February 9, 2014

Cloud Atlas

I tried. Honestly, I tried. I gave it an hour, and my will to live just sapped away.

I’ve never read the book – I don’t know if that would’ve helped or hindered in watching the film. And honestly, I don’t really care one way or the other.

To be fair, and as a disclaimer, it was always going to be an uphill struggle with me, as I’m not a fan of- or even someone who likes- the primary actors (Tom Hanks and Halle Berry) but all the same, I found all the characters unlikeable and (more damningly) uninteresting. After an hour – and still with two more to go – I just didn’t care about any single person in the film.

I tried. It failed.I got a third of the way in before my brain rebelled and forced me to press “Stop” and then “Delete”.

Of course, your thoughts on it may vary – if so, leave those comments below to tell me how and why I’m wrong…

Lyle

6 thoughts on “Cloud Atlas

  1. I haven’t rewatched the film, I saw it about a year ago, I think.

    I quite enjoyed reading the book. I think that David Mitchell has a great way with words and he crafts a sublime atmosphere. But I agree that the film was a bit disappointing, and I don’t recall having my attention captured by it.

  2. I’m afraid I agree with all of the above (or below, depending how you’re looking at it), so perhaps not so controversial after all. While I loved the book and became a firm fan of David Mitchell after reading it, I really found the film unengaging and difficult to follow.

  3. I enjoyed it: I quite enjoyed spotting the actors in their various disguises. Hugh Grant made a great cannibal 🙂 (I also dislike Tom Hanks in almost everything.) I think if I hasn’t read the book (which I *loved*) I wouldn’t have made head nor tail of the film. Perhaps it was made for lovers of the book, which was always going to be difficult to film. It was very big-budget for a film that other people were going to dislike, though.

  4. I wouldn’t say it’s unfilmable, as I’ve thought that of other books and been proven spectacularly wrong, but I’ve no wish to see the film. I was bowled over by the book, back in the day when I made time for novels, but it’s the language and the distinctive voice of each narrator that make it special for me. That’s David Mitchell’s real skill, and 172 minutes is too short to do that justice. The things that usually make for a good film – plot, strong characters, imagery – are there in the book but they are secondary to the poetry of the narration.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.