Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

"Cloud Atlas"

A six minute trailer of the new Wachowski produced film and directed by Tom Tykwer. Starring Academy Award Winners Tom Hanks, Jim Broadbent, Halle Berry & Susan Sarandon. Gorgeous music, looks beautiful and I hate trailers that give everything away, but at six minutes, I still have no idea what's it's about.

by Anonymousreply 7412/08/2013

No one interested?

by Anonymousreply 107/27/2012

it looks like a big budget fraufest, a conceited and artsy sparks adaptation, and unbearably twee. urgh.

by Anonymousreply 207/27/2012

The parralel levels of conscience are all around us - All the days of our lives.

by Anonymousreply 307/27/2012

The book is amazing...and definitely not for the fraus. I am wary of putting it on the screen, but if done right, it could be great.

by Anonymousreply 407/27/2012

Maybe the fact that you sound like a PR flack has discouraged people from going where you lead.

by Anonymousreply 507/27/2012

[quote]it looks like a big budget fraufest, a conceited and artsy sparks adaptation, and unbearably twee. urgh.

Was that your opinion of the novel as well?

by Anonymousreply 607/27/2012

R6, i haven't read the novel. and that does NOT matter cause we are talking about a movie. thank you.

by Anonymousreply 707/27/2012

I thought the book was overrated. I love Twyker, but Tom Hanks and Halle Berry are the culinary analog of Hamburger Helper.

by Anonymousreply 807/27/2012

I loved the book and thus will not see a stupid film with tom hanks in it.

by Anonymousreply 907/27/2012

I loved the book but can't imagine it will make a successful transition to film.

by Anonymousreply 1007/27/2012

OP, will people be talking at watercoolers everywhere about its big mysteries? Will men like it because of its thrilling adventures, while women like the fabulous actresses like Halle Berry and Susan Sarandon? Is it a bonafide hit in the making?

by Anonymousreply 1107/27/2012

Tom Hanks and Halle Berry don't bode well for any film.

by Anonymousreply 1207/27/2012

I doubt these homos are interested in making a "fraufest".

by Anonymousreply 1307/27/2012

Cue the "the book was better!" posturing of people everywhere, thinking they're Harold Bloom for a whole five minutes because it takes longer to read a book than it does to watch a film.

Is this the first big budget film directed by a trans person? Or was Vincente Minnelli just Judy in a suit?

by Anonymousreply 1407/27/2012

[quote]Cue the "the book was better!" posturing of people everywhere, thinking they're Harold Bloom for a whole five minutes because it takes longer to read a book than it does to watch a film.

Honey, learn to update your references a little.

Harold Bloom went out with acid-washed jeans and Walter Mondale.

by Anonymousreply 1507/27/2012

One of the directos, Tom Tyker, did Run Lola Run, one of my all-time favorites. I wish Franka Potente (Lola) had become a bigger star (she has done a lot, though).

by Anonymousreply 1607/29/2012

If you've ever seen "The Host," the actor who played the archer, Bae Doona, will play Sonmi-451. I think this is perfect casting.

by Anonymousreply 1707/29/2012

That was 20 years ago R16. His movies are shit, he's a one hit wonder. Tom hanks is a drunk piece of trash.

by Anonymousreply 1807/29/2012

Tom Hanks = boring

by Anonymousreply 1907/29/2012

r16, I agree.

She reminds me of Mila Jovovich, who is a great action star and a really fun interview.

I've always wondered why she was never given bigger roles. She would have made an interesting Catwoman.

by Anonymousreply 2008/06/2012

Porn site?

by Anonymousreply 2108/06/2012

[quote]it looks like a big budget fraufest,

What does that even really mean?

You call everything frau-this and frau-that, don't you?

I thought as much.

by Anonymousreply 2308/06/2012

bump for premiere

Anyone seeing it in TO?

I can't see this working, but maybe I'm just prejudiced against book-to-movie adaptations.

I didn't read it, but all the reviewers said it was a complicated narrative, even for literature.

The fact that Lana and Andy are doing so much press for this (at least by their standards) makes me nervous.

I did like the NYer piece, though.

by Anonymousreply 2409/06/2012

The book is brilliant. I couldn't put it down.

I have mixed feelings about the movie trailer simply because I don't understand how Tom Hanks can be playing Zachary who is supposed to be in his early 20's; and the blond wig Hanks wears as the Sach's character is beyond distracting -- again a character who is supposed to be half Tom Hank's age.

by Anonymousreply 2509/06/2012

Tom Hanks IS Tom Hanks, but I really loved the book so i think I'll go see it. My favorite section was the Sonmi-451 one.

by Anonymousreply 2609/06/2012

The book sucked. A silly creative writing exercise that average people of average intelligence think is great literature. It'll be completely forgotten in 20 years.

by Anonymousreply 2709/06/2012

What killed this movie? It is not making a dime. It still looks pretty cool to me.

by Anonymousreply 2911/07/2012

Weird, disoriented press. The book was a best seller, but Tom Hanks might have killed it.

by Anonymousreply 3011/07/2012

A while ago, I listened to the audiobook, and I have a feeling this was the ideal format. The book is built around the gimmickry that seems to be required of a book of fiction. With the audiobook, it was engaging enough But the real feature was the experience of returning to places you had already been. Towards the end, the discussion was about the Maori and I had a memory of reading about the Maori not that ling ago, which, of course, was from listening to the book a few weeks earlier.

I'm going to see the movie this weekend. I'm not expecting much. Usually, if I'm not expecting much, it's either because the source material was really bad (it wasn't) or really fantastic (it wasn't).

I'm afraid the conceit of having the same actors play roles in each of the time frames couldn't work if the actors are, by necessity, Big Names. We'll see.

by Anonymousreply 3111/07/2012

[quote]I'm going to see the movie this weekend. I'm not expecting much

for one, the time structure (sorry to spoil it) of the book is not maintained. SOmeone who loved the book and viewed the film called it "A beautiful, wonderful failure"

by Anonymousreply 3211/07/2012

I saw the movie last Saturday. Much of it is truly beautiful, and the complex sequence of six episodes was not all that hard to follow. The overall theme was, however, not profound. Still, I was glad for the experience: an unusual movie, with a good deal more intellectual structure than most.

by Anonymousreply 3311/07/2012

[quote]The overall theme was, however, not profound.

in the book, it is fairly basic but profound. I'm sorry to hear of that loss. the "orison" section looks brilliant though

by Anonymousreply 3411/07/2012


by Anonymousreply 3511/08/2012

R27 is dead on. Do you have any good book suggestions?

by Anonymousreply 3611/08/2012

Given the names and dollars involved, it is shocking what a non-event this movie is.

I think we can officially agree: BOMB.

by Anonymousreply 3711/14/2012

Too bad, I just saw it and liked it very much.

Tom hanks was often the weakest part because he is so much Tom hanks.

But overall good stuff.

by Anonymousreply 3811/14/2012

R27... What do you consider a good movie?

by Anonymousreply 3911/14/2012

The only blockbuster movie I can think of Halle Berry was in was James Bond. Other than that all her movies have bombed or were not made to be blockbusters.

Tom Hanks' star power has diminished greatly in last 8 years. He's not the draw he was in the 90s.

by Anonymousreply 4011/14/2012

or the 80's

by Anonymousreply 4111/14/2012

The sibs shoulda hired Keanu.

by Anonymousreply 4211/14/2012

I think this is a good example of the bind directors get in trying to finance a movie like this.

As r39 implied, casting stars in pictures like that can take you out of the movie; however, they need to have stars attached to secure financing.

I wish they would have been able to find an eccentric Wachowski fan with scads of money, a reclusive internet billionaire or something.

Someone who would have let them really find good, unknown actors for it. Actors could have helped it immensely.

by Anonymousreply 4311/14/2012

I agree that the casting is a liability, not a plus.

by Anonymousreply 4411/14/2012

A question for someone who has read the book.

Why was that particular replicant the one that everybody focused on?

Was she engineered to make her revelations?

by Anonymousreply 4511/14/2012

She wasn't, R46. It was, in my opinion, a way to show that the fabricants were not just mindless automatons who worked at Papa Songs i.e., McDonalds but were capable of thought though not feelings, apparently.

by Anonymousreply 4611/14/2012

brilliant movie. one of the best I've seen this year. Breathtakingly beautiful. Funny, adventurous. I, too, don't understand how this flopped so badly.

by Anonymousreply 4711/14/2012

R48, probably because it's about three hours long.

by Anonymousreply 4811/14/2012

The costumes and age differences, make-up, overdone accents, etc. that people react so negatively to I believe were part of the brilliant story telling showing the demarcations we use to judge one another are baseless and a complete waste of time - packaging is simply that - the whole point of the movie I think. Brilliantly done, captivating - I loved every minute of it.

by Anonymousreply 4911/14/2012

It was long, but I didn't notice. We went to a 4:30 showing so it felt like a lazy afternoon. Good cold weather activity.

by Anonymousreply 5011/14/2012

I liked it a lot. I hate to bring up 2 movies it most resembles are THE FOUNTAIN and TREE OF LIFE.

And the gay part is nice.

by Anonymousreply 5111/15/2012

[quote]Why was that particular replicant the one that everybody focused on? Was she engineered to make her revelations?

yes, she and that other one WERE, it is mentioned a science project that the ne'er-do-college student bought the rights to that started experimenting with the formula of their "soap" waiting to see whether they would "degenerate" after "ascending". Of course this could all have been a part of their plan laid out at the end of that chapter.

by Anonymousreply 5211/15/2012

Every section except one had a group of people being marginalized, the slaves, the gays, the elderly, the replicants and then ultimately the humans. The only section that was left out was the SF section. Or did I miss that?

by Anonymousreply 5311/16/2012

so is it worth seeing?

by Anonymousreply 5411/16/2012

Yes R55.

In the SF section, I would argue everybody in the nuclear plants explosion area was marginalized.

by Anonymousreply 5511/16/2012

[quote]The only section that was left out was the SF section.

conceivably the rich reactor directors were subjugating the rest of the world for their own profits.

by Anonymousreply 5611/16/2012

So is this a "must see on the big screen" or OK to just rent?

by Anonymousreply 5711/16/2012

Beautifully shot...I think it benefits from the big screen.

by Anonymousreply 5811/16/2012

I second seeing it in a theater; it heightens the immersive experience of being in the different time periods. There is an IMAX version as well.

by Anonymousreply 5911/16/2012

Awful. Friend would nudge me awake. After awhile, I started punching him back

by Anonymousreply 6011/16/2012

See on the big screen. At home, you may feel the urge to do something else while watching, and this movie needs complete attention.

And it's beautiful to look at. Except for Jim Sturgess's Asian features. Oy!

by Anonymousreply 6111/16/2012

If you look at the credits on IMDB it sort of tells the story this picture was in. Since when do the Wachowskis use anyone else to write or direct? Right? Well in THIS movie they had "help" from Tom Twyker of Run Lola Run fame. Help as in directing and writing.

IOW, the studio didn't like the first cut of this, Twyker was hired to clean up this shit of a movie.

And let us not forget where "Lana" told the studio that they were NOT going to do any interviews for one of their movies or else they just "would never direct again". Get her! Sheesh. They are lucky not to be cleaning up garbage.

Actually it sounds like Twyker was hired to clean up their garbage. And garbage it is. It is doing absolutely shit at the BO.

They are pretentious twits and the emporer has no clothes.

by Anonymousreply 6211/17/2012

Actually, Tykver was the first name attached to both screenplay and directorial credits of this German production in 2009; the Wachowskis, who were already collaborating on the screenplay, came onboard as co-directors two years later. Tykver and the Wachowskis filmed their segments in parallel with separate crews. Tykver is also co-composer of the score.

by Anonymousreply 6311/17/2012

Saw it a second time on screener, and while I loved it on the big screen, on the little screen, it's a bit harder to love these characters.

While many people have said the 70s reporter story was the most extraneous, I would have to say it was the present day one at the retirement home storyline that could have been dropped. It was just a funny trifle of a story.

by Anonymousreply 6412/09/2012

I loved the book.

by Anonymousreply 6512/09/2012

It's on HBO tonight and I find more and more layers to it than the first time I saw it.

by Anonymousreply 6610/26/2013

I just read the book for the second time, in reading it I am even more disappointed in the film. The structure of the book begs you to think hard about its content - civilization vs. savage - The nature of predation - How things may or may not relate or be true.

None of this carries well in the film. It's a spectacular action film, but nothing more.

by Anonymousreply 6710/26/2013

It's an impossible book to film, and yet I think the directors made the best movie of this material given the limitations of cinema over words.

by Anonymousreply 6810/26/2013

Movie's original score is amazing. I loved the book as well.

by Anonymousreply 6910/26/2013

The music left me cold personally, but most Hollywood scores do

by Anonymousreply 7010/26/2013

I just saw it and loved it.

by Anonymousreply 7112/08/2013

The score gave me chills!

by Anonymousreply 7212/08/2013

Halle Berry was the weak link. Cate Blanchett would have been better.

by Anonymousreply 7312/08/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!