Cloud Atlas

CLOUD ATLAS                     C-                   

USA  (172 mi)  2012  ‘Scope  d:  Tom Tykwer, Andy and Lana Wachowski    Official site

This is Hollywood moviemaking at its excessive worst, which unfortunately the movie moguls think is the absolute pinnacle of box office entertainment, throwing $100 million dollars into big stars and an entire galaxy of computer graphic designers, where it takes over a minute during the end credits just to list them all, using a popular novel by David Mitchell as the source material, where in their eyes, this is a financial gold mine, a big budget item turned into a colossal action adventure movie modeled on so many other previous successes, like LORD OF THE RINGS (2001–03), AMISTAD (1997), ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST (1975), AMADEUS (1984), or Blade Runner (1982), among others.  In the eyes of high-priced Hollywood executives, this is considered a popcorn movie sure to spark interest in the adulated viewers.  But the problem is the lack of coherent direction, actually using 3 different directors, brother and sister Andy and Lana Wachowski along with German director Tom Tykwer, as the story is told so piecemeal and haphazardly, continually stringing along a series of separate stories, moving back and forth in time, using actors in multiple roles throughout the constantly changing narratives, all supposedly coming together at the end in some kind of thematic whole, but it just doesn’t work.  And the problem exists at the outset, as each individual storyline is constantly interrupted, like a serial installment, moving backwards or forwards in time for yet another developing storyline, which is also abruptly interrupted, where so much of the time is filled with listening to an inner narrative reveal the different plotlines, hardly a scintillating concept, where the audience loses any real connection to any of the storylines or characters before they ever have a chance to gain interest.  By the finale, when similarities are supposed to impressively come together, it’s too late, as the audience no longer cares.  Few, if any of the characters throughout actually sustain any interest, where Tom Hanks is supposed to be the overall lead character but he’s completely miscast, as he’s never seen in character but instead as the ever likable Tom Hanks, and in the end turns into Uncle Remus.  Perhaps the one star of the show is Halle Berry, who actually delivers one of her better performances in her entire career, but so much of it is lost, as are all the performances, in the mumbo jumbo of the mangled storylines.

Unfortunately, not all the storylines hold sufficient interest, such as the mid 19th century voyage across the Pacific, where the entire segment continually plays to stereotype and could easily have been jettisoned in this near 3-hour monstrosity.  Similarly, equally uninspiring is another AMADEUS storyline that features a world renowned composer too ill to continue working until a young upstart with a mysterious past walks into his life and rekindles his musical inspiration.  Do we really care, as there’s nothing remotely original about either segment?  That leaves four other interweaving stories, where even one of those is questionable, but becomes significant due to Berry’s strong performance as an investigative reporter risking her life to get a secret report exposing a behind-the-scenes power play of corporate greed and theft, where big oil is intending to create an apocalyptic disaster to rid the earth of the remaining oil reserves in order to join forces with current owners to buy up monopoly shares in the nuclear power business.  Typically, the way this plays out, Berry is a lone do gooder who is targeted, much like Karen Silkwood in SILKWOOD (1983), a paranoid thriller with real life implications.  Honestly, the film could do without these 3 segments, which leaves 3 remaining segments and 3 directors, where one each might have been a more inspired idea.  However, since they so closely resemble, both in tone and atmospheric style, previous Hollywood blockbusters, this appears to be no accident.  One resembles ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST, as an irate elderly brother plots revenge against his brother that desperately comes to him in a time of financial trouble and instead finds himself locked into a mental asylum run by a sadistic nurse (Hugo Weaving in drag) with no way out, where a comic escape sequence by an elderly foursome is inspired by CHICKEN RUN (2000) or THE GREAT ESCAPE (1963).  While this segment does have hilarious moments, starring the befuddled Jim Broadbent, it doesn’t hold a candle to the remaining two segments in terms of dramatic reach. 

The final two sequences are sci-fi futuristic, though one feels almost prehistoric and could just as easily be the mythical set of Xena:  Warrior Princess (1995 – 2001).  Both are the most spectacularly designed, one a futuristic world of robots and slaves, set in Neo Seoul, Korea in 2144, where Doona Bae lives her life as a corporate slave, treated and behaving exactly like a robot, where every other model looks and behaves exactly as she does, all programmed to serve customers in a futuristic fast food franchise.  In order to guarantee compliance, each wears a metal collar around their necks that with the push of a button will instantly kill them.  By accident, she observes one of the models risk their life for a chance at freedom, but fails, instilling the idea in her head.  Next, out of nowhere, she’s whisked away into a futuristic urban landscape by a freedom fighter of epic proportions, turning this into a mix of STAR WARS (1977) and Blade Runner.  The sequence connecting the future to the past is actually set in a post apocalyptical 24th century, a segment where the Hawaiian tribal language can feel restricting, where people are farmers and goat herders simply living off the land with primitive instruments while marauding raiders with horses and swords often plunder their villages and kill their people, where Tom Hanks witnesses some of the killings first hand while he was hiding and cowering in fear, engulfed in guilt afterwards, where he is visited by Halle Berry as a visitor from the future looking to unlock a key to her past.  Together, after initial mistrust, they forge a new understanding, one with Star Trek (1966 – 69) universal ramifications.  With often dreadful make up and costume changes, the idea that these characters are somehow connected over time, as advertised, just never comes together in any coherent fashion, as it might require character development, something altogether missing here with the possible exception of the continually misused Hanks and the resplendent Berry.  Spanning some 500 years, the film blends drama, mystery, sci-fi, action sequences, and enduring love stories as a means to suggest humanity is driven by an overriding need for freedom, inspiration, and love, suggesting these powers exist both before we are born and continue well after we are gone, where characters struggle and fight throughout the generations to rediscover these elements of their humanity, and that the world is somehow shaped by whatever acts and decisions we make.  All that’s missing is a rousing rendition of Michael Jackson breaking out into “We Are the World” Michael Jackson - We Are the World (6:20).

One Day

ONE DAY                   C-                   

USA  (107 mi)  2011  ‘Scope  d:  Lone Scherfig 

This is a case of an actress not being compelling enough to carry a movie, where she’s unfortunately in over her head, where poor casting ultimately brings down the entire production.  Danish director Lone Scherfig is known for intelligent writing and directing great ensemble casts of relatively unknown actors, all of whom give terrific performances, such as the two excellent Danish films, ITALIAN FOR BEGINNERS (2000) and WILBUR WANTS TO KILL HIMSELF (2002), both introducing a wry wit and quirky performances, veering between romanticism and dark comedy.  AN EDUCATION (2009) was shot in England, saved by an outstanding performance by Carey Mulligan, while this is an American film also shot in England.  Both of the later films seem to suffer from culture shock, using someone else’s material for the first time, which lacks the personal charm and intimacy of her earlier works, but one really has to scratch their head about the choice of actress Anne Hathaway who is annoying and unlikeable in every sense of the word—not good in a romantic drama.  Instead of the quietly repressed yet somewhat Bohemian creature she pretends to be, she seems hopelessly lost, supposedly caught up in a whirlwind of romance, yet whose every last nerve seems to grate on the audience.  While the syrupy music by Rachel Portman may be appropriate for an epic of some kind, along with the sweeping, panoramic ‘Scope cinematography by Benoît Delhomme, but this grandiose style falls flat when the central characters can’t hold the audience’s attention.  One problem, no doubt, is they are sloshed throughout the entire film until the final reel.  In literally every scene together it is accompanied by excessive drinking, the kind many will find simply obnoxious and boring—hardly memorable. 

There’s little evidence of Scherfig’s tight and compact structure, instead everything is enlarged, sentimentalized, and greatly exaggerated, losing whatever wit and appeal this film was going for, as few, if any characters stand out.  Hathaway plays Emma, who feels like an American overseas but she’s supposedly British, while Jim Sturgess, sensational in ACROSS THE UNIVERSE (2007), plays Dexter.  Both celebrate their graduation from Edinburgh University in an all night, drunken evening, where they end up in bed while barely knowing each other, yet become best friends for the rest of their lives, where the story returns to the anniversary date of their first night together for the next 20 years.  This is not BEFORE SUNSET (2004), and despite the continuing lifelong conversations together, the dialogue, oftentimes uncomfortably overlapping, lacks all attempts at romanticism, as there is never a sense of urgency in either character, desperation maybe, but never love.  Instead we witness the two of them throw away their lives on missed opportunities, each following a different direction, constantly missing what they ultimately need in life while pretending they are happy, growing farther and farther apart even as they continue their lifelong friendship.  Dexter is something of a spoiled, self-indulgent ladies man, a child of privilege whose recklessness seems to know no bounds, while Emma is a closeted writer, a woman who keeps her thoughts to herself, never managing to get her life on track, settling for small change jobs that offer no satisfaction whatsoever.  Her dreamy idealization of Dexter seems largely an infantile fantasy, as the real thing is incapable of commitment or taking responsibility, but is largely a lush. 

Sturgess does indeed look terrific throughout the movie, but the way he continually drowns in his own personal sorrows never once becomes brooding (Danish melancholic style) or interesting.  Patricia Clarkson plays his more stoically reserved mother, perhaps the only honest character in the entire film, voicing her disappointment in him to his face, but unfortunately she has too little screen time.  Despite the numerical countdown of the years, there is very little evidence of the passing of time except through the changing hairstyles and fashion, with the exception of the exquisite use of the song:  Corona - Rhythm of the Night - YouTube (3:49), also used in the Claire Denis film BEAU TRAVAIL (1999), which reflects Dexter’s colorful immersion into the Me Generation, complete with rhapsodic indulgences into women, drugs and alcohol.  Emma, on the other hand, has friendships, but little romance, finding the wrong guy in Ian (Rafe Spall), a nice enough guy, but not the brightest bulb in the box, a guy who wants to be so much more than he really is, becoming one of her biggest disappointments.  In this way, both characters feel like they’re attempting to fight their way out of a paper bag, each an expression of failure and futility, where the audience simply doesn’t have the patience to put up with their meandering mediocrity.  There’s simply nothing about either one of them that compels us to watch the screen, instead we are treated to splendid views of Edinburgh, London, and Paris, each given the travelogue style tourist’s view.  When the settings are the most remarkable element of the picture, something is obviously lacking.  In this case it’s chemistry, as there’s never any onscreen combustion.

By the way, one thing must be said for this picture, as evidenced from one of the opening shots, the motion picture industry should remember the standard cyclist’s credo:  In today’s world anyone who rides a bike should be responsible enough to wear a helmet. They should be as commonplace as seat belts in motor vehicles, as they save lives.