云图
Szereplők:
Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Doo-na Bae, Ben Whishaw, Keith David, James D'Arcy, Xun Zhou, David Gyasi, Susan Sarandon (több)Tartalmak(1)
Hogyan hatnak egymásra az emberi életek, a tettek és azok következményei a múltból kiindulva a jelenen át egészen a jövőig? Minden mindennel összefügg? Akció, rejtély és romantika szövi át a történetet, melyben egy gyilkos hőssé alakul át, egy egyszerű jótett pedig forradalmat inspirál a távoli jövőben. A Mátrix alkotói, Lana Wachowski és Andy Wachowski a Lé meg a Lola és a Parfüm rendezőjével, Tom Tykwerrel közösen készítették el ezt a nagyhatású és elgondolkodtató eposzt David Mitchell bestseller regényéből. A főszerepekben olyan szupersztárokat láthatunk, mint Tom Hanks és Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Doona Bae, Ben Whishaw, valamint Susan Sarandon és Hugh Grant. Minden színész több szerepben jelenik meg, ahogy a történet előre halad az időben. (A Company Hungary)
(több)Recenziók (18)
A kezdeti keserű benyomások a történetek közötti állandó (időnként néhány másodpercenként) ugrálása és az összeegyeztethetetlen műfaji elemek keveredése miatt - amikor Amistad és a startrekes maszkok állnak egymás mellett - fokozatosan átváltottak ámulatba e talán rendkívüli alkotás láttán. Elbeszélői szempontból összetett, spirituálisan mély, filmes szempontból innovatív, produkciós szempontból merész. Az élet eszméinek és az emberiség időtlen viszontagságainak mesebeli poétikával ábrázolt áradatában itt kutyákat lőnek le, torkokat vágnak el és lábujjakat szopnak le. És a nők játszanak férfiakat, a férfiak pedig nőket. Lélegzetelállító érzelmi pillanatok epikus óceánja, amelyet első megtekintésre egyszerűen nem lehet minden összefüggésben megemészteni. Gyönyörű Halle Berry, démoni Weaving. Nagy befektetői kockázat. Második és harmadik megtekintés is szükséges, ezért az értékelés csak előzetes.
()
It’s remarkable that the seams that connect the different stories in different time and space are so imperceptible that the film flows smoothly and the three hours are not even noticeable. Unfortunately, it results in something that has neither sufficient emotional nor cathartic effect. In other words, there is no profound experience, and by the end I felt a bit....empty. Anyway, I appreciate the courage to come up with something so non-commercial and non-subversive in this day and age, when A-film production resembles a controlled process to make money.
()
Cloud Atlas is definitely a stimulating film, but I’m not sure what the directors’ primary intention was. I most enjoyed seeing how the all-encompassing favouritism towards minorities is related to the conventions of individual genres. Melodrama from the artistic environment was ascribed to homosexual romance, the main protagonists of an originally white paranoid thriller are a black female reporter and her partner, who were seemingly pulled out of a blaxploitation action flick. None of the genres employed in the film is entirely “pure” – the comedy is permeated with an escape movie, the thriller makes room for black humour – as the filmmakers acknowledge their own post-modern framing of the book on which the film is based, i.e. a point of view that doesn’t belong to any of the characters. Cloud Atlas is fine in its analysis of post-modern genre deconstructions, but it fails on a more basic level. I found the flat characters to be uninteresting. Contemplating who was hidden behind the mask was more entertaining to me than the acting. The six worlds are equally artificial, intended only for conveying certain transpersonal ideas. They are worlds for the camera, without a life of their own. So that we don’t doubt that one of the levels plays out in the 1970s, almost every exterior shot includes a car typical of the era (e.g. a Ford Mustang). The film fails to grip the viewer or offer a concentrated emotional experience. Taken together, the actions set in different time-space continua do not form a powerful sequence; on the contrary, they get in each other’s way and make it impossible for individual scenes to resonate. If the intention was to make it difficult for viewers to deal with the fact that the stories are fragmented and in no way interconnected, what need is there for the constant creation of banal thematic and graphic (and, to a lesser extent, symbolic) parallels? At least the similarity of the stories shouldn’t be so obvious and constantly emphasised through the off-screen commentary by one of the many narrators. Insufficient use of the fact that most of the stories are told by someone, in the form of a diary, a letter or a book, from the position of an interrogated prisoner or a respectable elder, represents another promise that the film makes and yet fails to develop (we only hear the narrators’ voices; otherwise, they remain unseen and do not actively get involved in the narrative, nor are they ever interrupted as it unfolds). Whatever the artistic intention may have been, which is not made very clear at all by the commercial rendering of the whole project, Cloud Atlas seemed to me like constantly interrupted intercourse without a proper climax. In exchange for the attention that I invested, and which had nothing to fixate on in places, I expected a more valuable reward than a message along the lines of “we have to help each other”, which I found to be ridiculous coming from a film that wants to break down conventions. 70%
()
SIX IN ONE. I didn’t want to write an overly celebratory comment right after leaving the cinema, and I decided to let the experience brew for a day, and the result? I’m still so excited! Cloud Atlas is the best film in at least a couple of years, but also a category on its own that can not be properly compared with any other. Amazing! I can’t understand how the Wachowskis and Tykwer managed to simultaneously tell six mostly conversational stories with different styles and genres (historical drama, tragic romance, journalist investigation, black comedy, dystopian sci-fi, and post-apocalyptic sci-fi) in a way that the whole lot sticks together (actually, Cloud Atlas can’t be seen in any other way than as a whole), and where everything is clear and running smoothly, and on top of that, its three hour run feels like an action ride, instead of a confusing and dry arthouse flick. Its message may not be revolutionary or original, but who cares in this case? Or do we now expect every film to come out with its own ontological system? In any case, the ending is very effective, it brings together the climax of six stores – it’s about half an hour long (six times five minutes). Half an hour of goosebumps :) … In short, the Wachowskis and Tykwer met the expectations I had set for them (which this year Scott and Nolan couldn’t do), and at the same time they were able to surprise me with how quickly the film goes (some ninety minute films feel longer than this three hour monument), and mainly because it’s a lot more viewer-friendly than I expected. The attentive viewer won’t get lost and the receptive viewer will absorb, they only need to go a little against the flow. But more viewings will of course be necessary for even better details, and I’m already looking forward to them. 100 %
()
Cloud Atlas completely bewitched me. I had to think about the film because that’s what I wanted from it, and that was exactly its goal. It was beautiful to look at, but it was even better that I wondered all the time if I could understand it or if I was just trying my best to follow those six stories. It’s hard when the creators tell you six stories, each different and each interesting and all the while certain characters incessantly keep talking so philosophically that the 172 minutes absolutely sucked me out at the end. I believe that the essence of the whole film lies somewhere in those thousand ideas, and it is clear to me that I should watch it at least twice more so that I can understand everything. However, it was not a problem for me to understand that the story is mainly about spirituality and the different views that Hindus have on the essence of life and death. Writing a review is very difficult for me, because there are a lot of things I could say about this movie but it’s hard to put them into a coherent sentence. But what I can say is mainly that I can’t give this film the full amount of stars, even though I wanted to. I really wanted to. For the unique originality and for the courage that the creators invested in this incredibly demanding story, when they decided to give up their royalties just to finish it. But it saddens me that I’ve been waiting for some brutal conclusion all this time, where the individual stories would merge beautifully into a single whole and it didn’t quite happen.
()
This was a loss. A bold and extremely imaginative, variable and deep book transplanted into a dynamic and agile network that does not raise questions, but answers didactically. In addition, the film helps itself with the hackneyed new age symmetries that we know intimately from The Fountain, but also from Mr. Nobody - if you do not know how to connect remote storylines, fateful love is the answer. In addition, the film adds to it the typical pathetism of all-encompassing mysticizing concepts such as Eternity, Infinity, Reincarnation, Destiny, and if the viewer does not happen to get it, one of the characters will literally repeat it 4 times. The result is a completely uninteresting and mechanical work for me, which fails even in moments that I considered "laid" - the 5th story of Sonmi in the book is a poignant picture of capitalist-fascist-totalitarian dystopia, in which rebellion is only a prefabricated part of the consumerist chain. That's terribly little. Compared to The Matrix trilogy, the virtuoso Speed Racer or Tykwer's "gender-deconstruction" Three, this is more of a Junk Atlas.
()
A cinematically bold space-time meta kitsch epic which unnecessarily shows off by misusing a minimum of actors in a maximum number of roles; which, thanks to their latex faces when characters are cast regardless of the sex or color of the actor is more reminiscent of Inspector Clouseau than anything else (the influence of Lana Wachowski?). Not even the imbalance between the separate segments (Tykwer > Wachowskis) is something to jump for joy for. And it mainly lacks catharsis. The creators say want to say along the way and so there’s nothing left at the finale. Even despite these errors in the matrix, NASA could send a dvd with this picture to the stars without any qualms, and this might help potentially intelligent life forms to get a good idea “about us". And they might choose to give us a very wide berth.
()
A meticulously composed symphony that theoretically contains everything and aims to intellectually reach anyone who pays attention to it. However, at the end of this three-hour shift, I wasn't dazzled, but rather unpleasantly disappointed. Lana and Lilly Wachowski and Tom Tykwer spare no visually perfect directorial ideas, but due to the imbalance of the individual stories, it's almost wasteful. I would gladly have spent at least half of the film in that Neo Seoul because I subconsciously expect action-packed sci-fi from this creative duo. Unfortunately, the odyssey of retirees, sailor ramblings, or journalist paranoia mostly passed me by sadly, and even during the catharsis, I couldn't find a direct path to them. It is a disappointment all that much greater because I seriously believed in this team – only to find myself paying attention to the role, race, or gender in which the amazing Tom Hanks or maturing Halle Berry appear.
()
Though there is nothing revolutionary this time norupdating of filmic means of expression as in the case of The Matrix or Speed Racer, or an encounter with something infinitely fresh as in the case of Run Lola Run, that does not in any way diminish the credit due to the Wachowskis and Tykwer. Their first collaboration is one big “and yet it works” with respect to the evident belief of producers and studio representatives that the eponymous work on which it is based cannot be filmed and with respect to the wrongheaded assumption that the result would be some sort of intellectual dumka; and we can add the belief that a spectacular blockbuster cannot be shot in Europe. In the final result, the fact that, at its core, Cloud Atlas does nothing revolutionary, yet guides the viewer without difficulty through its seemingly complicated narrative, is a fascinating illustration of the narrative possibilities of the medium of film and its language.
()
It can be so much more if you let it. Happy and sad, bloody and tender. A long but beautiful film. And damn, I'm out of words. Anyway, if you want to believe in fated love, this might help. The best "short story" for me was the one from Seoul. Ah well. Even though he was deformed, Jim Sturgess was perfect.
()
Daring and spectacular. The Wachowskis and Tykver have pulled off a great feat by linking together this jigsaw of stories and themes. The actors in all different types of roles have something to pay (I was very pleasantly surprised by Tom Hanks) even under a ton of makeup. The story seems occasionally to trip up in places. The absolutely senseless, farcical escape from the nursing home by the senior citizens really disrupts the killer’s gripping hunt for the nosey journalist. A bit like the music of a sextet, Cloud Atlas has little to offer. And honestly the melody didn’t seem to me to be at all rousing. Of all of the timelines, I liked the last two the most. These, the suspense and a certain mysterious element best balanced to the overall message of the picture.
()
Similarly ethereal and with a conceptual reach as, for example, The Fountain or The Tree of Life, but far less superficial. While in those films the directors overly expose their own precision and shout to the world “look at how good I am”, the Wachowskis, in terms of both visual aesthetics and narrative concept, are much more restrained and purposeful – thus more for the viewer. The whole thing feels much more graspable, understandable, and ultimately clearer. Everything makes sense, everything fits beautifully. It’s a film about love that at first glance is complicated, intricate, distinctive, ultimately simple, showcasing the simplest prosaic idea. The scene from Neo Seoul is visually unbelievably visionary. One of the highlights of the year and, within the “neo-art-philosophical” subgenre, the most mature contribution ever.
()
Although it was clear to me that not everything in the book could be made into a movie, I was very much looking forward to the movie theatre. But how much would I like Cloud Atlas if I didn't know the source material? Maybe more. And I might even understand it differently (if at all). So first, my reservations. I won't forgive the creators for the following: An ugly truncation of Robert Frobisher's story (the fact that the action moved from Belgium to Edinburgh does not matter, but the fact that the relationship with Ayrs' wife and his daughter disappeared completely was a blow). The spoiled part from Neo Soul (long and unnecessary digital action chases at the expense of the plot and terrible simplification in general). I also have some reservations about a couple of the masks, which were downright ridiculous and distracting (Hugo Weaving as Nurse Noakes, Hugh Grant as Cavendish's brother), and I was sorry that the filmmakers weren't a little more inventive. In the book, each story is told in a different literary form - a sea diary, letters, thriller, autobiography, interview... Why didn't the Wachowskis and Tykwer try to do that with the movie? It’s really too bad. So, the pros: Tom Hanks and Jim Broadbent in each of their roles (Hanks especially as Dr. Goose and Zachry), Weaving's Old Georgie, wonderful music, very nicely done parts with Timothy Cavendish (it's exactly the kind of fun I expected), both from the Pacific and from the post-apocalyptic world. And the fact that, apart from that messed up Neo Soul, I hardly got bored during the film, which ran just under three hours. It could have been better, though. Definitely don't mess with The Tree of Life, otherwise Cloud Atlas always loses.
()
A breathtaking cinematic jigsaw puzzle, which of course many have reservations about due a genre fragmentation that is difficult to grasp, but if you’ve read the book you’ll see how brilliantly it all works and fits together. The filmmakers stun with bold audiovisual solutions and perfectly cement the narrative by a parallel build-up of all the stories and overlapping identical motifs in different life situations and historical stages, and I don't give a damn that it doesn't have meticulously crafted characters or a Nobel Prize-worthy twist. One of the most amazing cinematic achievements of the new millennium, which will only be valued with the passage of time.
()
Whilst the narrative structure of the book Cloud Atlas is more like the unfolding and folding of a matryoshka doll, in the film the individual storylines are intertwined and told in parallel, meaning that they do not culminate gradually, but rather all at once. Thanks to the fantastic editing, jumping over awkward transitions, dialogues and various details and similarities, and thanks to very well-established direction and dramaturgy, all of the stories approach their climax in similar places and act as an intertwined whole, without the result falling into confusion and chaos. This ambitious and daring work recalls the adaptation of six books at once, combining historical adventures at sea, period drama, spy thriller, exuberant comedy, dystopian sci-fi and a mythical post-apocalyptic world. The film underlines the central motif of the reincarnation and interconnection of the characters by using ingenious masks and casting each actor and actress in half a dozen roles, regardless of gender, nationality or skin color. The Wachowskis’s collaboration with Tom Tykwer was apparently a key aspect in terms of the film being able to function in all stylistic positions and at the same time form a compact whole. Great design, excellent music, revolutionary and unprecedented film structure, multilevel thought overlap and intertwined work with motifs and themes make this one of the best book adaptations ever.
()
Cloud Atlas is certainly an amazing film, but not for me. I'm either not smart enough to get it, or too lazy to watch six chopped-up stories for almost three hours, trying to piece this puzzle together in a way that makes sense.
()
The Wachowski siblings and Tom Tykwer, along with an excellent cast, created a film that most critics did not accept. However, audiences see it differently. The film definitely deserves attention and you should even watch it multiple times. You won't fully understand it, as that may not be possible, but you can always find something that interests you, something that excites you, something that slightly unveils all the mysteries that the film, as well as life itself, holds. In hindsight, it seems to me that this might be the pinnacle of 2012 in terms of film-making.
()
I can't deny it the depth of some of the ideas and the damn inventive handling in places, but for a film lasting almost 3 full hours, I expect it to keep me fully engaged for its entire running time. By way of example I could mention Magnolia or Apocalypse Now in the Redux version, where I didn't have the slightest problem with the running time, and indeed I could have handled even more. Cloud Atlas is long as hell and quite an effort to watch, and because of course I wanted to catch everything (or the maximum possible), I had to sacrifice quite a lot of energy. I haven't been this drained at the end of a movie in a long time. I wonder what a second viewing would do to that final impression, but I don't have the energy or thoughts for that at the moment. Maybe in a few years.
()