Director: Colin Trevorrow
Starring: Aubrey Plaza, Mark Duplass, Jake Johnson
Release Date: June 8, 2012
Running Time: 85 minutes
Rating: 4/5
What Safety Not Guaranteed presents to us seems familiar, despite being entirely new. Though it is a romantic-comedy by definition, it bears all the unembellished low-budget quirkiness of an indie film, whilst expanding its appeal to a wider audience through its geeky subject material. If your girlfriend whips this out and pops it in the DVD player, do not expect to be disinterested. This film manages to be cute and smart; both charming and engaging. In fact, I can see how this film might very easily become the go-to movie for nerd couples. So, what's the selling point? What makes this film unique? In a word: time-travel. Now of course, there have been no doubt, hundreds of films dealing with the idea of time travel. But Safety Not Guaranteed is not necessarily about time-travel itself, but rather about the covert investigation of a man who claims that he can time-travel. Thus the film maintains a high level of ambiguity when dealing with its sci-fi implications, and allows us to view everything through the lens of a team of three newspaper reporters who are to dig up a good story based around the author of a mysterious classified ad requesting a trustworthy companion to accompany him on his high-stakes quantum physics shenanigans. More specifically, the story brings the focus on Darius (played by the customarily disenchanted Aubrey Plaza), who applies for the position and is soon plunged into the world of the dubiously sane Kenneth (Mark Duplass), where she, like the audience, must figure out exactly how much of Kenneth's "time-travel" story is fact and how much is delusion. Personally, though I like Aubrey Plaza as an actress, I really feel that the droll, sarcastic, and detached personalities of her characters as many people think they are, and the more she gets type-casted into this role, the less funny it will become over time. Still, her character's complexities develop as she sinks deeper into a relationship with Kenneth, whose secrets unfold to us at an equally careful pace. I especially love the construction of Kenneth's character as someone who has the romantic disadvantages of his unshakeable attachment to the past and his creepy obsession with his time travel fantasy, yet his redeeming elements can be found in the fervency with which he believes in his dreams (impossible though they be) and the tenderness that he shows at the film's crucial moments. Thus Darius' attraction to him is believable. We can celebrate it, but it's not sugar-coated. There are romantic subplots with Darius' two co-workers which, though unnecessary, are not so irritating as to obscure the story's strong points. The true winning merit that this film possesses is its ability to surprise you at every turn, all while losing neither its affectionate humanity nor its outlandish mystery.
Director: Rian Johnson
Starring: Bruce Willis, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Emily Blunt, Jeff Daniels
Release Date: September 28, 2012
Running Time: 118 minutes
Rating: 4/5
Let me make this clear from the get-go: Looper is a bad time-travel movie. It turns time-travel from a science-fiction plot device to something that operates more like a fantasy plot device, yet it keeps everything within a sci-fi storytelling atmosphere, dismissing all of the obvious problems with its physics and logic by simply having a character say it's complicated. "This time travel crap, fries your brain like an egg," says crime boss Abe (Jeff Daniels). We know he's addressing the story's hero Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), but we also know that he's really addressing the audience here. The movie openly and blatantly tells you not to think about the time-travel because it's well aware of it's own loopholes; yet it's also aware that it's not necessary to dwell on them. So, to clarify: Looper is a bad time-travel movie, but it is a good movie. It is brilliantly photographed, brilliantly acted, and brilliantly spun out with one roller-coaster ride of a story. But in order to enjoy the full experience, you have to concede to the writer's request that you not pay attention to the complicated stuff, because it's not the details that are important; it's the effect. The film is bursting with cool ideas and small aesthetic touches that contribute so well to the overall memorability of the film: the ticking watch, the blunderbuss, drugs that are applied like eyedrops. It will present you with an idea that seems like a simple stylistic choice, and then ingeniously shock you by bringing it back as a major plot element later. It will push you to the very edge of your seat with a half-and-half blend of sci-fi mystery and action-suspense. There's a small bit of exposition near the film's opening about what it is exactly that "loopers" do. I'm going to try to spare you all of that and cut right to where the action begins, when Joe "lets his loop run." That is, his job requires him to kill his future self (who is sent back from the future to the present to be executed), but his future self (Bruce Willis) escapes. Within Joe's line of work, letting that happen can result in horrific consequences. So he aims to hunt down his future self and kill him. This is the action-suspense part of the film, where we tensely await for future events to unfold, as Joe's future self is runs from Joe, Joe runs from the other loopers, and the other loopers run from Joe's future self. But behind this fast-paced appearance of gunfights and chases, there are deeper questions. What is it that the future self is attempting to accomplish in the past? Is the past alterable or are we fated to cause the mistakes we try to prevent? And who is the Rainmaker? This is the mystery half of the plot, and trust me, this is a film that rewards those who like putting the pieces of a puzzling story together. Many films side-step paradoxes or brush them under the rug. While some may argue that Looper does this, I feel that it celebrates the paradox. Yes, there are a lot of loose ends, but it's the journey that leads you to the loose ends that makes the film good. But hey, I may just be the kind of guy that prefers a serious question over a mediocre answer, and Looper is complemented by a healthy amount of the former.
Director: Tom Hooper
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried
Release Date: December 25, 2012
Running Time: 158 minutes
Rating: 4.5/5
The "Les Misérables" that you read in high school is about five hundred pages, and that's if you get the abridged version. Many people have criticized the most recent adaptation for attempting to squeeze a story spanning twenty years into the relatively short time frame of three hours. However, I believe that this is the film's greatest feat. In order to understand why this is such an accomplishment, it's best to compare it to the 1998 Les Misérables. That's right, the one with Liam Neeson, the film that happens to squeeze the story a near half-hour tighter. The 90's "Les Mis", though more or less faithful to the book, was flat and lacked rarity: there was nothing to distinguish it from any other Hollywood adaptation of a classic novel. But Victor Hugo's "Les Misérables" is more than just your average classic novel, because it's not just any story. It is a long winding exercise in pathos that brings together a wide array of characters and shows their development over the course of two decades as they experience love, loss, war, peace, fury and forgiveness. This is the kind of story that deserves to be shown in vivid color, with sweeping camera movements, theatrical set designs, and ensemble passion-evoking musical numbers. And this is exactly what Tom Hooper's Les Misérables does, and flawed though it may be, the movie pays its respects to the original through its grandiose production value. There is never a dull moment in this film to waste our time; yes, things speed by quickly, but the basic dilemmas of the characters remain constant. And it is true that Marius and Cosette's love-at-first-sight relationship is a vast disgrace to the slowly blossoming romance that can be found in the book, but consider how there is now more of an opportunity to foster our empathy for Eponine's unrequited love. And sure, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter may be ridiculous, but the absurd dramatic style of the comedy is a welcome relief after the emotional intensity of such overwhelming scenes as Anne Hathaway's solo performance of "I Dreamed a Dream", which is sure to bring tears into the eyes of anyone who has felt the sting of life's pain. Every time I find a blunder in this film, I find something somewhere else in the movie that tips the scales and causes me to fall in love with it all over again. And while it's not a movie that warrants many repeated viewings, I firmly assert that it will stand the tests of time as one of the greatest movie adaptations of a Broadway musical ever made, as it brings all of the treasured songs from the musical to new life through gorgeous and dazzling cinematography. Wrenching tears of both sadness and joy from its audiences, the new Les Misérables is more than enjoyable; it's nearly impossible to hate.
Director: Gary Ross
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutchinson, Liam Hemsworth, Elizabeth Banks
Release Date: March 23, 2012
Running Time: 142 minutes
Rating: 4.5/5
As with anything popular, it's easy to place The Hunger Games in a spotlight of scrutiny. The film series has to date grossed over two billion dollars, with the book series selling over 65 million copies in the U.S. alone (it's been translated into about 50 other languages). So the question that naturally gets asked: is it really that good? And the answer is... sort of, yeah. The political fable that the story presents to us is one of elitism, sensationalism, class warfare, and the role of the media in politics. This is hard stuff to chew on for most audiences, but it's hard to ignore, because if you're seeing this movie just for the action scenes, then you're practically no better than the villains of this movie themselves. That's the genius of putting a fascinating fight-to-the-death trial within a framework of bread and circuses: you immediately forbid anyone from acknowledging their enjoyment of the violence without them seeming like a monster. The Roman "bread-and-circuses" theme is so woven into the story's symbolism that the entire futuristic society is named Panem: the Latin word for bread. This post-apocalyptic nation built upon the ruins of North America is neatly divided up into districts which each produce different textiles and resources such as coal, lumber, or tech. The annual "Hunger Games" is their holiday, created by the state to commemorate a former uprising through a simultaneous punishment and reward for its citizens. It is a punishment because twenty-three children are "sacrificed" to the state each year, by means of being forced to fight each other to the death. It is a reward because all of the citizens get to watch it all happen on television. Forget Soylent Green. This is metaphorical cannibalism, where children are killed only to be turned into food which is prepared gourmet style and served to their parents on a silver platter. Panem links the gladiators of ancient Rome to the television propaganda of modern America by presenting the games as a means of controlling the public. If the connection seems unlikely to you, turn on the news. When people groups suffer, it's a table topic, not a rallying cry. Of course, the script could have been filled with shaded references to current events and media personalities, but that would have only dated it. Instead, everything that the story says about proletariat oppression and puppet news networks (and believe me, much is said) is said with just the right amount of subtlety, so you can only spot it through serious examination. All improbabilities aside, it is clear that a great deal of thought was put into the story's creation, motifs, and execution. Speaking of the execution, how could I not mention Jennifer Lawrence's fantastic performance as the enigmatic heroine? Katniss Eberdeen enters the "Hunger Games" when she self-sacrificially volunteers in place of her younger sister, and realizes she must either train to win or resign herself to death. Josh Hutcherson plays Peeta Mellark, her fellow "tribute" who must compete side-by-side with her in the games, while Woody Harrelson memorably portrays their alcoholic mentor Haymitch. I can't pretend that the arena sequence isn't stunning. The sheer imagination of the arena itself allows for a visual design that hides futuristic technology behind a lush forest veneer, and from the beginning of the games to the dramatic conclusion we find ourselves enveloped in the heat of a battle where anything is possible. Still, I also have to give credit to the first act of the movie, which provides an intriguing buildup to the beginning of the games themselves, and gives food for thought on the sociological context of the games, but not so much that we choke on the politics. The two separate acts are good enough to be movies all by themselves. What more can I say? All in all, The Hunger Games is a compelling well-structured thriller that promises to survive backlash by way of its grounding in keen insight.
Director: Josh Trank
Starring: Dane DeHaan, Alex Russell, Michael B. Jordan
Release Date: February 3, 2012
Running Time: 84 minutes
Rating: 4.5/5
In many superhero films, when the main character mysteriously gains a superpower, the transition to crime-fighting comes almost instantaneously. These types of stories assume that humans are far more altruistic than they actually are. Chronicle, on the other hand, is more of a portrayal of what would happen with the average person if they learned telekinesis overnight. These kids aren't philanthropic and responsible, but they're evil or malicious either. Because humans, by nature, are more or less harmlessly selfish. If you had magic powers when you were in high school, wouldn't you use your them to fight bullies? Mess around with strangers? Do a magic act for the talent show? But beyond simple experimentation and joy-riding, the movie also dives into the corrupting nature of power. It isn't long before main character Andrew (Dane DeHaan) begins to realize the full implications and possibilities of his newfound gift and slowly loses control of his desire for control, thus evolving into a seemingly unstoppable threat to his family, friends, and community. What's particularly striking about the style of this movie is its adoption of the "found footage" format. "Found footage" is a style of storytelling which presents the film as a product of the events in the story, transforming the characters of the movie into the filmmakers themselves, and giving us an up-close and insider perspective on everything that we see happen. It was popularized through the cult horror film Blair Witch Project in the early 2000's and has been used to death ever since. And though it greatly stretches our disbelief, Chronicle does it right. It's pretty easy to accept the concepts as the movie introduces them to us, and things play out with perfect buildup and suspense. Chronicle is fun in spite of the dark turns that it takes with its heroes. Even if into consideration the themes and concepts it borrows from other sources (Akira), its most impressive accomplishment still lies within its originality.
Director: David O. Russell
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert De Niro
Release Date: November 16, 2012
Running Time: 122 minutes
Rating: 4.5/5
Most truly great romances revolve around the cooperation of the true lovers to solving some great personal problem, and in Silver Linings Playbook, that problem is mental illness, which, granted, isn't new territory for us filmgoers. However, in its treatment of the subject Silver Linings Playbook succeeds where many romantic comedies fail: that is, in its originality, its humor, and especially its sincerity. Bradley Cooper plays Pat, who has just been released from a mental health facility for severely attacking a man who was having an affair with his wife Nikki. The experience has caused severe regression in Pat's psychological estate, and his character comes off as one who is clearly recovering, but who still shows signs of social impairment which are delightfully quirky at some times and sadly concerning at others. His friend Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence, in perhaps her most magnificent performance) is in the position of the "love interest" but the film doesn't treat her as such. Tiffany falls in love with Pat, but in order to reach him must overcome the obstacle of his constant obsession with his ex-wife and his irrational plans to win back her affections. So this isn't a story that focuses on a romance at all, at least, not as much as it focuses on new beginnings. What we really see is a blossoming friendship which we can only hope will evolve into a romance. The result is incredibly sweet, but it's also honest. These are not glossy idealistic substitutes for our own romantic experiences- rather, they are real people with real problems, and the relationship builds on that, out of keen and interesting drama. Tiffany's problems began with the death of her husband, after which she began exhibiting erratic social behavior, leading to psychotherapy and a pills regimen. So, naturally she and Pat have this in common, but their issues aren't the basis of their chemistry- their characters are not defined by shortcomings but by their ability to overcome them. This lays the foundation for a beautiful construction of wit and pathos, boosted by acting from both Cooper and Lawrence that seems natural and transfixing all at once. The bittersweet tone finishes with a great positivistic tour-de-force, leaving us oddly inspired to let go of past experiences so that we may embrace the good things the future has in store. Take my advice that this is the farthest thing from a chick-flick in its genre: Silver Linings Playbook will turn out to be one of the most beloved and defining films of the decade.
Director: Wes Anderson
Starring: Jared Gilman, Kara Hayward, Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Bill Murray
Release Date: May 25, 2012
Running Time: 94 minutes
Rating: 4.5/5
To discuss exactly what Moonrise Kingdom is about is both simple and difficult. Being technical, one could say that it tells two separate stories: the story of a young boy-scout and a troubled local girl who both run away together on a camping trip, and the story of the adults who are searching for them. But in all frankness, it's a film that is more about the sights and the sounds and the general atmosphere than it is about characters and events, or at least that's what it emerges as being in retrospect. Before I can go into the details, though, I feel it's inevitable to discuss this movie in the context of the rest of "auteur" director Wes Anderson's filmography. Moonrise Kingdom is such an interesting chapter in Anderson's career mainly on account of the wide array of reactions it has provoked in such a short period of time. Some have liked it, others have really liked it; some have called it their favorite of his films, others have called it their least favorite. I like to think of it as the weakest of his strong films, and the strongest of his weak films. It appeared at the height of Anderson's trademark visual perfectionism, between the stop-motion adventure Fantastic Mr. Fox and the grandiose comedy epic The Grand Budapest Hotel, yet compared to the flamboyant spectacle of both of these films, it seems muted and not as impressive. But with a film like Moonrise Kingdom, it's the relative subtlety of its environment that causes it to stand out. There are things definitive of this picture that distinguish it from not only all other Wes Anderson movies, but also all other movies. The mise en scène is largely taken up by nature and nature-based imagery, and the soundtrack is mostly classical music from Saint-Saëns, Britten and Desplat, who succeeds beautifully in emulating the latter two. What leaves the strongest impression on the viewer, though, is its mood. It has hints of the romantic with its prepubescent lead characters, but it's not a romance. It has complex characters and relationships, but it's not a drama. I would even consider it an adventure, but then again, everything really takes place within a ten-mile radius. The entire thing seems more like a really good dream than anything else; an adult's pleasant reverie of a childhood that they never had. And because it's so much like a dream, things come off as sleepier than usual- even the most intense moments of the story are framed by narrative flourishes that alert us to the fact that it's all to satisfy us, or a part of us: that inner child who will allow a bedtime story to move him to the edge of his seat. This inner child doesn't merely anticipate a climax when the storm begins to brew; he feels entitled to one. Beyond that, we can even look at the setting of the story. New Penzance Island is a place that you imagine must be a part of everyone's memories in one way or another: you visited there once briefly on a summer vacation, or maybe you saw some nice pictures- but still everything that happens is more comprised of what you wished you did as a kid, as opposed to what you actually did. The fact that it takes place in the 1960's only adds to the nostalgia. Here, Wes Anderson's customary bright colors and positioning of objects serve to a special new purpose, to transport you to a different world, peaceful and surreal, where everything is too good to be true. Moonrise Kingdom mounts a great success the marvelous magic spell it places upon its audiences. Through charming dialogue, bittersweet sentimentalism, and plenty of eye-candy, why it is so easy to love is hardly a mystery.
Director: Don Hertzfeldt
Starring: Don Hertzfeldt
Release Date: August 24, 2012
Running Time: 62 minutes
Rating: 5/5
The praise for It's Such a Beautiful Day has been so unanimous and congratulatory that I almost feel bad with agreeing with everyone else. And yet the truth is, they're all correct. Just because this is a good movie doesn't mean that it's impossible to hate. In fact, in my opinion, this movie is impossible to like. No one likes it when an experience grabs them by the shoulders, violently shakes them, and screams at them "What are you doing with the short amount of time that you have on this planet with your fragile, mortal body?". When a film causes people to ask themselves that, though, it's more than a question of like or dislike. It's Such a Beautiful Day is a magnificent film because can touch people like that- no matter who you are or what your reaction is, it'll leave its imprint on you in some way. In short, it is the most thought-provoking animated film I have ever seen. And on top of that, it's animated entirely through simple stick-figure drawings. In short and simple terms, it is a story about Bill, a man who finds himself going through a slow mental breakdown due to a form of degenerative brain disease. At first glance, the story seems depressing in a way that is cynical, excessive, and manipulative. And sure, those flaws do seep through in brief moments, but in the formulation and execution of this story director Don Hertzfeldt illustrates that for many people, it is only in the context of death that we can really look at life. Hence these grandiose subjects of both life and death are condensed down into simple lines and shapes: the result is staggering. What seems like a constraint actually opens up the story to a plane free of the distractions of scenery; in reducing everything to its most basic form whilst focusing on bizarre details and thoughts, Hertzfeldt has stumbled onto a new part of the psyche which can only be described as a sort of minimalistic stream-of-consciousness. There is also the narration; another element that could be a constraint but which only furthers the effectiveness of the stream-of-consciousness method of the story. That is, there is no real dialogue: the only voice we hear is Hertzfeldt, narrating Bill's memories, thoughts and experiences as he observes them. This delivers the bleak subject material in an uncomfortably clever and snappy package, drawing our attention to the strangeness of our everyday routines, but also hinting at the ways in which Bill's fear of death is evident in even the most trifling of his activities and musings. Bill could be dying for any reason; but the fact that he is dying from brain disease draws attention to the overlooked fragility of the human mind and of human consciousness. But with every pessimistic observation there is something optimistic to consider as well. As soon as the brain's ephemerality is addressed, then so is its value- we are massive storehouses of memories, within every experience of every human there is an ocean of overwhelming truth. Some of the most strange yet poignant moments of the story come during the discussion of Bill's past, especially his relationship with his mother. Different people will all develop different questions concerning the ideas laced throughout the movie, and I would love to go into a lot more detail, especially concerning the beautiful and jarring conclusion. But let me just leave it at this: if a film can make simple "stick figure" drawings powerful enough to evoke tears in its audience, then that, as far as I'm concerned, is a very important film. And while there is much to be enjoyed within the film, it is not a film that I recommend to anyone out of the possibility that they will enjoy it. This is a film that I recommend out of the necessity that it be seen.
Director: Joss Whedon
Starring: Tom Hiddleston, Robert Downey Jr., Mark Ruffalo, Scarlett Johansson
Release Date: May 4, 2012
Running Time: 143 minutes
Rating: 5/5
The reason I created this blog was to celebrate the films that are worth celebrating, but with a particular focus on underrated and obscure art-house films. So assuming many of you are reading this hoping to find a lot of the latter, I'm guessing that my high ranking of The Avengers may come as a bit of a surprise. But if you're expecting any apologies, then understand that I don't expect to make any. The Avengers is the cinematic opposite of most movies that I love and cherish, but I refuse to deny that it is just as good as people say it is: in fact, I believe that it's a much better film than many people recognize. Upon a closer inspection, it becomes revealed that the simple "superhero action" plot was actually pulled together through great care and consideration. The most noticeable cinematic trademark that it has is its simple three-act structure. Rather than having a threat enter the stage as a plot convenience after the creation of the heroes, The Avengers has its problem emerge as early as the opening scene: Loki, the archetypal big bad- you don't get bigger or badder than an ancient malevolent god who plans to rule the universe. So naturally, with the conflict must come a hope for a resolution, hence the first act: the assembly of the team. The film's time constraints pressure it to waste no time, and it's important to consider how impressive it is that the film can introduce us to these characters individually in a way that says neither too much or too little. For people familiar with the franchise (which has been building up to this movie for years), the movie doesn't waste their time on needless exposition, but if The Avengers is the only Marvel movie you see, you're not entirely left in the dark, either. That's hard to pull off. And that brings us to the second act: the team together. The heart and soul of this movie is us getting to see what we see in no other Marvel movie, and that is the utter reward of the interaction and the chemistry between all of these superheroes that we have come to appreciate as individual characters, and it takes advantage of every opportunity. Every character has a basic motive and a basic weakness, no matter how briefly those motives or weaknesses are shown to us, and those motives and weaknesses come into play in subtle but noticeable ways in the conversations and action sequences throughout the rest of the film. Thematically, teamwork is the whole "point" of this movie, if you will. The real conflict is not necessarily the struggle against Loki, but the struggle to accomplish that objective in cooperation. A lesser film would have completely missed or ignored that important detail, that the core of every story is its characters and that any team of warriors in fiction or reality would naturally encounter roadblocks in the creation of an effective dynamic, yet Avengers hits that right on the head. To have six characters fighting together is one thing, to have personal change come about for each of those characters in different ways throughout the story and not have it appear forced or sappy is another thing. Not only is it shown that many members of the core team struggle with emotional insecurities about themselves, their past, or their dilemma, but the film also takes time to add development to minor characters like Nick Fury or special agent Phil Coulson. Should I even begin to discuss the rich characterization of the villain Loki (acted beautifully by Tom Hiddleston)? But the crowning achievement comes in the final act: the team in battle, which is undeniably one of the most incredible action sequences ever shown on the silver screen, largely because of size, scope, and location (an army of aliens coming down on freaking New York), but also because of the buildup to that thrilling climax. Brilliantly placing itself at the apex and the epicenter of several years' worth of franchise crescendo, The Avengers is a landmark film for the modern era, with the technology and the technological mindset of the 21st century playing a key role in adapting heroic/epic archetypes for the present day superhero genre.
Director: Tom Twyker, Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski
Starring: Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Doona Bae
Release Date: October 26, 2012
Running Time: 171 minutes
Rating: 5/5
The basic idea of Cloud Atlas was so great in sheer magnitude and so difficult to accomplish that it could not be a simply mediocre film. Six films are compacted into one, six different stories are told, each with a different style, each with a different hero, each in a different place and time, and each with a different ending. It was either going to be a masterpiece or a catastrophe, and it certainly looks like most critics have embraced it as one or the other. And while I can see some issues that some people might have had with it, I don't think that anyone can deny it is a film like no other, and as a result of that I personally feel that a much greater loss is suffered in not watching Cloud Atlas than in watching it. Looking back on it, it is in a word: overwhelming. And that word sums up absolutely everything that is wonderful about it- it is an entirely new kind of filmmaking that can only exist within this movie, but what it does to the world of film is an honor and not a disgrace. That is, this movie wraps its narrative around like a blanket, instantly pulling you into the story as there is so much going on and so much to pay attention to that if you turn away for a single instant you'll lose track. This is not a fault or a flaw: the fact that a movie can do this and do this so well is a testament to the cinematic craft itself, because this is what movies have always done and what movies have always tried to do since day one. Cutthroat editing unites two scenes separated by hundreds of years into one single tense moment- this becomes a norm for the film as the narrative will effortlessly and consistently hop from one story to the next at the snap of a finger, expecting you to keep track of all six character arcs. So yes, I am telling you that basically it's throwing bucketloads of information at you at lightning speed, but I am also saying it's an incredibly good thing. The sensory overload defines the experience of the movie itself and it works incredibly well within its own context, presenting a new, dazzling, and fun challenge for cerebral filmgoers. Considering the filmmakers can barely squeeze the plot into three hours, I don't see how I can expect to try to summarize the film in one sentence. I'll save it to say that Cloud Atlas is somehow coherent in its incoherency- it brings together a historical drama, a period romance, a 70's spy thriller, a modern-day comedy, a sci-fi epic, and a post-apocalyptic journey. One would expect it to feel like a science fiction with elements of drama, but it really comes across as more of a drama with elements of science fiction. What's more is that each of the subplots succeeds as an individual story (except maybe the one with Halle Berry as the journalist, but maybe that's just me). Need I even mention the stunning visuals and cinematography of the entire thing (especially the Wachowski's futuristic designs for Neo-Seoul, which are more cool and original than they seem)? Not only is it a film for the mind, but it also has powerful emotional payoff as well. It dwells on the theme of "everything is connected" and although it implies reincarnation, it never forces that idea on you outright, despite ingeniously using the same actors in different segments of the story wearing different makeup and costumes. The connections between the stories are evident even if you take out the idea of reincarnation altogether. Each character encounters an item from the personal history of another character, each time in a different format. Things that characters say or do have an odd way of coming around again in other parts of the film in ways that you don't happen to notice until later, such as how Timothy Cavendish stays in the house that composer Frobisher was living in during a different segment, or how the film begins and ends on what appears to be the same beach. These small details are no accidents. Is Cloud Atlas messy? Absolutely! But who says that a perfect film, or even a good film, need be clean? The care that was taken in the editing and the complexity of the connections are evident when you take a closer look, because the movie is a beautiful labyrinth that, though satisfying enough in one viewing, encourages you to watch it for a second time. And to tell you the truth, I can't wait to see it again.
-Julian Rhodes
No comments:
Post a Comment