's story was particularly enhanced in the elimination of the novel's irritating twist ending.
Similarly, there are numerous plots which frankly just function better on screen. The Sonmi 451 and Luisa Rey stories for example fall into the action/thriller genres, and benefit from the tension and excitement of action sequences that cannot be accomplished in the meagre 80 pages the novel gives them.
LESS GOOD THINGS
Thematically, the film examines how our lives connect with and depend on one another's, the profound ability we have to shape each other's fates, and the recurrence of forms of oppression and the struggle against them throughout history, from white supremacist anti-black chattel slavery to a future slave class of clones owned by a fast food mega-corporation.
The idea of our lives being interconnected is not the most insightful or original statement. However, it is admittedly a powerful one. It makes for an almost bittersweet observation on the human condition: our interdependencies can be a source of love and hope, or taken advantage of in betrayal or deceit. CA lays bare the complexities and inconsistencies of human nature in a way that leaves me, for one, wondering about our lot.
The film is less successful in its political statements on struggles against oppression. The novel's ambiguous ending is replaced with a somewhat trite, platitudeness, more optimistic statement that just says how "we" can take action and there's hope we might win. Bit generic and feel-good for my tastes.
Similarly, the film can be critiqued on its treatment of race. CA uses yellow-face to allow non-Asian actors to play Korean characters in the neo-Seoul plot, for which it was widely criticised on release. Similarly, the film falls into a white saviour arc in the Adam Ewing plot, Ewing befriending a stowaway slave escapee on his ship and then joining the abolitionist movement. This is sort of answered in the final story, where white settlers on Hawaii are rescued by the all-black "Prescient" saviours, but it's up for debate how successful this "post-racial" film-making approach is.
A final nitpick is that CA, while generally successful in structuring the six stories, has a weak opening. Just seeing the set-up to each story in the first 20 minutes of the film makes for an awkward start.
In all, though, CA is an exciting, intriguing, and thought-provoking work. As someone who found the novel frankly mediocre, I was pleased by its film treatment. If you're a fan of the novel or of the Wachowskis, or if you like a film with a more out-there premise, you should see CA.
Based on the award winning novel of the same name, which it in itself seems to have been inspired by various earlier literary greats, including Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (which many will known as the on screen adaptation Blade Runner) and Virginia Wolff’s Orlando, which too was adapted for the screen by Sally Potter.
Cloud Atlas however is a quasi-science fiction exploration of freedom and relationships, with several overlapping and yet seemingly unlinked storylines it uses the recurrence of the same actors in various roles to depict the way in which the actions and relationships of individuals have an impact upon the lives of others, even far into the distant future.
With a cast full of famous faces from both sides of the Atlantic Cloud Atlas could never be condemned for a lack of ability, whilst it’s directors have a real range of titles under the belt that suit the various themes of the film. These elements, along with the sparse but effective soundtrack, ensure that the individual stories are all very well accomplished, each telling its tale with the right amount of tension, drama and characterization.
The problem however comes when one tries to piece the individual stories together, like pieces of a second hand puzzle, without all its bits and pieces of sky from another box all together, the stories struggle to blend right up until the film’s final quarter. When they do fall into place however they fit in a really innovative and interesting fashion – don’t expect clean lines however, some of the connections are incredibly tenuous. My only qualm in this respect is the story of publisher Timothy Cavendish, whose brief stint in a retirement home seems like misguided light relief rather than contributing anything to the story itself.
This is a complete shame because the other aspects of the story are both heavily detailed and deep. This leads me to the films other flaw, its length, at a hefty 172 minutes there were several points at which I began to loose all faith of ever leaving my seat. A viscous edit, removing all the Cavendish nonsense, is very much in order – easily killing two birds with one stone.
All in all I thought Cloud Atlas was an interesting story, and watching the film certainly made me more intrigued about the novel, its foibles however were such that by the end of I was somewhat glad it was over.