The Zone

by **max314** on Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:07 pm

Tom Tykwer Adapting Cloud Atlas with Wachowski Brothers

January 29, 2009
by Alex Billington

We just finished chatting with director Tom Tykwer earlier today at the press day in Los Angeles for his latest film, The International. At the end, we asked him what he had coming up next and while he said he wasn't ready to talk much about it, Tykwer did reveal that he's adapting a novel called Cloud Atlas. Here is what he said: "I'm trying to adapt a novel called Cloud Atlas, which is a novel by David Mitchell that I'm really completely excited about. And I'm sitting down with the Wachowski Brothers and trying to adapt that for a screenplay. It's very interesting." How's that for one hell of an exciting team up?

Cloud Atlas, published in 2004, is a novel comprised of six separate but loosely related narratives that weave together history, science, suspense, humor and pathos. Tykwer didn't reveal which of the six he would be focusing on, which is the next big question to be answered, because the book spans a variety of genres: "from Melvillean high-seas drama to California noir and dystopian fantasy." I'm already very curious to hear a lot more about this, especially with the Wachowskis involved as well. Before The International, Tykwer wrote all of his own scripts for his films, although we're not sure if he'll be directing this.

Given this is the very first we've heard of this, we're not sure if Tyker will be directing, or if the Wachowskis will be directing, or if they're only just collaborating on the screenplay, for someone else to direct. Whatever the case, we'll see if we can dig up some additional details and we'll keep our eyes open.

SOURCE

by **Ribbons** on Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:01 pm

MAX! You can contribute to any of our NON-Wachowski threads too, ya know! :wink:

by **max314** on Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:08 pm

Ribbons wrote:MAX! You can contribute to any of our NON-Wachowski threads too, ya know!

Noted

My apologies, it's just that I've built up a habit of visiting certain other forums that, consequently, take up most of my time. But I still love coming here whenever I can make it; there's a great vibe from all these great users, and a genuinely friendly atmosphere that makes this place pretty awesome to visit.

I mostly come here when I discover something important or wish to discuss something with a wider group of people - which tends to be mostly Wachowski related

I'll try and make more of an effort to contribute more generally from now on :wink:

by **TheButcher** on Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:31 pm

Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, James McAvoy, Ian McKellen And Natalie Portman Offered Roles In Tom Tykwer 'Cloud Atlas' Adaptation

by **Ribbons** on Fri Jun 18, 2010 2:02 pm

by **TheButcher** on Tue Nov 30, 2010 2:52 am

Halle Berry in 'Cloud Atlas', Says Wachowskis Shooting Next Year

by **Ribbons** on Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:52 pm

Hugo Weaving Says He'll Play Six Different Roles In Cloud Atlas

Are the Wachowskis ready to make good on the promise they showed those many, many years ago? After making the lesbian thriller “Bound” and the groundbreaking “The Matrix,” the siblings diluted their goodwill with two bloated, disappointing sequels and then flopped with “Speed Racer” (though the film does have its champions in certain quarters). On the producing front, while they scored with “V For Vendetta” they failed to deliver with “The Invasion” and “Ninja Assassin.” In the same vein, Tom Tykwer made a big name for himself with “Run Lola Run” and has failed to match that success since, with a series of films of decreasing quality culminating in last year’s truly awful “Three.” As the saying goes, go big or go home and for their next directing effort all three helmers are teaming up and getting together one helluva cast to adapt one of the most celebrated, and complex, novels in recent memory.

David Mitchell‘s “Cloud Atlas” will get the Wachowski/Tykwer treatment with Tom Hanks, Hugo Weaving, Ben Whishaw, Halle Berry, Susan Sarandon and Jim Broadbent all coming aboard. For those unfamiliar with Mitchell’s excellent book, the story follows six stories across time, which fold in on themselves: a 19th century notary on a Pacific expedition, a bisexual musician in the 1930s, a female journalist in a thriller in 1970s California, an aging publisher in London in the present, a clone in a futuristic dystopia, and a Pacific survivor in a post-apocalyptic world. So given the multiple storylines and time periods, the decision has been made that actors will be playing more than one role each in the film and Weaving has revealed a bit more about what we might expect.

“That’s a project that’s really exciting because all the actors will be playing more than one role,” Weaving told the Herald Sun (via Filmonic). “I actually have six characters in the same film and they are all different people in six different stories.”

Of course, who those characters are hasn’t been divulged just yet. Either way, for the Wachowskis who seem to raise the stakes on each of their films, “Cloud Atlas” may prove to be their most ambitious offering yet. No word yet on how the directing duties will split, but we’d love to see the Wachowskis get out of their futurist mode and try their hand at period material (though we doubt that’ll happen). Either way, this is probably the most exciting material the directors have worked with since their debut feature so we’re pretty eager to see how this one all comes together.

No release date has been set, but Warner Bros. will be distributing the film and we’d guess we’re not going to see this until 2013. Shooting begins in September.

by **TonyWilson** on Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:05 am

Very cool news indeed. Did you suggest they went this way, Ribs? Or was that me? Someone did and Imma take the credit if no-one else speaks up.
I can't believe this film actually looks to be happening too it's gonna be interesting even if it's a failure.

by **tapehead** on Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:50 am

So, structured a little like The Fountain perhaps, great cast too - I'm into this.

by **Ribbons** on Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:12 am

TonyWilson wrote:Very cool news indeed. Did you suggest they went this way, Ribs? Or was that me? Someone did and Imma take the credit if no-one else speaks up.

I believe that credit goes to you, good sir. Although I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly they're doing yet. Is Hugo Weaving going to play the male lead in each story or will actors be rotated in and out? Anyway you're right, even if this tanks, it'll be an interesting failure. I'm really curious about how it's going to work on film.

by **TonyWilson** on Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:15 am

Having thought about it, what I think they are going to do isn't quite what I had in mind, instead of the protagonist of each story being played by the same actor they're going to have other roles played by the same actor in each setting - I can definitely see Weaving as the doctor from the seafaring journal ,as either the composer's rich benefactor or someone from the 70's conspiracy story, maybe the professor from Somni's story.
That way they can have an actor embody a particular emotion or type or manipulation or trait that's common to every story in the book.

by **TheButcher** on Tue Dec 27, 2011 9:01 pm

From BC:
First Image And Sci-Fi Concept Art From The Wachowskis And Tom Tykwer’s Cloud Atlas

by **max314** on Sat Dec 31, 2011 4:27 pm

Looks amazing!

Click the image for the hi-res version:

Seoul 2144

by **TheButcher** on Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:51 pm

Warner Bros. Pictures has set Oct. 26 as the release date for Cloud Atlas

by **so sorry** on Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:53 am

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/57262

5 minute trailer.

Aside from the corny music, looks interesting.

by **Peven** on Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:36 pm

if I still knew where to get acid or shrooms I would pair them with this move, methinks........but I am old

by **Spandau Belly** on Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:36 am

As one of five people worldwide who liked THE FOUNTAIN, I look forward to my ticket purchase accounting for most of this film's revenue.

by **Ribbons** on Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:23 am

The real question is whether Alan Moore is okay with the changes

by **caruso_stalker217** on Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:39 pm

I didn't have an opinion about this before and kinda forget it even existed. But by the end of that trailer I was completely on board. Looks like it has the potential to be a mindblowing clusterfuck, but it should be an interesting mindblowing clusterfuck. How often do these kinds of movies come along? I say embrace this shit.

Also, I have to give Warner Bros. props for distributing this. They're pretty much the only major studio that takes the chance on this kind of stuff, even though it always seems to lose them money.

by **Ribbons** on Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:21 am

Well, this un-adaptable book has officially been adapted. Jimmy, does it rock or suck? (Other options are acceptable).

by **bastard_robo** on Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:34 pm

Anyone seen it yet?

by **BuckyO'harre** on Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:54 pm

I have and would say it rocks, albeit mildly. The surprising thing is I didn't feel like it was a profound masterwork or a trainwreck like many of us were expecting. I wouldn't go so far as to call it mediocre, but it's just a good (and long) movie.

There are two main obstacles for the viewer that will determine how much they enjoy it. The first being the constantly shifting story structure. You don't watch one story or even half a story play out chronologically before moving on to the next. Instead we see a single progression in each timeline. So long as you have an attention span and a functioning short-term memory it shouldn't be much of an issue. Certainly not for anyone familiar with the book, nor was it for me, but I can see some being frustrated by it.

Secondly, there's the makeup. There's just no way to have the same actors play this many roles, including different races, without things getting a bit ridiculous at times. Fortunately, the filmmakers seem to be aware the transformations aren't entirely convincing (sometimes not even slightly, to be honest), and give you enough humorous distractions that you don't spend most of the film laughing when they don't want you to. Sometimes they even winkingly use it to their advantage, like in the case of Hugo Weavings' nurse character. In the end, I think it works enough of the time that you're able to take things seriously, but just be prepared for some goofiness. I agree with the decision to go this route instead of using different actors for each role because it aids in the continuity and our personal connection with the characters.

If anyone is interested, you can find a list of some of the major changes from the book in this article.

by **Spandau Belly** on Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:30 pm

I saw CLOUD ATLAS and I would say I agree with Bucky O'Harre. It's a pretty good anthology movie. I found the various stories to be relatively fresh ideas that avoided feeling like worn-out formulas or overly-contrived gimmicks. Despite being set in different time periods, I liked that they didn't build the stories around obvious historical events (like WW2, The French Revolution etc) or historical personages. They were just small human stories. They do a good job of getting different genres and tones to all jive with each other, smoothly cutting back and forth between stories that are melancholy tragedy, sci-fi action, dry William Golding story, goofy comedy, and 70s conspiracy thriller (complete with Keith David in full John Shaft mode. Fuck yeah!).

The execution of the various stories is pretty good storytelling, except for the comedy installment involving Jim Broadbent being imprisoned by his brother in a mad house. That one just seems to have some sort of resolution that happens off screen or something because Broadbent's money problems and regrets about his lovelife just seem to be magically resolved at the end.

Also, as a Charlton Heston fan, the film got an unintentional laugh out of me during the big SOYLENT GREEN moment during the story in futurustic Korea. I wanted to stand up in the cinema and scream out "It's made out of people! PEEEEEEEEEEEEE-PUUUULLLLL!" but that's probably just me.

The decision to use the same small group of actors playing different characters in each of the stories represents a technical challenge for the makeup artists and a dramatic challenge for the actors. Obviously the makeup and the performances are not going to be 100% successful, but this approach plays well to the film's themes of interconnectedness and reincarnation; also, the novelty of seeing these actors in different wigs with silly fake noses doing different accents actually becomes a big source of the film's entertainment. An actor like Keith David has such strong physical features that it seems all they can do with his face is pile on bigger noses and foreheads, he ends up looking like a Klingon in several of the segments. And actors such as Tom Hanks and Hugh Grant have mannerisms and speech patterns that are so familiar to audiences that they're not going to be able to completely vanish into five totally distinct characters for 100% of the movie, but they do much better than you'd expect. Halle Berry actually fared the best and transforming, although it was freaky seeing her as Lady Gaga.

All and all, this film was worth making and worth seeing (if you're prepared to sit for 3 hours watching one movie).

by **BuckyO'harre** on Sat Nov 17, 2012 9:31 pm

Spandau Belly wrote:
The execution of the various stories is pretty good storytelling, except for the comedy installment involving Jim Broadbent being imprisoned by his brother in a mad house. That one just seems to have some sort of resolution that happens off screen or something because Broadbent's money problems and regrets about his lovelife just seem to be magically resolved at the end.

Also, as a Charlton Heston fan, the film got an unintentional laugh out of me during the big SOYLENT GREEN moment during the story in futurustic Korea. I wanted to stand up in the cinema and scream out "It's made out of people! PEEEEEEEEEEEEE-PUUUULLLLL!" but that's probably just me.

Someone who's read the book will have to confirm this, but it seems reasonable to think the brother does actually pay the guys off. That way Broadbent can live a long life in the hell he's arranged for him. Also, didn't Broadbent's character actually shout "Soylent Green is people!" on his first escape attempt from the home?

by **Spandau Belly** on Sun Nov 18, 2012 8:06 am

I must've missed Broadbent actually saying that. Does that happen when the long-haired orderly guy is dragging him back into the mad house after they fight with clay pots? If I did hear it, I'd forgotten that he blurted that out by the time we get to the real SOYLENT GREEN moment with the Korean fast food slave girls being chopped up.I just couldn't get Heston's voice out of my head there. But like I said, that's probably just me.

by **SilentBobX** on Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:18 pm

Yes, that's when it happens. I thought it was hilarious. Also the super gross imho slaughterhouse assembly line for the clone workers is a bit much

I walked away from this film with my head hurting. Yes, the performances were great, and it was nice to see Hanks in a villainous role just once but the multiple racial thing was a bit confusing. I mean, weren't they a bit worried about people being upset by that? It never did wind up amounting to anything but it was a bit of a wtf moment. If nothing else it'll get an oscar nod for makeup.

Devin Faraci gave it some glowing review saying something about it being the most important film of the century. Ummmm, gotta disagree there.

I wish I could go over all the segments and process it without taking up enough space for a novel, but in the end, I think it was a well intentioned, wonderfully acted and directed mess. But at the very least it's a noble effort, but sadly one that the public isn't going to get for quite some time.

PS-Tom Hanks' pidgin english(tell me the true true) got quite annoying and confusing.

Mahalo

by **Ribbons** on Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:21 am

BuckyO'harre wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote:The execution of the various stories is pretty good storytelling, except for the comedy installment involving Jim Broadbent being imprisoned by his brother in a mad house. That one just seems to have some sort of resolution that happens off screen or something because Broadbent's money problems and regrets about his lovelife just seem to be magically resolved at the end.

Someone who's read the book will have to confirm this, but it seems reasonable to think the brother does actually pay the guys off. That way Broadbent can live a long life in the hell he's arranged for him.

I don't remember all the details (Tony? Pacino? Confused Pete?) but I believe the Hoggins Brothers are caught busting into Timothy Cavendish's office and then blackmailed into silence. Meanwhile a film adaptation of Knuckle Sandwich and an autobiography of Cavendish's life both take off, making him rich once again.

I think there's also a line in there somewhere about Timothy considering taking a voyage to visit his long-lost love, but in the end whether he actually does is unclear.

by **Spandau Belly** on Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:25 am

SilentBobX wrote:Tom Hanks' pidgin english(tell me the true true) got quite annoying and confusing.

Yeah, I found the Jar Jar speak in that story a little hard to follow sometimes. I didn't always understand their futuristic patois. I assumed during all their mumbling they mentioned something about why Hanks had to guide Berry up the mountain and why she couldn't just fly her spaceship to the top.

by **TheBaxter** on Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:38 am

Spandau Belly wrote:
SilentBobX wrote:Tom Hanks' pidgin english(tell me the true true) got quite annoying and confusing.

Yeah, I found the Jar Jar speak in that story a little hard to follow sometimes. I didn't always understand their futuristic patois. I assumed during all their mumbling they mentioned something about why Hanks had to guide Berry up the mountain and why she couldn't just fly her spaceship to the top.

i had the same problem with the ENTIRE CHAPTER OF THE BOOK that this story was based on. i haven't seen the film yet, but it can't be worse than that chapter.
yeah, i kinda thought cloud atlas, the book, was overrated.

by **Ribbons** on Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:47 am

TheBaxter wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote:Yeah, I found the Jar Jar speak in that story a little hard to follow sometimes. I didn't always understand their futuristic patois. I assumed during all their mumbling they mentioned something about why Hanks had to guide Berry up the mountain and why she couldn't just fly her spaceship to the top.

i had the same problem with the ENTIRE CHAPTER OF THE BOOK that this story was based on. i haven't seen the film yet, but it can't be worse than that chapter.

Ha, yeah, the book gets progressively harder to read starting with Timothy Cavendish.

by **SilentBobX** on Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:36 pm

Please tell me however I'm not the only person who would love for Guy Ritchie to just rip Dermot Hoggins out of that movie and give him one of his own.

Mahalo

by **Spandau Belly** on Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:35 am

SilentBobX wrote:Please tell me however I'm not the only person who would love for Guy Ritchie to just rip Dermot Hoggins out of that movie and give him one of his own.

I would glaldy watch a whole movie of Tom Hanks as a violent Cockney. Throw in scenes where he slams Lily Allen's head in a car door and bites off Vinnie Jones's nose off and swallows it and I'll buy the bluray right now.

by **TheButcher** on Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:54 am

Spandau Belly wrote:
SilentBobX wrote:Please tell me however I'm not the only person who would love for Guy Ritchie to just rip Dermot Hoggins out of that movie and give him one of his own.

I would glaldy watch a whole movie of Tom Hanks as a violent Cockney. Throw in scenes where he slams Lily Allen's head in a car door and bites off Vinnie Jones's nose off and swallows it and I'll buy the bluray right now.

Me too.

by **SilentBobX** on Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:39 am

TheButcher wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote:
SilentBobX wrote:Please tell me however I'm not the only person who would love for Guy Ritchie to just rip Dermot Hoggins out of that movie and give him one of his own.

I would glaldy watch a whole movie of Tom Hanks as a violent Cockney. Throw in scenes where he slams Lily Allen's head in a car door and bites off Vinnie Jones's nose off and swallows it and I'll buy the bluray right now.

Me too.

Petition sense........tingling.......

Mahalo

by **Ribbons** on Sun Nov 25, 2012 2:34 pm

To answer the question, it rocks. Quite simply the best movie I've seen all year.

Fans of the book (and/or doubters of The Wachowskis) need not have feared: although there are significant structural changes -- for one thing the stories aren't nestled inside of each other like Matryoshka dolls, which immediately dispels the developing mystery of the past-into-future narrative -- the editing juxtaposes the similar themes that run through each characters' tales in a way that borders on epiphanic. There is no doubt that every single bit of subtext in the book was noticed and understood by Tykwer/The Wachowskis, and done justice to. The editing itself is bold and inventive, scenes moving from one character to the next with no set order or amount of time, but it all feels exactly right, like notes of music. And when the "Cloud Atlas Sextet," which slowly crept into the film from the beginning, finally swelled into full orchestral mode to close out the film, I almost cried. Yeah, I'm a bitch. I don't know what else to say. Maybe metaphysical gobbledygook about reincarnation, love and the importance of storytelling doesn't seem like a particularly thrilling time at the grindhouse for some, but I absolutely loved it. This is destined to be forgotten at the Oscars, naturally (even for editing), but if there's any justice it will eventually become one of the most influential films of its era. And wouldn't that be appropriate?

10/10

Ribbons wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote:The execution of the various stories is pretty good storytelling, except for the comedy installment involving Jim Broadbent being imprisoned by his brother in a mad house. That one just seems to have some sort of resolution that happens off screen or something because Broadbent's money problems and regrets about his lovelife just seem to be magically resolved at the end.

I don't remember all the details (Tony? Pacino? Confused Pete?) but I believe there's a line in there somewhere about Timothy considering taking a voyage to visit his long-lost love, but in the end whether he actually does is unclear.

My bad, y'all. The answer to this was actually there the whole time. There was a line in the movie that is taken directly from the book which I completely missed the significance of when I read it.

Like Solzhenitsyn labouring in New York, I shall never beaver away in exile, far from the city that knitted my bones.

Unlike Solzhenitsyn, I will not be alone.

Whether that satisfactorily answers how Cavendish became Mr. Steal-Yo'-Girl and got the love of his life back is another issue. But his story did end happily ever after.

by **TheButcher** on Sun Nov 25, 2012 7:39 pm

Mr. Beaks Talks CLOUD ATLAS With Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski And Tom Tykwer!

by **BuckyO'harre** on Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:04 pm

Ribbons wrote:To answer the question, it rocks. Quite simply the best movie I've seen all year.

Maybe metaphysical gobbledygook about reincarnation, love and the importance of storytelling doesn't seem like a particularly thrilling time at the grindhouse for some, but I absolutely loved it.

I think you'll dig Life of Pi.

by **Spandau Belly** on Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:40 pm

Ribbons wrote:
Ribbons wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote:The execution of the various stories is pretty good storytelling, except for the comedy installment involving Jim Broadbent being imprisoned by his brother in a mad house. That one just seems to have some sort of resolution that happens off screen or something because Broadbent's money problems and regrets about his lovelife just seem to be magically resolved at the end.

I don't remember all the details (Tony? Pacino? Confused Pete?) but I believe there's a line in there somewhere about Timothy considering taking a voyage to visit his long-lost love, but in the end whether he actually does is unclear.

My bad, y'all. The answer to this was actually there the whole time. There was a line in the movie that is taken directly from the book which I completely missed the significance of when I read it.

Like Solzhenitsyn labouring in New York, I shall never beaver away in exile, far from the city that knitted my bones.

Unlike Solzhenitsyn, I will not be alone.

Whether that satisfactorily answers how Cavendish became Mr. Steal-Yo'-Girl and got the love of his life back is another issue. But his story did end happily ever after.

Yes, I did understand that he got his former love back because of his narration about about not being alone accompied by Susand Sarandon cuddling him.

I just found it strange that all that happened completely off-screen. If I remember correctly, the movie cuts from him brawling in a pub against the nurse and orderlies directly to him happily living debt-free and in love. I get that the Wachowskis wanted to avoid a schmaltzy "You had me at hello" speech moment. Still, I just found it odd that the character's two main problems in that story got completely resolved off-screen.

by **Spandau Belly** on Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:45 pm

BuckyO'harre wrote:
Ribbons wrote:To answer the question, it rocks. Quite simply the best movie I've seen all year.

Maybe metaphysical gobbledygook about reincarnation, love and the importance of storytelling doesn't seem like a particularly thrilling time at the grindhouse for some, but I absolutely loved it.

I think you'll dig Life of Pi.

All the positive reviews for the movie of LIFE OF PI, have me thinking I might actually check it out when it hits last run, which will probably and hopefully be after Christmas. I remember liking the novel when it was all the rage 10 years ago. I kinda thought it would be unfilmable, but the glowing reviews seem to indicate otherwise.

I'm not a person with spiritual beliefs or anything, but I can still enjoy stories about that sort of thing on their own terms.

by **Ribbons** on Mon Nov 26, 2012 3:53 am

Spandau Belly wrote:Yes, I did understand that he got his former love back because of his narration about about not being alone accompied by Susand Sarandon cuddling him.

I just found it strange that all that happened completely off-screen. If I remember correctly, the movie cuts from him brawling in a pub against the nurse and orderlies directly to him happily living debt-free and in love. I get that the Wachowskis wanted to avoid a schmaltzy "You had me at hello" speech moment. Still, I just found it odd that the character's two main problems in that story got completely resolved off-screen.

Fair enough. All I'm saying is, good or bad, their reunion was reduced to a single (vague) sentence in the book as well.

by **Ribbons** on Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:08 am

BuckyO'harre wrote:
Ribbons wrote:To answer the question, it rocks. Quite simply the best movie I've seen all year.

Maybe metaphysical gobbledygook about reincarnation, love and the importance of storytelling doesn't seem like a particularly thrilling time at the grindhouse for some, but I absolutely loved it.

I think you'll dig Life of Pi.

Haha, is that a compliment or an insult? A complisult? As it so happens I also saw Life of Pi this week.

Spandau Belly wrote:All the positive reviews for the movie of LIFE OF PI, have me thinking I might actually check it out when it hits last run, which will probably and hopefully be after Christmas. I remember liking the novel when it was all the rage 10 years ago. I kinda thought it would be unfilmable, but the glowing reviews seem to indicate otherwise.

I'm not a person with spiritual beliefs or anything, but I can still enjoy stories about that sort of thing on their own terms.

I liked Life of Pi and think Ang Lee indeed pulled off the tricky task of adapting a pretty difficult novel, which a lot of great, A-List directors had tried and given up on. I had a few significant problems with it, for whatever my opinion is worth, and I think by essentially cutting most of the narration it lost some of its charm along the way. However I would recommend seeing it, and I would recommend seeing it in 3D. It's gorgeous, almost like a(nother) sequel to Baraka, and it's the one "3D experience" among 4 or 5 since Avatar that I *don't* regret having paid to see. So if that last run includes a small local theater without that option, I wouldn't wait too long.

And similar to Cloud Atlas, even if it gets shut out of all the major awards, Life of Pi will at the very least score a nomination for cinematography if there's any justice in Hollywood (or at least AMPAS). But man, that Spielberg sure knows how to shoot Lincoln's profile in silhouette, doesn't he?

by **BuckyO'harre** on Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:08 pm

Ribbons wrote:Haha, is that a compliment or an insult? A complisult? As it so happens I also saw Life of Pi this week.

Neither, just a guess based on the nature of the films.
I liked both, but neither would be my favorite of the year. I would probably rewatch Cloud Atlas more often though.

by **Fried Gold** on Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:51 am

I've seen Cloud Atlas for a week now and, while it's a way off of being a perfect movie, I was pleasantly surprised enough to give Cloud Atlas the rating of "Quite good".

There were a bunch of things that bothered me while watching it, and a few things that really threatened to bounce me out of the movie. But ultimately the story is a good one and the acting is pretty good.

by **TheBaxter** on Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:27 pm

Fried Gold wrote:I've seen Cloud Atlas for a week now and...

Harry?

by **so sorry** on Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:46 pm

TheBaxter wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:I've seen Cloud Atlas for a week now and...

Harry?

Nice

by **Fried Gold** on Fri Dec 28, 2012 6:32 pm

Did you two not get the memo?

That reference now has to be made at the start of all movie reviews.

by **TheBaxter** on Mon Dec 31, 2012 10:35 am

Fried Gold wrote:Did you two not get the memo?

That reference now has to be made at the start of all movie reviews.

i've read this board for a month now and i haven't seen that memo anywhere.

by **Ribbons** on Fri Jan 04, 2013 3:45 am

Not to give you all homework, but here's a little "supplementary reading" based on the Wachowskis' and Tykwer's adapatation of Cloud Atlas, maybe to give those who saw it and were underwhelmed a slightly different perspective, if not one that changes their satisfaction with the film overall.

Here is the relevant passage from the book. It takes place in the farthest future, Hawaii/"The Big I", after The Fall:

It ain't savages what are stronger'n Civ'lizeds, Meronym reck'ned, it's big numbers what're stronger'n small numbers. Smart gived us a plus for many years, like my shooter gived me a plus back at Slopin' Pond, but with 'nuff hands 'n' minds that plus'll be zeroed one day.

So is it better to be savage than to be Civ'lized?

What's the naked meanin' b'hind them two words?

Savages ain't got no laws, I said, but Civ'lizeds got laws.

Deepr'n that it's this. The savage sat'fies his needs now. He's hungry, he'll eat. He's angry, he'll knuckly. He's swellin', he''ll shoot up a woman. His master is his will, an if his will say-soes "Kill," he'll kill, like the fangy animals.

Yay, that was the Kona.

Now the Civ'lized got the same needs, but he sees further. He'll eat half his food now, yay, but plant the other half so he won't go hungry 'morrow. He's angry, he'll stop 'n' think why, so he won't get angry next time. He's swellin', well, he's got sisses an' daughters what needs respectin' so he'll respect his bros' sisses an' daughters. His will is his slave, an' if his will say-soes, "Don't!" he won't, nay.

So I asked 'gain, is it better to be savage'n to be Civ'lized?

List'n, savages an Civ'lizeds ain't divided by tribes or b'liefs or even mountain ranges, nay, ev'ry human is both. Old Uns'd got the Smart o' gods but the savagery o' jackals, an' that's what tripped The Fall. Some savages what I knowed got a beautsome Civ'lized heart beatin' in their ribs. Maybe some Kona. Not 'nuff to say-so their whole tribe, but who knows one day? One day.

"One day" was only a flea o' hope for us.

Yay, I mem'ry Meronym sayin', but fleas ain't easy to rid.

So keeping that in mind, here's how the filmmakers used the same actors to play on that theme: Tom Hanks's character in the first/oldest story, "Dr. Goose", was probably the most civilized man onboard his ship, an educated and well-traveled doctor. But he was also the most craven, the most savage, murdering passengers for gold and collecting teeth as souvenirs. At one point he even tries to steal a button off of Adam Ewing's breastcoat. Meanwhile Zach'ry is as lowborn as it gets, illiterate, superstitious, ignorant. But he has a nobler spirit than anybody on his island. And the evolution of Tom Hanks's characters, or "soul" if you want to put it that way, hinges on his meeting Halle Berry. As he says at the end of the film, "Your grandmother is the best thing that ever happened to me," and as he says earlier in the film, "I feel like something important has happened to me." Then his plane blows up. Spoilers. It's worth noting that Zach'ry somehow has the same button that Dr. Goose coveted earlier in the film, worn around his neck like a trinket, and in order to save Meronym's life, he has to cut it off.

Meanwhile, the souls of David Gyasi and Hugh Grant undergo no such evolution. It's the world around them that changes, and as their superficial characteristics change with it, the movie reveals the arbitrary line between Civilized and savage. You see that Gyasi, as Autua, is baseborn, mercy to the lash, unfit even to be a slave and about a hair's breadth from being thrown off his ship were it not for the intervention of Adam Ewing. But by the end of the film, he plays Duophysyte who, seemingly, is the master of the Prescients, the last bastion of Civilization on Earth. Meanwhile, Hugh Grant's characters are savage, selfish, violent creatures the whole time, but that aspect of his nature is not as noticeable when he's the well-dressed CEO of Swanneke Energy Corp. with a plummy Oxford accent. But when all of civilization is gone, all that's left is a violent, superstitious, sub-verbal animal in warpaint, who scalps islanders and rapes little girls. Food for thought in any case.

This all may have been painfully obvious, but I figured I'd point it out anyway. Cloud Atlas FTW!

by **CultStatus** on Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:47 pm

Still don't know how I feel about it. But I do know I would love to see a full movie set in New Seoul. And Hugo Weaving deserves an Oscar nom for his Devil performance in the future story and equally deserves a Razzie nom for his Nurse Ratchet role.

The Zone

Does it?