Cloud Atlas (2012 Film) The Wachowskis

Critical response

The film garnered divided reactions by both critics and audiences, with many debating its length and editing of the interwoven stories, but praising other aspects such as the cinematography, score, visual style, ensemble cast, and ambition. The film received a lengthy standing ovation at the 37th Toronto International Film Festival, where it premiered on 9 September 2012.[60]

According to review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 66% of 293 critics gave the film a positive review, with an average rating of 6.7/10. The site's critics' consensus is that "Its sprawling, ambitious blend of thought-provoking narrative and eye-catching visuals will prove too unwieldy for some, but the sheer size and scope of Cloud Atlas are all but impossible to ignore."[61] Review aggregator Metacritic assigned the film a weighted average score of 55 out of 100, based on 45 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".[62] According to the website, the film appeared on 14 critics' top 10 lists for 2012.[63] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "C+" on an A+ to F scale.[64]

Film critic Roger Ebert gave the film four out of four stars and ranked the film among his best of the year: "One of the most ambitious films ever made ... Even as I was watching Cloud Atlas the first time, I knew I would need to see it again. Now that I've seen it the second time, I know I'd like to see it a third time ... I think you will want to see this daring and visionary film ... I was never, ever bored by Cloud Atlas. On my second viewing, I gave up any attempt to work out the logical connections between the segments, stories and characters".[65] Conversely, Slant Magazine's Calum Marsh called it a "unique and totally unparalleled disaster" and said "[its] badness is fundamental, an essential aspect of the concept and its execution that I suspect is impossible to remedy or rectify."[66] Henry Barnes writing in The Guardian said that "At 172 minutes, Cloud Atlas carries all the marks of a giant folly, and those unfamiliar with the book will be baffled"; he gave the film two out of five stars.[3]

Nick Pickerton, who reviewed the film for The Village Voice, said, "There is a great deal of humbug about art and love in Cloud Atlas, but it is decidedly unlovable, and if you want to learn something about feeling, you're at the wrong movie."[67] Film critic Mark Kermode on his first viewing called it "an extremely honourable failure, but a failure", but then on a second viewing for the release of the DVD in the UK stated, "Second time around, I find it to be more engaging – still not an overall success, but containing several moments of genuine magic, and buoyed up by the exuberance of high-vaulting ambition."[68][69] Village Voice and Time magazine both named Cloud Atlas the worst film of 2012.[13]

Variety described it as "an intense three-hour mental workout rewarded with a big emotional payoff. ... One's attention must be engaged at all times as the mosaic triggers an infinite range of potentially profound personal responses."[70] James Rocchi of MSN Movies stated, "It is so full of passion and heart and empathy that it feels completely unlike any other modern film in its range either measured through scope of budget or sweep of action."[71] The Daily Beast called Cloud Atlas "one of the year's most important movies".[49] Michael Cieply of The New York Times commented on the film, "You will have to decide for yourself whether it works. It's that kind of picture. ... Is this the stuff of Oscars? Who knows? Is it a force to be reckoned with in the coming months? Absolutely."[72]

Box office

Despite expectations that the film could be a success,[73] the film opened to $9.6 million from 2,008 theaters, an average of $4,787 per theater, finishing second at the U.S. box office. The debut was described as "dreadful" by Box Office Mojo.[74] The film ultimately grossed $27.1 million in the U.S. and $103.4 million internationally for a total of $130.5 million.[75]

Reaction from the crew

Directors

On 25 October 2012, after the premiere at Toronto (and despite the standing ovation it received there), Lilly Wachowski[a] stated as "soon as [critics] encounter a piece of art they don't fully understand the first time going through it, they think it's the fault of the movie or the work of art. They think, 'It's a mess ... This doesn't make any sense.' And they reject it, just out of an almost knee-jerk response to some ambiguity or some gulf between what they expect they should be able to understand, and what they understand."[31][76]

In the same interview, Lana Wachowski said people "will try to will Cloud Atlas to be rejected. They will call it messy, or complicated, or undecided whether it's trying to say something New Agey-profound or not. And we're wrestling with the same things that Dickens and Hugo and David Mitchell and Herman Melville were wrestling with. We're wrestling with those same ideas, and we're just trying to do it in a more exciting context than conventionally you are allowed to. ... We don't want to say, 'We are making this to mean this.' What we find is that the most interesting art is open to a spectrum of interpretation."[31][76]

Cast

Tom Hanks has come to praise Cloud Atlas strongly in the years since its release.[77] In 2013, he stated "I've seen it three times now and discovered, I swear to God, different, profound things with each viewing."[78] In a 2017 interview, he called it "a movie that altered my entire consciousness," saying, "it's the only movie I've been in that I've seen more than twice."[24][79]

Halle Berry said in an interview, "It would be impossible to explain what I really feel or think about the film. It exists on so many different levels. ... I love the totality of all the characters."[44][25] She talked about playing characters belonging to other ethnicities, and playing a male: "This is so poignant for an actor and someone like me, to be able to shed my skin ... you know, to do something that I would have never been able to do. If it were not for this kind of project, I still wouldn't have done that."[25]

In a 2017 interview, Jim Broadbent called the film "great to do" and "fantastic".[80] In another interview, he expressed disappointment over the commercial failure of the film, saying, "It was an independent film and needed a lot of money behind it to get it out there. Warner Bros. had the distribution rights but it wasn't one of their own, so I think it might have been [marketed] harder if it was."[81]

Hugh Grant said in an October 2014 interview, "I thought [Cloud Atlas] was amazing. [The Wachowskis] are the bravest film-makers in the world, and I think it's an amazing film ... it's frustrating to me. Every time I've done something outside the genre of light comedy, the film fails to find an audience at the box office. And, sadly, Cloud Atlas never really found the audience it deserved."[82] He later said in 2016 "the whole thing was fascinating. You know, when you work with proper people who love cinema, [the Wachowskis are] a special breed, they're not the same as people who just make movies and we happen to use cameras. [They are] people who really love cinema."[24]

Adaptation is a form of translation, and all acts of translation have to deal with untranslatable spots. ... [If] you are the one with knowledge of the "into" language, do what works. When asked whether I mind the changes made during the adaptation of Cloud Atlas, my response is similar: The filmmakers speak fluent film language, and they've done what works.

—David Mitchell in The Wall Street Journal[83]

David Mitchell

Before hearing about the Wachowskis and Tykwer's project, the author David Mitchell believed it was impossible to adapt his book as a film: "My only thought was 'What a shame this could never be a film. It has a Russian doll structure. God knows how the book gets away with it but it does, but you can't ask a viewer of a film to begin a film six times, the sixth time being an hour and a half in. They'd all walk out.'"[84]

In October 2013, Mitchell called the film "magnificent", having been very impressed by the screenplay. He was very satisfied by the casting, especially of Hanks, Berry and Broadbent. He said that he could not even remember how he had originally imagined the characters in his mind before seeing the movie. [85] He also supported the changes from the novel, impressed by how the Wachowskis and Tykwer successfully disassembled the structure of the book for the needs of the movie.[83][85]

Controversy

The advocacy group Media Action Network for Asian Americans (MANAA) and several commentators online criticized the film's use of white actors in yellowface to portray East Asian characters in the neo-Seoul sequences.[86][87][88][89][90][91] MANAA President Guy Aoki said that the film had a double standard, as it used black actors to portray black characters.[92]

The directors responded that the same multi-racial actors portrayed multiple roles of various nationalities and races (not just East Asian) across a 500-year story arc, showing "the continuity of souls" critical to the story.[86] The portrayal of Moriori character Autua by a Black British man was subject to similar scrutiny; it was criticized by some as offensive and confusing for audiences.[93][94][95]

Accolades

The film was shortlisted for the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects, but was not nominated in any category.[96]