I'm lumping these two films together because they represent a piece of cinema that we don't see much anymore -- fantastical films that explore the spiritual side of humanity. The early reviews of these films confirm that these are not just mindless SFX extravaganzas. They are beautifully filmed exposes on what it means to be human. I'm especially looking forward to Cloud Atlas which comes out today. I've always been a believer in reincarnation, and the themes it explores about how one life can affect to many others really calls out to me. Based on the trailers alone, I'm fascinated how they have all the actors playing multiple roles, including switching races and genders, including seeing Halle Berry as a white woman, or Hugo Weaving playing a female nurse. The story takes place in six different timelines stretching from the early 1800's all the way to the far distant future. I'm a sucker for these metaphysical films, and I hope this one doesn't disappoint. [YT="Cloud Atlas Trailer"]KgI6EeYbV84[/YT] Life of Pi looks like another gorgeous feast for the eyes. The story of a young Indian lad who's family moves their zoo across the ocean. But the ship sinks and he finds himself stuck on a lifeboat with a very hungry tiger. Again, based on the trailer the film looks incredibly shot, and is beautiful to behold. [YT="Life of Pi Trailer"]j9Hjrs6WQ8M[/YT] Is anyone else planning to see these?
It depends what they say. If it exalts humanity, but dresses it up with some mild mumbo-jumbo, I usually let it slide, as long as it's not saccharine. If it exhalts boogedy above humans, by saying you wouldn't be able to get through life, or worse, know a right or wrong thought without boogedy, then, the filmmakers can go drink a bullet.
I saw the trailer for Cloud Atlas in the theater about a month ago and was immediately stricken by it for the reasons Black Dove listed in the OP. (Reincarnation, karma, spirituality, etc.) My wife and I are going tonight and I plan on reading the book as soon as I finish my current read (A history of the Texas Rangers). When I researched it, I found that this was one of those books people had dubbed 'impossible to put to film' but it looks like the Wachowskis have said 'we'll just see about that.' I am looking VERY forward to this.
What do you define as boogedy? From what I can tell, even though the film deals with the reincarnation of souls, it still seems to focus more on human emotion and our interconnectedness with one another. We as human beings learn from each other and help each other grow in ways we don't fully understand. Marso, let me know what you think of the movie after seeing it. I want to see it this weekend, I just don't know if I'll get the chance.
Dickynoo thinks the grain of sand is all there is. Yes, I am very much looking forward to seeing Cloud Atlas.
Not to get all religious in the thread, but if you know that humans have a tendency to anthropomorphize in error, isn't the most correct course of action to assume that something just "is what it is" without trying to assign some extra unevidenced significance?
I'm pretty sure reincarnation is bullshit. (I'll stop it at that, since this isn't the RR.) Wait for the controversy over this one... Halle Berry in whiteface... we'll see how that plays...
Black folks in white face doesn't cause controversy, it's only when white people don black face that it's a big deal. Those trailers look interesting...although there is the usual fear that we just saw all the good parts there and the movies won't live up to the hyped trailers.
No. The "most correct" course of action is not to assume at all. Be open to experience/evidence. Be cynical, of course, but be open to possibilities.
Not even close to true. If you don't make assumptions based on bayesian probabilities as elucidated by your experiences and knowledge then you'll never be able to understand anything at all. We must always make assumptions based on past experience and current knowledge, but we must also be willing to update those assumptions as needed when new evidence arises.
Just got back from it- exceptionally well made movie that is going to win lots of awards. Was it perfect? No; it's a very ambitious project and it almost demands 2-3 viewings, which could be problematic because it requires you to sit and actually concentrate for about 3 hours. This isn't a 'mindless' movie at all, if you are trying to tie together the threads and keep all the characters sorted by 'soul' throughout. In fact, I'm only sure about a few of the 'incarnations' of souls across all six storylines. I had a hard time trying to figure if the actors were all playing one soul or whether the souls were cross-pollinated across the actors, if that makes any sense. There are also instances of several actors (particularly Hanks) playing several 'bit' parts that co-existed with other characters they portrayed in the same time period. That plus the heavy use of makeup and prosthetics could make it confusing. At one point Hugo Weaving was playing a woman. Although I haven't read the book yet, my understanding is that it progresses forward (chronologically) through the first half of the six storylines, and then backwards through the second half to close the loop on all of them. The movie doesn't do this- it tells all six stories simultaneously and then ties them together sort of at the end, but some of the jumps are way too fast- literally less than a minute or two before jumping to another storyline. There are a few places in the movie where it seems a bit convoluted, but then streamlines out again. It's also mentally jarring to keep changing tracks constantly; imagine the three vignettes from Twilight Zone, The Movie being spliced together so that they were being told simultaneously. That aside, the movie and the themes it addresses were fabulous. This is one of those movies you'll be thinking about days and weeks after the fact, and folks will be yakking about it across tables and at bars, I think. I'll give it a solid 8, and maybe even a 9 after I see it a second time. I gotta read the book, too, and get those souls sorted out!
I look forward to some more in depth discussions about the content of the movie when more of you hosers have seen it.
Going again today, this time with a firmer grasp of who is playing which parts. I've started the book but not gotten very far yet (I'm through the first half of Adam Ewing's journal and into the beginning of Frobisher's story). This time I'm going to try and pay more attention to who has the birthmark and the continuity of the various souls.
My understanding from people who've read the book and seen the movie is that it isn't handled consistently well in the film for some reason.
Even more enjoyable on a second viewing. Caught a lot more subtleties this time around, too. This movie won't be everyone's cuppa but I highly recommend it.
Just heard about "Life of Pi" today, so jury's still out. As for "Cloud Atlas", I'll probably have to wait and watch it on Netflix or DVD, but I really want to see it.
I read the life of Pi book a few years back, had no idea it was being made into a film until I saw it trailed at Taken2 last week. It does look visually beautiful. Saying that, having read the book, I really have reservations about how it could translate to a film.
There are always exceptions and unlike white people donned black face in the past and did so with racist intentions he could be said to have done it right.
One thing I was reminded of watching Cloud Atlas was Kim Stanley Robinson's "The Years of Rice and Salt," which track a group of souls through reincarnated lives over and over again in an alternate history of mankind, describing the concept of small groups of souls interacting with one another again and again in different lives and circumstances. I read that book many years ago and may go back and re-read it in the near future. The thing that reminded me of KSR's book was the way the directors used the same actors over and over again in each time period. Particularly if you subscribe to the notion that the actors are playing different souls in each period. The book doesn't evoke this sensation because you can imagine the characters as anyone- not necessarily the same actors over and over. Gotta say, the actors that participated in this movie must have had a ball with all the different roles, sub-genres, and makeup. Hanks and Broadbent in particular.
Life of Pi may find favour with children, but I didn't like it much. Apart from the shipwreck scene, which was gloriously done (as good as anything I've seen in 3D before and a rare demonstration of how having the extra dimension is worthwhile) the whole thing seems to be about how denial of painful reality is a positive thing. Fuck that.
Just watched CLOUD ATLAS. Movie of the year hands down. Since it's mostly a German movie I did read the German reviews. Once again this shows how German language movie critics should be collectively fired. If it's not on a shoestring budget (very important, this means quality!) and about personal problems or crime with a lot of personal problems or personal problems during the nazi regime, it's automatically bad. It's pretty much impossible to score with them when there's not at least a stillbirth on a wedding day followed by 30 minutes of close ups on sad faces. My review is: go see it and be mesmerized for almost three hours. Really, I literally forgot to go pee.
I also saw this a couple of days ago, and I liked it a lot. Just about all the characters were likable in their own way, even the "villains". My favorite storylines were Neo-Korea, and post apocalypse world, thought the composer and his gay lover probably was the most heartbreaking. I love movies where you can't predict what's going to happen at the end due to it just being so unusual. This movie delivers - great characters, great story, underrated special effects and action sequences. My only regret is not watching it in a cinema when I could. Final Score: Very Solid A
