There were a few things a didn't like about it, and a few more proportionately that I did like very much.
One thing that I knew straight off going into it from the trailer was that they were pushing the reincarnation angle. David Mitchell has said himself that the characters are all reincarnations of each other, but in this instance, I think I'm going to take the side of New Criticism for the first time in my life and call the intentional fallacy card. I felt when reading it that reincarnation was just one of many metaphors for a much grander idea that the book was putting forth in terms of the idea of history and inter-relativity, human kindness and crime, and how actions affect everything in a very karmic type of circle.
The movie, on the other hand, was all about the reincarnation. They gloried in it. And hey, they went whole hog, so who am I to really judge them for it? At least they carried through with it and didn't do a half-assed job. I think because of that, and that alone, it worked.
What I didn't expect, but probably should have, was that they made it into a love story.
It's funny, but the last reading I would have taken from the book was the love story one. They did a lot of editing and a couple of significant changes to adapt it to that particular angle, so it did feel a little forced. But for translating a work of this magnitude into a screenplay...I don't know if any other theme would have worked so palatably for audiences.
I guess this is the main thing I was disappointed with though - and I know that's a personal thing because I'm not a romantic and I just feel that even though romantic/sexual/whateveryouwantocallit love is a huge chunk of what humankind is made of, there's just so much more to life that's neglected these days just because love and sex sell. (Also by forcing that lens onto it, they distorted the plot line a lot *cough*Sonmi*cough*)
Before I went to go see it, a friend of mine told me that they reused the same people for all the characters in all the different stories, so I was prepared for that bit. This I felt half and half about. I have to admit it felt a bit cheesy at times...
...but then again they really managed to pull it through the whole movie trying their hardest and I think it worked. I can also understand that being billed for a cast including Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Susan Sarandon, and Hugh Grant among another full handful can't have been cheap and using them literally to their full potential was a smart move on their part.
Not even going to lie though, the cross dressing - particularly of Nurse Noakes - had me peeing my seat.
The one thing I was truly uncertain about was in Sonmi's story; they used all the same actors alright, but they chose to make the white people Korean by CGing in asian eyes.
Not only was this just straight up bizarre to look at, but I wasn't too sure how I felt about the touchy racial boundaries on that. It's one thing to put on elderly prosthetics or cross dress, but that just seemed a bit much.
Anyway, aside from that the casting was great and I'm going to gush about all the things I loved.
Jim Sturgess. Sorry that has to be first because I'm going to be biased for a moment because he's just delicious. Especially in a top hat.
Ahem. Okay. That aside, the visual effects were really well done for the most part. Imaginative, captivating, and breathtaking at times. Loved the sci-fi parts in particular. I wish Sonmi's section could have been given more airtime because I'm just a sucker for awesome gadgetry (the room change!)
Timothy Cavendish was exactly as I imagined and made me laugh so very much. Jim Broadbent was an excellent choice and the writing adapting for the narration for his bits were perfect.
Also Hugh Grant never failed to make me laugh, no matter what role he was playing, even if he wasn't meant to be funny (Kona warrior lol...)
Frobisher's storyline was so much sadder, if that was possible. Until his final scene, I was managing to keep from shedding those tears on the rims of my eyelids, but that whole part hurt. While we're on the topic of him though, I can't say I was a fan of how the situation with Ayrs was resolved (if it can be called a resolution). That varied too much from the book and I thought it was out of character.
Anyway back to good things, Hugo Weaving was fantastic - as per always though. He's just phenomenal in everything that he does and I enjoy his acting so very much.
The music is also beautiful. At the same time, I was hoping the Sextet would be longer and maybe have a little more...heart-wrendingness to it, seeing as it's built up in the book so much. Not that it's bad, but I wish it was longer and more orchestral. I imagined something very different in my head. Still, it's enough to make me want to learn the piano to play it.
One of my favourite things about the movie was the quirkiness of it. I don't think this was capturing the feeling of the book, but rather purely the flavour of the movie itself. It took risks. I mean, it was a 3 hour film, it had to. But everything, from Hugh Grant's ridiculous facial expressions as a Kona, to the Knuckle Sandwich's author's blood spray as he pancaked flat, to Ol' Georgie, distinctly shouted out Cloud Atlas, the Film. I love something with quirk, especially if it's not perfect. And this film managed to pull it off.
I have to say though that the prize for Best Thing About The Movie has to go to its editing. The Wachowski's really nailed the scripting. Weaving 6 different story lines of a postmodern novel is no easy feat and yet they made it feel seamless. I think this, more than anything else (yes, even more than Jim Sturgess), is what tipped the scale and put my thumb up and not down.
Anyway, I enjoyed this movie. It's not something I'm going to run out and tell my friends about and force them to watch like I'm forcing them to read the book, but I wouldn't tell them to stay away either. It's an artful movie and as well done as I could imagine it being.
If given the chance, I think I would gladly watch it again.
7.5/10
