My Review: Cloud Atlas (8/10)

¨I´m just trying to understand why we keep making the same mistakes over and over again.¨

Many critics have called Lana and Andy Wachowski´s new film, Cloud Atlas, ambitious and pretentious, but in my opinion it is a well made sci-fi film that is ahead of its time. Probably on a much lesser scale than 2001 or Blade Runner, but this film seems to have all the elements needed to become a cult film over time. Cloud Atlas is one of those movies you have to pay close attention to in order to understand where the plot is heading; it is definitely not for the casual viewer. It requires your time and patience, but if you stick with this film you will be rewarded by the end. This is by no means as good as Wachowski´s The Matrix (although it tries to remain philosophical), but it is much better than their recent work. Tom Tykwer (The Perfume) co-directed the film with the Wachowski siblings and it is without a doubt his best work yet. The film is unlike any other movie you´ve seen before as it connects six different stories over several centuries and connects them in some way or another. You could say it is kind of like Magnolia, but those stories take place during a similar time period, here the connections take place during the past, present, and future. Two parallel filming units were required for this monstrous production as the siblings directed three stories and Tykwer the other three. Cloud Atlas is based on David Mitchell´s award winning novel, and it was no easy task adapting it for the big screen. I think that their effort will be rewarded over time as it has the potential to become a sci-fi cult film.

The plot is a little difficult to explain as there are six separate stories happening over different time periods and in a way every story connects and overlaps with each other. The movie switches between one scene that can be taking place in 1849 to another in the post apocalyptic future. The first story takes place in the Pacific Ocean in 1849 as Adam Ewing (Jim Sturgess) is keeping a journal of his voyage while battling some sort of illness and being attended by Dr. Henry Goose (Tom Hanks), and at the same time helping a former slave, Autua (David Gyasi), escape from his oppressors. The next story takes place in 1936 as the composer Robert Frobisher (Ben Whishaw) is corresponding with his former lover, Rufus Sixsmith (James D´Arcy) about his experience working for the world famous composer Vyvyan Ayrs (Jim Broadbent). In 1973 the story centers around a journalist named Luisa Rey (Halle Berry) who is investigating a murder that took place in a nuclear power plant. In 2012 a publisher named Timothy Cavendish (Jim Broadbent) gets hoaxed by his brother and is forced to live in a nursing home while he makes plans to escape. In 2144 a clone known as Sonmi-451 (Doona Bae) participates in a revolutionary underground movement in New Seoul under the guidance of Hae-Joo Chang (Jim Sturgess). And finally in 2321 Zachry (Tom Hanks) is living somewhere in post apocalyptic Hawaii in a tribe that is being threatened by the blood thirsty Kona Chief (Hugh Grant). Every story is interconnected with each other as the actions of each individual impact one another in different time periods kind of like in a ripple effect.

The complexity of each story is the reason why the film is almost three hours long, but if you pay close attention and don’t get lost with all the flashbacks and flash forwards you might just enjoy this film. Cloud Atlas is pretentious for many because it is a little philosophical as it explains how we seem to cross our paths over and over again. Every actor in this film plays several different roles (as many as six) and we can see how each one shapes his or her future depending on the actions they take. The way the film was shot allows for the audience to experience a little sci-fi action (2144 segment), some comedy (2012 nursery home escape), some retro mystery (1973), and even romantic tragedy (1936). That is why this film is one of its kind. The sci-fi scenes were spectacular and the designs quite visionary in style. The film, although very exhausting, is exiting; and I had a great time. I understand why this is such a divisive film considering it is so complex and epic at the same time. The film does feel a bit disjointed and disconnected at times, but when it seemed to lose me it got right back in track again. I think this film was quite original and is worth your time if you are willing to put your mind to it. The performances weren’t as strong as I would have liked, but it is a difficult task to play six different characters at once. By all means check Cloud Atlas out; you will either love it or hate it.

    

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: Hitchcock (7/10)

¨That, my dear, is why they call me the Master of Suspense¨

Biographical films can be tricky because you can enjoy the movie based solely on your love or passion for the person which the film is based on. I knew it was going to be hard for me not to like Hitchcock because I am a huge fan of his work and love to hear every small detail about his life. Hitchcock was one of the most influential filmmakers in the history of cinema, and Psycho is considered to be one of the best horror films of all time so I was excited about this project. I really enjoyed this movie, but I can´t say if someone who isn’t a fan of Hitchcock´s work might enjoy this film or not. Hitchcock was directed by Sacha Gervasi, who also happened to direct one of my favorite documentaries: Anvil: The Story of Anvil; and the screenplay was adapted from Stephen Rebello´s book ¨Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho.¨ You can´t possibly go wrong with a movie dealing with such an influential director on the making of one of his masterpieces. It is part of the Hollywood history, and everyone who enjoys films will probably appreciate this work for at least trying to give us a glimpse of Hitchcock´s mind. The film might not be as deep as other recent biographical films, but it is a pleasant experience. The major complain most people had is that it didn’t spend as much time on the set of Psycho as it did dealing with his relationship with his wife, Alma. We would have all enjoyed this film a little more if more emphasis was placed on the making of Psycho rather on his disputes with his wife. What I did love about this film is how they focused on the huge risk that Hitchcock was taking by making this movie on his own despite being a well known figure. He decided to step out of his comfort zone and try something new. You are never too old to take risks and follow your heart and that is exactly what Hitchcock did when he decided to make Psycho.

If you can learn one thing from Hitchcock´s life is that the phrase ¨behind every great man there is a great woman¨ is completely true for Alfred and Alma. The story centers on the period of Hitchcock´s (Anthony Hopkins) life when he was coming up with the idea of filming Psycho. It was 1959 and he had recently had success with North by Northwest, but some questions about whether or not he was ready to retire began to creep in his mind. It was time to try something different and when he got his hands around a novel titled Psycho, he knew it would be his following picture. This horror novel seemed impossible to adapt at the time considering all the tight regulations being placed, but Hitchcock took this as his next challenge. Paramount isn’t happy about this risky move so Alfred decides to finance the film on his own with the support of his wife Alma (Helen Mirren). Alma on the other hand begins to collaborate with a friend named Whitfield (Danny Huston) on a screenplay that Alfred has decided to overlook at the moment. Alfred was known for his controlling habits over his lead lady´s and productions, and this being a film financed by him made the tension even worse. He decides to hire Janet Leigh (Scarlett Johansson) for the leading role after Alma´s recommendation and Anthony Perkins (James D´Arcy) to play the psychotic Norman Bates. His former lead lady, Vera Miles (Jessica Biel), was set to play the secondary role. Thus the challenge began for Alfred as he had to manage his personal life with his professional one.

I found it funny how in a couple scenes they brought up the failure of Vertigo, which is now considered to be Hitchcock´s masterpiece. Criticism for that movie wasn’t well received, which shows us how ahead of his time Hitchcock really was. He could have continued to listen to the big production companies and made the same films over and over again, but he decided to face and challenge them bringing something unique and new to the table. This serves as a modern criticism towards Hollywood which continues to make the same films over again without wanting to take any risks. If it weren’t for people like Hitchcock who stood up to these corporate giants we wouldn’t have had films like Psycho. There are some directors today who have been influenced by Alfred and continue to take risks, but for the most part most continue to bend over to the big Hollywood producers. Hitchcock, the movie, doesn’t seem to take any big risks and plays it safe with this biography, but it works thanks to some strong performances from Hopkins and Mirren. Scarlett Johansson, James D´Arcy, and Jessica Biel all share unique resemblance to the original actors. Credit has to be given to the makeup and hairstyling artists who rightfully earned the only Oscar nomination this film received. This was a pleasant experience although the superficial biopic wasn’t groundbreaking; the story was still worth it.

  

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/