[Note: I wanted to originally run this review last Monday, but Hurricane Sandy cut my internet right before I could write it.] So Cloud Atlas opened and died in theaters last weekend, and has gone nowhere but down in the box office ever since (it might finish with a 25 million total take, despite costing over a hundred million…”not good” is putting it charitably), and, even more disappointingly, is the fact that the reviews weren’t exactly raves (it got a 61 percent on Rotten Tomatoes…fresh by the skin of its teeth), and the ones that were positive, were pretty lukewarm. [There seemed to be a lot of “Cloud Atlas is frustrating and unsatisfying but its ambition alone makes it worth watching.” Wow, let me watch that movie! It sounds like a homework assignment.] And yet, I would consider this to be one flop you absolutely need to see. It’s the most misunderstood, under-appreciated movie of the year, and the year’s not even over yet…but I just know it will be. It works on levels you don’t even realize until days later, if you spend the time thinking about them, and, I know, most people probably won’t. More likely, they’ll skip the film altogether, but they really, really shouldn’t.
What Works: The movie revolves around six different stories, one set in the 19th century, one set in the 1930s, one set in the 70’s, one set right now, one set in the dreary future of South Korea, and one set far into a post-apocalyptic future. Actors like Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, and Hugh Grant play different characters in all of the story lines, as constant themes keep playing out through each one. If all that sounds confusing, it may be for some, but it’s worth the effort. Once you get that the major theme of all the stories is freedom versus oppression (and that can take the form of a fight against slavery in the past, a fight against forbidden love in the 30’s, a fight against big oil in the 70’s, a fight against a confining nursing home in the present, a fight against being a wage slave in futuristic Korea, and a fight against cannibal warlords in the post apocalyptic future), you’ll pick up on it just fine. And you’ll notice that the same actors keep representing the same things throughout time. Hugo Weaving is darkness incarnate, Hugh Grant is usually a cog on the side of bad, Jim Sturgess is the “hero,” Halle Berry is the good-hearted heroine tied down by circumstances or fate, and Tom Hanks is the conflicted everyman…A man who knows what the right thing is, even if he doesn’t always choose it.
A fascinating idea that the movie puts forth is that a man like Hanks (who forms a connection with Berry’s character in the 70’s that ripples throughout the centuries) can actually start off as a bad guy, and be transformed by the power of love. Because he keeps missing his connection with Berry, his very soul keeps missing his chance at redemption. When he finally finds it, it’s a beautiful, beautiful thing, and it moved me more than almost any arc in a movie this year.
What Doesn’t Work: The 2012 story-line isn’t as interesting as the others. I’m sorry, but it just isn’t. I know that Jim Broadbent was added as comic relief, but it just doesn’t hold up to repeat viewing the way the others do.
What I Would Have Done Differently: Posted this review earlier, so that more people might have watched this movie.