Cloud Atlas (2012) review

To put it bluntly, Cloud Atlas will go down as one of the most ambitious movies ever made. A near three-hour epic spanning across centuries with the members of its cast portraying multiple characters through six separate storylines across time. Yes, the latest film from the Wachowskis and Tom Twyker is one to be admired for this trio's efforts of adapting a novel that many deemed unfilmable and making it work on the big screen. This is a film that I cannot explain completely just through words. But one thing that is certain is that this is not a perfect film. On one hand, it's compelling, well-acted, and it stays consistent in the right areas when it needs to be. However, the way it juggles these multiple storylines is rather problematic and it's not entirely clear how all of these storylines connect to each other in the first place.

Cloud Atlas is not a single story, but a group of stories that takes us from the 19^th century to a post-apocalyptic future. We follow a notary (Jim Sturgess) as he travels across the sea whilst battling an illness, a musician (Ben Whishaw) as he writes music for an old composer, a journalist (Halle Berry) as she investigates into a unsafe power plant, a publisher (Jim Broadbent) as he tries to escape from a mental hospital in which he is confined in, a fabricant (Doona Bae) as she escapes to inspire a rebellion in a dystopian future, and a tribesman (Tom Hanks) in the post-apocalyptic future. Throughout the film, we learn how the actions of one character impacts another in the past and future and how a killer can be a hero in another life, and vice versa.

First off, you have to admire this film's scope and ambition. There really hasn't been a film like this before that has tried to juggle all of these storylines into one single film and for the most part, it works very well here. The narrative never falls apart at any point, even when the film starts to move rapidly through all of these storylines. However, there's one problem that emerges from this. It seems like some of these six stories felt more important than others. The two segments set in the future seem to get the most screen-time out of all of the six storylines, but the segments about the musician and the notary seem unimportant as the film spends more time in other eras than these two. The segment with the journalist almost falls to that level, but it does get really thrilling near the end. Finally, the segment about the publisher has the best humor in the entire film. So basically, the two future segments and the one with the publisher are the standout parts of the film.

Really when you get down to it, I actually didn't see how all of these stories were supposed to be connected. This might be because I never read the book this was based on, but to me the only real ways these stories were connected were for two reasons. First of all, excluding the first story, the main character of each proceeding storyline learns of the previous' main character's adventure through various means, whether it is a diary or a 'dramatic reenactment'. Aside from that, we of course have the fact that these actors portrayed multiple characters across time periods. Part of me feels like that wasn't necessary, but it is pretty cool to see each actor in different roles and see how they adapt to each character they play. Some of these characters even have them doing something that is against what they are used to, as some of these characters have them change race and even gender on some occasions.

That does not mean that this is a bad movie, because it is far from it. Even though it's almost three-hours long (apparently it's much longer overseas), it's never really dull and it's just plain intriguing to watch. Even if some storylines are focused on more than others, the tone is very consistent and it never really makes any jarring shifts, except for one instance where we transition from a light-hearted chase scene to a thriller. The acting is also very solid, and there is not a single bad performance from this cast. The standout would probably have to be Tom Hanks (one of the few who is literally in every era), but we also have strong performances from Halle Berry, Hugo Weaving (even though pretty much all of his characters are bad guys (although he was awesome as this demon spirit-like character in the post-apocalyptic future)), Jim Sturgess, Jim Broadbent, Ben Whishaw, Hugh Grant, and Susan Sarandon.

Really, I just don't know what to say about this film. On one hand, I admire this film's ambition, its scope, and the terrific cast. But this is not exactly a perfect film either. I couldn't really see how all of these stories were supposed to be connected aside from the fact that each actor was playing different characters through time. On top of that, I feel that more was needed for some of the other segments not set in the future, but then again that would probably detract from the original source material. To its credit, the film never got dull and even though I never read the book this was based on, it wasn't really that confusing. However, I would recommend you at least read up on this book before seeing the film because otherwise you'll probably be confused at what's going on. 

Rating: 3/5



Looper (2012) review

 

In 2005, two things happened when the movie 'Brick' was made. Director Rian Johnson made his directorial debut and star Joseph Gordon-Levitt established himself as a premier actor of his generation, along with films like 'Inception', '(500) Days of Summer', and 'The Dark Knight Rises'. The two reunite again for Looper, a sci-fi thriller that certainly makes all of the right moves when it comes to its writing. Like with Christopher Nolan's Inception back in 2010, Looper is one of the best written and most original films to come out in a long time with a story that is not only compelling, but brings much emotional substance to the table as well. It doesn't ignore the heavy material that it's focusing on and is a film that will leave you talking about it long after it is over.

In the year 2074, time travel will have been invented but it is immediately deemed outlawed. The only ones who use it are criminal organizations who utilize the system in order to rid themselves of their targets. To do that, they send them back 30 years to the year 2044 where hired hit men known as Loopers eliminate the targets, thereby erasing them from existence. Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is one of these Loopers and like the others, he lives the good life on the one condition that he must never let any of his targets escape. But Joe soon faces a huge problem when his latest target (Bruce Willis) is none other than himself 30 years from now. Hesitating, Joe allows his older self to escape and is now forced on the run from his employers as he tries to fix his dilemma, even if it means killing his older self in the process.

So why did Joe's employers send him his own future self to kill? Well, this is a process known as 'closing the loop' that the crime syndicates eventually use on all of their Loopers in order to terminate their contracts. This is some pretty heavy stuff the movie deals with, and Johnson does not hesitate to illustrate the effect of this situation on these hit men. When a Looper 'closes his loop', they never realize that they killed their own selves at first because their future self's face is covered by a hood like all of their other targets. They will treat it like it's any other kill and won't realize what they did until it's too late. In the case of Joe, his future self arrived without a hood so he quickly realized who his latest target was. But then Johnson throws a curve ball because apparently the usual reaction that Loopers have when their Loop is closed is quite surprising at first. You would think that they would be horrified by the fact that they just literally just killed themselves, but instead they respond by celebrating about it, even when they will eventually be on the receiving end of the blunderbuss shot later on.

On another note, Johnson also makes sure that Willis is well-utilized. This isn't some case where Willis' role feels more like a cameo and he is given nothing to do. He plays a key part in the story, as Old Joe is on a mission to take out the one person who will one day become the crime boss known as 'The Rainmaker' in order to fix the future. We also see what drives him to do this, having had a wife but then losing her because of the Rainmaker. Both Willis and Gordon-Levitt are excellent and JGL very much channels Willis in this movie. Aside from his own performance, the movie makes us buy that JGL's character grows up to become Willis, both by a key montage in the film where we see how he ended up being sent back to the year 2044 and of course all of those prosthetics and makeup done on him. Admittedly it's not perfect, but you get used to it after a while.

Amidst of all this violence, the film also has a lot of emotional substance behind it, primarily when Joe meets Sara (Emily Blunt), a single mother living on a farm with her son Cid (Pierce Gagnon). Aside from later serving a key part in the story, their whole back story helps bring a human touch to this story, and the movie doesn't let CGI overpower the story and character development. We get a clear idea of this universe, where crime syndicates run without any problems from police forces. The whole time-travel aspect of the film is one that is given little explanation, but even the script makes fun of the fact that, when you get down to it, all of this time-travel stuff is just too complicated and, as Jeff Daniels (a great turn here as Joe's boss Abe) puts it, it “can just fry your brain like an egg”.

Looper is one of those movies that will leave an impression on you as soon as the credits roll. Easily one of the smartest and most well-written films of the year, Looper continues to establish director Rian Johnson's reputation as one of the top up-and-coming filmmakers after only his third film. Of course, it also continues to establish Joseph Gordon-Levitt as one of the best actors of his generation, pairing him up with one of Hollywood's most well-established leading men with great success. It's a film that hits you with the deep question of what would you do if you were faced with the situation of making a decision that will affect your whole life and doesn't sidestep around it. It's a film I highly recommend seeing and has my vote for a 'Best Original Screenplay' nomination at this year's Oscars.

 

Rating: 5/5!