- Thread starter
- #61
Cloud Atlas
I've been thinking on this a few days and I'm fairly sure I'm coming down on the side of liking it. It appears to be very polarising. Roger Ebert loves it, Kermode thinks it failed.
It is very complex, yet the stories are quite straight forward. While it would be easy to recap the various sections of the story, while you're watching it there is a sense of "I'm not sure I really understand all this yet". Though it didn't feel like a three hour film to me, and the bouncing from story to story probably helped with that.
There is some great parallels and juxtaposition of the various story lines.
I was particularly impressed with some of Tom Hanks and Hugh Grant's transformations. They are two actors who are usually pretty much themselves in every role they play. I think Ladykillers is the closest thing I can think of for Tom Hanks trying to hide within a role. There were some where it took as while to work out who were who. They aren't the only ones to be hidden within characters, but the others either are not yet established, or, like jim broadbent, have a history of different looks.
That's not to say it was perfect. Some of the transformations were a little jarring (i.e. one of Tom Hank's looks like John Travolta circa The Taking of Pelham 123, and sounded like an irish dick van dyke from mary poppins), and the tone is a little inconsistent, with some of the humour being more farcical or cartoonish than fits comfortably with the tone of the rest of the film.
Some of the dialogue is a little confusing, particular from the distant future with Tom Hanks as an islander who has one futuristic dialogue, and Halle Berry as an enlightened one with her own future dialect.
I'm also not entirely sure how the film shows what the spiel claims it does with the impact of actions echoing through time. The links seem tenuous at best, with someone in each timeline writing a book or film that is read/watched by someone in the next without any real clear indication of how that impacts on the. The one exception being one future storyline and the story of that becoming the basis of a religion on the next time period.
Hansel & Gretel
I didn't think this was notably awful. But not good. There was some bloody violence, with a one moment of 3D where a wound needlessly squirted a bit of extra blood, and a lot of swearing. After the first F-bomb I thought 'well, pg-13 films are allowed one of them, that seems to have been wasted on that. Then there were a lot more scattered throughout. I don't have a problem with bloody violence and swearing, but, the tone of the story beyond those aspects is very childlike, the themes are very youth-oriented, and despite the gruesome nature, the violence was also quite playful and wouldn't be out of place in a kids' film.
It also doesn't help that it stars Jeremy Renner who just isn't the tough guy star hollywood is trying to make us believe he is. He doesn't have the charm or charisma for it, and I don't think he rally has the look. Gemma Arterton is someone I have no great aversion to, but she lacks a certain something that I'm struggling to find the word for. She seems to lightweight, like there's no substance to her, no form or density. I'm not using those words entirely accurate, I think. I suppose the nearest thing I can think of is that she lacks authority. She seems like someone who would struggle to control a class of school kids, let alone be a fearsome witch hunter who commands a village.
Mama
I personally thought it started quite creepily, especially the little girls, but as it went on, it started to lose discipline. It sets up the ghost and it's reason for existing and hints at how it could be defeated in the end.
At the end, all of that came to nothing. The resolution doesn't fit with how they established the rules of the ghost. Somewhere in between it also hinted that the ghost wasn't necessarily evil, just misguided, then it completely goes back on it.
And the finale itself didn't work. It's hard to describe without spoiling, but... It defies Hollywood convention, but not in a good way - it may have been possible for it to be a good way, but there was nothing done in the film to set it up or explain/hint at why it ended that way.
I've been thinking on this a few days and I'm fairly sure I'm coming down on the side of liking it. It appears to be very polarising. Roger Ebert loves it, Kermode thinks it failed.
It is very complex, yet the stories are quite straight forward. While it would be easy to recap the various sections of the story, while you're watching it there is a sense of "I'm not sure I really understand all this yet". Though it didn't feel like a three hour film to me, and the bouncing from story to story probably helped with that.
There is some great parallels and juxtaposition of the various story lines.
I was particularly impressed with some of Tom Hanks and Hugh Grant's transformations. They are two actors who are usually pretty much themselves in every role they play. I think Ladykillers is the closest thing I can think of for Tom Hanks trying to hide within a role. There were some where it took as while to work out who were who. They aren't the only ones to be hidden within characters, but the others either are not yet established, or, like jim broadbent, have a history of different looks.
That's not to say it was perfect. Some of the transformations were a little jarring (i.e. one of Tom Hank's looks like John Travolta circa The Taking of Pelham 123, and sounded like an irish dick van dyke from mary poppins), and the tone is a little inconsistent, with some of the humour being more farcical or cartoonish than fits comfortably with the tone of the rest of the film.
Some of the dialogue is a little confusing, particular from the distant future with Tom Hanks as an islander who has one futuristic dialogue, and Halle Berry as an enlightened one with her own future dialect.
I'm also not entirely sure how the film shows what the spiel claims it does with the impact of actions echoing through time. The links seem tenuous at best, with someone in each timeline writing a book or film that is read/watched by someone in the next without any real clear indication of how that impacts on the. The one exception being one future storyline and the story of that becoming the basis of a religion on the next time period.
Hansel & Gretel
I didn't think this was notably awful. But not good. There was some bloody violence, with a one moment of 3D where a wound needlessly squirted a bit of extra blood, and a lot of swearing. After the first F-bomb I thought 'well, pg-13 films are allowed one of them, that seems to have been wasted on that. Then there were a lot more scattered throughout. I don't have a problem with bloody violence and swearing, but, the tone of the story beyond those aspects is very childlike, the themes are very youth-oriented, and despite the gruesome nature, the violence was also quite playful and wouldn't be out of place in a kids' film.
It also doesn't help that it stars Jeremy Renner who just isn't the tough guy star hollywood is trying to make us believe he is. He doesn't have the charm or charisma for it, and I don't think he rally has the look. Gemma Arterton is someone I have no great aversion to, but she lacks a certain something that I'm struggling to find the word for. She seems to lightweight, like there's no substance to her, no form or density. I'm not using those words entirely accurate, I think. I suppose the nearest thing I can think of is that she lacks authority. She seems like someone who would struggle to control a class of school kids, let alone be a fearsome witch hunter who commands a village.
Mama
I personally thought it started quite creepily, especially the little girls, but as it went on, it started to lose discipline. It sets up the ghost and it's reason for existing and hints at how it could be defeated in the end.
At the end, all of that came to nothing. The resolution doesn't fit with how they established the rules of the ghost. Somewhere in between it also hinted that the ghost wasn't necessarily evil, just misguided, then it completely goes back on it.
And the finale itself didn't work. It's hard to describe without spoiling, but... It defies Hollywood convention, but not in a good way - it may have been possible for it to be a good way, but there was nothing done in the film to set it up or explain/hint at why it ended that way.
. 'My bad' as they say in the USA!
I thought it was very good, like most French films, very good atmosphere, better than any Hollywood equivalent. Million Dollar Baby springs to mind. 7.5/10.