Lots of Man, Not So Much Iron

The exciting–and curiously deviant–Iron Man 3 leaves lots of questions concerning the future of Marvel's Iconic Tony Stark.

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): Iron Man 3 is a fun, frantic and fractured look at arguably the most iconic personality in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). As an Iron Man movie it was cool, but we got a little less Iron and a little more man in this third installment of the franchise. The MCU owes everything to Iron Man, Tony Stark and Robert Downey, Jr. This movie is the first big Marvel movie effort to drop in Marvel's vaunted Phase II, the first post-Avengers cinematic release and this film took a very strange turn for the Golden Avenger. 

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): Marvel has been pretty good with continuity within the movie universe they have created and this film is no exception. If you stuck around after the credits, then you saw the tie-in to the Avengers movie(s). Now if we are comparing it to the comics for continuity and accurate portrayal of the material, then there are a few areas where this film falls short... specifically, the Mandarin.

CASTING, DIRECTING AND ACTING

AV: It's been said once, if not a thousand times, Robert Downey Jr IS Tony Stark. Honestly, if anyone out there happens to be reading this blog and  you don't at least know who Stark is, even just by earlier movies, stop here because NONE of what we have to say will matter to you. Marvel movies are nothing if they're not deep characterizations–and IM3 delivers. Curiously, Jon Faveau did not direct here and I, for one, noticed. 

TP: Everyone is back, and everyone did what was expected of them. Robert Downey Jr is Tony Stark, there is no question. Don Cheadle was given the opportunity to showcase why James Rhodes should be considered for his own film. It remains to be seen if he made the case well enough. Guy Pearce has established himself as a movie bad guy and just added to that legacy with his role as Dr. Killian. I expected Ben Kingsley to blow me away as the Mandarin, but instead was disappointed my expectations weren’t met... while at the same time Kingsley delivered within the role he was given.

SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: As THE premiere hero of Marvel's 'technology age' of comics, Iron Man is all about tech and SFX. This movie offers some very cool effects shots I will call out two of my favs. First, the Extremis villains are fantastically portrayed on screen. Watching limbs regenerate and hyper-intense molten skin shots were great to establish a sense of villainy–more than just another super-villain or tech robot. It's so well done, the effects feel understated and thats some of my favorite kind of SFX.

Next is the 'armored legion' of remote controlled Iron Man suits at the movie's finale that are a fitting tribute to (Tony) Stark's incredibly cool genius as an inventor, scientist and arms dealer-turned- power magnate. Watching almost four-dozen Iron Men onscreen at once.. well, it was enough to make me plotz. Pontificator? 

TP: Although they were excellent as expected Vader, I also feel that there was an opportunity missed here to do something above and beyond, to push the envelope to a place we haven’t been yet. Don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t displeased with the effects... in fact I was very happy to see all the different armors although I wish they could have went more in depth with the differences between the types of armors. The tidbits they showed were just enough to wet my whistle, but I wanted to be dowsed in armor envy.

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK

AV: There were a few things that I took issue with in the film. First, I hated the fact that the Mandarin was essentially a joke. He's just way too cool a character (in the Marvel comic world) to laugh-off and make into some sort of dopey prop. Sir Ben Kingsly did a stellar job as a reluctant world-class terrorist – but it was still very disheartening. 

Next, why is Stark blowing up all the armor? I love the story arc showing us how Tony is 'letting go' of the Iron Man persona and making the story more about Tony than about Iron Man, but seriously WHAT THE HELL? Are you kidding me? It's insane. Sure he can make more but… ugh! 

Lastly… surgery to remove the arc reactor? Again, the storytelling aspect offered great symbolism but come on! That's why there's an Iron Man in the first place. I felt VERY much like Marvel was writing off Iron Man (yes I did read in the credits that "Tony Stark will return) but this was another huge mis-step to me. I'm not alone here am I Ponty? 

TP: No Vader you're not alone. There was misuse... and missed opportunity. That about sums up this film. The Mandarin was a chance to really do something spectacular, and instead it was simply a plot point to take us somewhere else. That somewhere else we were taken was to another missed opportunity in the form of Extremis. Surprisingly they stayed pretty accurate with what it does and how it works, but to not have Stark incorporate it into his tech, as he did in the comics, was probably (and quietly) one of the biggest missed opportunities of recent filming. It was a chance to take the special effects a notch higher. It was a chance to springboard in the upcoming Avengers film. It was a chance to take the character into a new direction... something that would have added more punch to this film. It was interesting of them to play up Tony Stark more and show us more of the man inside the armor, but I went to see that man... when he’s IN the armor, with every expectation of going somewhere we didn’t go before. Unfortunately where we were taken wasn’t anywhere I wanted to be.

ON SEQUELS:

AV: Yes, please. As of the posting of this installment, Robert Downey Jr is asking for a reported $100 Million for a new set of appearances including Iron Man 4 (slated for a 2016 release), Avengers 2 (2015) & 3 (2018) and an undisclosed number of cameos in related and future inter-connected Marvel movies. I say he's worth every penny. It's a steal. Hello? Marvel Studios? This is a no brainer: make it happen. You will make two-dozen times that or more. What's the hold-up? Where's my pen…?

TP: I would have been content if this was an Iron Man trilogy... and they moved on to other characters and more Avengers movies. If they wanted to, they could make many more Iron Man films than just the next, but to do so (and do it well) would mean they would have to really dig back into the source material and come up with something broader in scope, but narrower in vision... and that would take an effort that I’m not sure Marvel would invest in.

RATE IT!

ARTH VADER Rates Iron Man 3: All said, I really liked this movie. A loaded story that featured a lot more Man than Iron but that was ok (who wasn't delighted by Tony's interaction with the kid or the Tony Stark: Spymaster sequence where he uses his inventiveness to fashion a deadly arsenal out of stuff from Home Depot?). While it left me with tons of questions–what's the future hold for Iron Man/Stark? How did Pepper get surgically cured from a gene-altering injection? Why were the Iron Men so easy to take down?–but I gotta say, as ever, I was blown away. 

Lots of humor, lots of great story and dialogue and a ton of Easter eggs for the fans (how about the giant "A" left standing in the rubble of Stark's house… West Coast Avengers anyone?). This movie is worth double the admission price –yes, I did it see it twice on opening weekend. All told, Iron Man 3 Repulsor blasts his way through to eight (8) glowing, white-hot busted blocks. 

THE PONTIFICATOR rates Iron Man 3: A good film with great effects and maybe a little too much comedy, I can’t help reflecting on those areas and missed chances to make this film even better. It was entertaining and fun, and in the final analysis, this is the true measure of why I even go to the movies. Even through all of this, the movie was able to uni-beam seven (7) armored blocks. 

Iron Man 3: 7.5/10 Busted Blocks

More Than Meets The Sky

Universal Picture's Oblivion Shows Us There Is More Than One Kind of Artificial Intelligence

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): Continuity is a curious topic here, Pontificator. The movie is the brainchild of a graphic novel that never was. Released as an exclusive preview at San Diego ComiCon in 2009, the beautifully illustrated spreads were breathtaking. The rumor is that the limited content was always meant to be a storyboard for a movie proposal. Regardless, the story is as visually stunning as those wonderfully rendered initial promotional spreads. 

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): Again, I don’t have any reference to compare continuity (in other words, I haven’t read the book... that never was). I’ll leave such comparisons to those that have had the exclusive opportunity to indulge in both the limited content and the film.

CASTING, DIRECTING AND ACTING

AV: For me, Mr. Tom Cruise has had a solid–if not stellar–run of sci-fi and fantasy films. Mission: Impossible, War of The Worlds and Minority Report  are all solid sci-fi flicks. Heck, I even dug him as the Vampire Lestat in Interview With A Vampire. Even Morgan "I-Can-Do-No-Movie-Wrong" Freeman joins the cast along with British relative newcomer Andrea Riseborough to help Oblivion–the cast is well stacked. The character-driven storyline is well shot and laden with enough effects shots to keep any SFX studio busy (and proud). The movie is a stunning victory as, according to creator Joseph Kosinski, an "… homage to science fiction movies from the 1970's." That is certainly evident in the breath-taking, post apocalyptic Manhattan scenes the movie displays. Ponty? 

TP: I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it now again, Tom Cruise is one of the premier action sci-fi hero’s of our time. Despite his age, he continues to deliver physically impressive performances and is actually a really good actor (Born on the Fourth of July and Jerry Maguire anyone?). Adding Morgan Freeman to the cast is just sealing the deal for viewership. I didn’t see anyone in a role that wasn’t a great choice for their part. The direction of the film was predicable, at first, but quickly became a series of interesting surprises.

SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: First rate. The visual effects are masterful. The landscapes are immersive and tech is believably 'near-future'. Here's what I saw; ever since Chuck Heston pounded his frustrated mits into the rolling surf after identifying the blasted remains of the Statue of Liberty, Sci-Fi films have treated us with scenes of the ruin and decay of New York at the hands of some horrible catastrophe. Whether it's being blown to pieces in Independence Day or engulfed in water in The Day After Tomorrow, the Big Apple has suffered devastation aplenty. Such is the case in Oblivion. Deep Canyons remain of mid-town and cryptic spires jutting out of the landscape are just gorgeous. The effects folks over at Pixomondo lead the way with the stupefying effects for this film. Well done, folks. I would almost encourage seeing this movie for the effects shots alone. 

TP: I will sum up the special effects in two words: top notch. The landscapes were convincing and awesome and the drones were believably menacing. I know there was CGI in this film... there had to be, but I never noticed it. That’s the best kind of CGI, the kind you know is there, but just can’t spot. The props were also very impressive. As small of a scene as it was, especially in the overall. 

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK

AV: This movie, while not entirely original, did have a unique spin on the "after the end of the world" story arc. While I believe we are (purposely) left with as many questions as answers, the movie was fun and exceptionally entertaining. Indulge me, oh reader, with these questions. If the clones of Jack and Victoria are told of the horrible outcome war with the "scavs" and the terrible price for victory 60 years earlier—is that all just a lie? Even if the devastation is six decades old, why does it look like hundreds of years prior–even thousands? Are the scavs aliens or a human construct? Why would Jack be 'allowed' to have a secret cottage/refuge? Does that mean ALL Jack clones have this? Why did the Scavs need so much ocean water? How do the 'survivors' eat? Where is their water supply? I could go on but there a great many holes in the story. You want to see Oblivion and enjoy it, I strongly suggest you turn your brain off. It will be for the best. Thoughts, Ponty? 

TP: Certain plot points were very easy for me to see early in the film Vader. I basically called it within the first ten minutes. The impressive part of the movie is the rest of the story that I never saw coming. That said, I really wanted to know how they intended to tie the loose end of multiple clones already earth-side and operating when the Tet is destroyed? I thought is was genius to flip what we were being told...and things be the opposite of what Jack believed. Earth lost the war, and he has become an instrument for hunting the remnants of his own people. Ironically, the survivor’s of Earth (Scavs) have indeed become “alien” to him. The word “oblivion” means to forget, and it was an apt title given the fact it was Jack’s memories, which survived being systematically wiped, that were the key to finally changing everything.

ON SEQUELS

AV: I could see having more of this story unfold before me. I don't know if that's in the works but the movie has merit and offers plenty of scenarios that could easily inspire sequels. I would also love to have some of the above questions answered. While the trend in Hollywood is to offer multiple installments to even half-baked stories, this movie could see more fleshing out. That said, I could take or leave a part two. How say you, sir? 

TP: I have to say that there need not be a sequel to this film, it stands very well by itself. However, if they wanted to make one... I know a few angles that they could approach it from... not the least of which is a prequel to show the invasion and subsequent destruction.

RATE IT!

ARTH VADER rates Oblivion: You could do a lot worse than seeing this movie. Pensive, serious, great  characters driven by a cryptic story, this film entertains and offers a unique twist on the alien invasion cannon. If you are NOT a Tom Cruise fan, this movie is filled to the brim with Jack so you might want to consider that before plunking down your digits for a ticket. Rest assured, this is an excellent first round salvo to kick-off the 2013 summer movie season to which I gladly give up seven (7) Busted Blocks for Oblivion because Earth is–indeed–a memory worth fighting for. 

THE PONTIFICATOR rates Oblivion: A great film and a very interesting and engaging story made this one a very entertaining view. It wasn’t overwhelmed with action, but had enough of it and it was intense enough to keep the film exciting...and explode seven (7) busted blocks.

Oblivion: 7/10 Busted Blocks

A Host of Inner Demons

Hearts grow fonder amidst an alien invasion in the film adaptation of Stephanie Meyer's The Host

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): This story is the first sci-fi effort for writer Stephanie Meyer, a veteran of the supernatural/love story arena. This time the Twilight mastermind spins a curious tale of human subjugation by an alien invasion in the form of possession. This story is an odd  merging of well-known Sci-Fi franchises but with the relationship/love-story angle pumped all the way to 10. Think of this film as the mutated offspring of Invasion of The Body Snatchers-meets-Twilight-meets-THX-1138. In the vain of Meyer's now near-legendary formula of the supernatural merged with the super-emotional, The Host is a minimalist view of a subjugated humanity occupied by alien invaders who mean to submit our bodies–and our world–to their rule. 

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): I haven’t read the book, so I can’t make an accurate comparison to the source material. All I can hope to contribute is that if they make another film, it stays in continuity to this one... and that they answer some very fundamental questions that arose for me.

CASTING, DIRECTING AND ACTING

AV: The only truly identifiable face here was the lovely and talented Rachel Roberts. Otherwise, this movie is populated with largely D-Listers, newcomers and other relatively new or low-recognition actors. While the acting is sound, this movie will win approximately zero awards–especially for acting–but it is not bad, per se. For me, the direction is very flat and painstakingly 2-dimensional. The minimalist nature of the sets, the number of people shown in any one scene and the fact that the movie purposely takes place far away from major metropolitan centers is divisive and somewhat vapid. Sorry, Ponty, this kind of acting with sparse backdrops and environments are a 1970's throwback to when it was too expensive to build full sets — your thoughts? 

TP: I think it was a good move to shy away from A-List actors to carry this film Vader. The fact that I only recognized one actor in it... and that he is such a great actor, brought the film to life for me as I took it as watching ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances. Saoirse Ronan was great, having to play herself as two characters at the same time. Diane Kruger was also great, doing the same thing, but much more subtly while increasingly becoming more antagonistic. William Hurt was perfect in his role as a man that sees and knows a lot more than he tells. The pace of the film was very steady, but with a constant ominous feel.

SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: Before I go all medieval style on the SFX, let's just say that this is just NOT that kind of movie. A few CGI shots of.. uh… space jelly fish animations and a few dozen pairs of white colored contact lenses is just not enough to weigh in on this topic for this film. That's too bad because the inclusion of some decent effects could have made this film more engaging. In The Host, there was very little to hint at a sense of impending doom, of an ominous threat or that what was going was even so bad. SF/X could have added greatly to the movie's overall experience. 

TP: The special effects were very good, but relatively easy considering the setting didn’t really call for much to go over-the-top. The aliens were simple enough as where the vessels that contained them. The bulk of the effects were things we see in virtually every movie, like car accidents and gunshots. Tough to screw any of those up. If there was one “effect” I found outstanding, it was the music. Very bold and catchy for this film.

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK

AV: Truth be told, this movie is an interesting (alternative?) view of an alien overrun of our world. Instead of death rays, spaceships and mystical technologies, the invasion comes in the softer–and more believable–form of a bloodless takeover by the pacifistic 'Souls'. The premise is clean and would be believable if the film didn't focus so much on the constant love-smitten dialogue of a near-impossible to follow love triangle. What should be a sense of overwhelming oppression and dread gives way to almost laughable dialogue between Melanie Strider (Saiorise Ronan) and her alien counterpart, the Soul Wanderer. The minimalistic vision of Meyer's world gone to alien subjugation is sterile and misses becoming one of the true grounding elements of the film. Much like Lucas's pre-Star Wars cult fav, THX-1138, the politics of a post 'next generation'  society helps play a role as a storytelling device that should be both eerie and unsettling. Unfortunately, the audience never quite gets a sense of this and that becomes this movie's single greatest tragedy. 

TP: There was a lot to see in this film, but it really aroused more questions than it answered. From the onset, humanity is a done deal. The numbers game just doesn’t add up, and there seems to be no hope for the human race ( a million to one odds isn’t hopeful). The obvious question in all of this is how in the heck did it all come to be this way? The aliens need to be surgically inserted into a human host, so what human was the first to do this procedure, why did they do it.... and how did they even know to do it given the communication barrier presented by the aliens in their natural form? Given all of this, why did the humans simply not kill anyone infected as they are easy to spot by their eyes and behavior? How do you get to a million to one odds by surgical procedures performed by passive aliens? This was a HUGE hole in the film for me.

ON SEQUELS

AV: While there is a strong implication for a 'what could happen next' in the storyline, the movie ends with a feel-good "this ain't over yet" kind of message. The movie's pacing is moderate at best and forces any lover of action/drama to reign-in their wants and absorb a slow-paced, methodical story. I could see–remotely–that a follow-up is possible... but I for one am not looking forward to it. Pontificator? 

TP: Sequel? No... try prequel to explain how it all began, cause at a million to one odds, we already know how it’s going to end.

RATE IT!

ARTH VADER rates The Host: While decidedly NOT my cup of tea, The Host is an interesting deviation from the sci-fi invasion-from-space cannon. It misses key opportunities to engage the audience and at 2 hours and 5 minutes, that's big. If future installments are forthcoming, the screenwriters need to make a stronger effort to engage the viewer. This movie needed more time in the cooker for it to matter more. That said, the voices in my head urge that The Host assimilates four (4) weakly-contested busted blocks. 

THE PONTIFICATOR rates The Host: This was not a bad film, but it wasn’t stellar either. I found it to be very interesting and constantly ominous as the situation was just insurmountable. I couldn’t shake the feeling that I was watching the last moments of humanity. Although the idea wasn’t original (Invasion of the Body Snatchers), the presentation was intriguing enough to take over six (6) busted blocks. 

The Host: 5/10 Busted Blocks

Building A Deeper Bond

James Bond turns a corner and a new leaf in Skyfall–arguably one of the best Bond films ever!

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): I wonder what the prolific Ian Flemming would think of Skyfall, the latest installment in the ongoing saga of the world's most famous super spy, James Bond. Skyfall (Paramount Pictures) is a bold re-imagining of the James Bond continuum. Daniel Craig's flawless characterization of the infamous assassin/spy/agent 007 is quite a detraction from previous characterizations. He is his stoically smug, witty and confident self but Skyfall delivers a different caliber of Bond than even the first two Daniel Craig 007 journeys. Darker, more insidious and even more vulnerable. For me, this makes the new Bond light years more believable and more awesome. Thoughts, Pontificator? 

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): Well Vader, this film was something of a departure, even a bit from the last two films, but still fits snuggly into the new continuity the recent Bond films have created. Bond has been updated and made more real...and although the rewrite isn’t exactly what Bond has always been, the mythos hasn't suffered a bit.

CASTING, DIRECTING AND ACTING

AV: Casting Craig was a masterstroke of movie-making genius. Daniel's two earlier Bond films, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were both solid but for me at least, Skyfall goes somewhere much greater, beyond the scope of mere "next installment". Skyfall is a crowning jewel in a long list of great–and not-so-great–bond stories. The action is paced in such a way that the films tempo is actually a part of the storytelling, Ponty. What's more, the direction was a winning array of close, medium and wide-angle shots, even in the non-action sequences, the films keeps the viewer engaged in the larger tapestry of events. And I just have to say, casting Javier Bardem as the sniveling and uncomfortably sinister Silva makes this one of the more believable Bond experiences to date. 

TP: Daniel Craig is quickly winning the title of the best Bond for me. He’s gritty and takes a serious approach to the role. This difference from the usual suave, cool as ice-water, modus operandi of the past actors is what sets Craig apart from all the rest. Craig makes Bond more human by making him vulnerable while still delivering everything else that audiences have come to associate with Bond. Javier Bardem seems to be born to play Silva, the latest Bond villain. Very few people are destined to be the perfect fit for a Bond villain... so bless Bardem for answering his calling. Naomie Harris may not be as glamorous as Bond women have been in the past, but she is perfect for her role and was a nice surprise for longtime fans of the old films.

SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: You know, pontificator, I really enjoy movies where the experience so completely rolls the visual effects into the DNA of the movie that I don't even notice them. Such is the case in Skyfall. Iconic scenes like the train crashing through a London street, the Bond estate blown to bits or even a hapless duel in a pit of Komodo dragons are all SF/X shots that the viewer just absorbs as part of the film's experience. Even a harrowing fight sequence on the top of a fast-moving bullet-train is a believable event in a movie that goes to great lengths NOT to make me go "Whoa!" at the visuals and focus on the event at hand. Could this mean our little Hollywood is finally growing up, Ponty? 

TP: You are spot-on here Vader. The special effects were a seamless part of the visual experience and nothing was so over-the-top as to take away from the tone of the film. Even the opening chase scene was pretty straight forward and although thinking back on it, in reality it could probably never happen like that, at the time I was watching... it was real enough that I wasn’t even questioning the crane scene. 

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK

AV: As always, there is a tantalizing array of Bond-girl beauties here Ponty but I have to address another more pressing observation for Skyfall. This movie goes to great lengths to distance itself from the campiness of earlier James Bond flicks. The movie's dialogue even goes so far as to have the new "Q" talk smack about exploding pens and silly devices. I see this as a step toward farming a more believable, more relatable and more sophisticated Bond for future films. Look, no one loves exploding pens, jetpacks and cars that 'become' submarines more than I do, but… well… been there, done that. Often those things become fillers or 'eye candy' meant to distract me from a weak script or completely implausible villains. DNA-recognition sensors in Bond's Walther PPK? Now you're talking! This is a new, re-invented bad-ass bond–just what the doctor ordered. 

TP: I think the most significant aspect of this film is Bond’s vulnerability. He is shot in the line of duty, fails to qualify for active duty later on, and can’t quite compensate for his injuries. I don’t remember the character being this vulnerable since the beginning of Die Another Day. Gone are the gadgets, replaced by an updated Q with superior hacking ability. I thought this was very significant as this was a hefty statement that Bond is now in the 21st century. The Bond of today isn’t the can-do-anything slickster and this is what really makes it work. I thought this film might have gone a little too much in this direction though since certain expectations are now associated with Bond. I think this will change as the new direction is embraced by a new audience.  

ON SEQUELS:

AV: What, are you kidding me? Of course–bring 'em on! We ain't stopping here kids, we have ole Jimmy B right where we want him, cool, hip and delivering a world of hurt to those who would hurt our world. Ten more please! Yes, yes I'll wait… 

TP: I thought I heard somewhere that this was Craig's last film, but fortunately I also read that he has signed on for two more! So rest assured, we will have ample opportunity to discuss the direction of Craig’s ever-evolving Bond. 

RATE IT!

ARTH VADER rates Skyfall: This movie is, without a doubt, the VERY BEST Bond movie I have ever seen. And that says a lot since I have seen a TON of good Bond films. Deliciously intelligent, riddled with scorching hot–and ethnically diverse–"Bond girls" and a deeper, darker premise with a glimpse into the more sinister machinations in the world of 007 and MI6, Skyfall is a delightful action epic that delights and dazzles and well-worth seeing. And this is one fan-boy who can't wait for the Blu-Ray release. 

That said, I gladly encourage no fewer than 9.5 busted blocks to fall from the sky for Skyfall. 

THE PONTIFICATOR rates Skyfall: There have been about 25 Bond films, and Craig’s have been some of the most enjoyable for me. Although this was a great film, it wasn’t the best ever. It was probably the most realistic, but certainly not the most entertaining... and in the end, that’s what it’s really all about. As I look skyward, I only see 7.5 busted blocks falling for this film. 

Skyfall: 8.5 Busted Blocks

A Cloudy Picture

A riveting, cinematic masterpiece and stunningly complex screenplay, the mesmerizing Cloud Atlas may leave audiences dazed, bewildered and somewhat confused. 

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): Directed by The Wachowskis (of The Matrix Trilogy fame) delivering the writing/directing along with collaborator Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) Cloud Atlas attempts to translate best selling author David Mitchell’s multi-layered, multi-faceted novel into an ambitious (if not ambiguous) big-budget blockbuster that engages the mind and (attempts to) solicit an emotional reaction. The end results is a movie that is as awe-inspiring as it is bewildering. How say you old friend? 

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): Cloud Atlas is an original film that can best be summed up in one word...reincarnation. Following this film was challenging at the beginning, but the further along it went, the more cohesive it became... giving it a continuity all it’s own.

CASTING, DIRECTING AND ACTING

AV: A stunning all-star cast is called up to breathe life over a story arc that spans hundreds of years and dozens of lifetimes. The story is–in fact–six stories spread across various epochs of time (the mid-19th century, the early 1930s, the mid-1970s, 2012, the future, and a more distant future). In each of these stories, we meet various characters (played by the same ensemble of actors) whose lives, experiences and legacies ripple throughout past and future via artistic connective threads like music, writing or film footage, shaping life, destiny – and even the fate of the world, in some cases. As each story progresses along its arc, a web of cosmic significance slowly but surely comes into view, reminding us that our lives are not just our own, and our connections to others – whether comprehended or not – are far more precious than we may know. 

TP: The casting was superb as you really can’t go wrong with the all-star cast that was put together for this film. Tom Hanks is one of the all-time greats at this point and Halle Berry certainly made this film one of her highlights. Hugo Weaving was riveting and with talent like Keith David, Susan Sarandon and Hugh Grant rounding out the cast, there was no way to not be engaged heavily with the characters. The beauty of all of this is that each cast member played several roles throughout the film, all of them different in terms of what each character brought to the story. The directing kept this film moving along at a pace that was fast enough to keep interest, but slow enough to facilitate comprehension (just barely).

SPECIAL EFFECTS:

AV: There is no way to accurately convey what an incredible special effects journey this movie is. The environments, the make-up, the CGI, the visual effects, the sound design, entire worlds re-created. Cloud Atlas is as flawlessly beautiful as any effects movie could be. Honestly, on the level of Peter Jackson's Lord of The Rings Trilogy or the Matrix films (Wachowskis) or the even later Star Wars movies. And as good as the high-end, computer-generated visual effects are, they are seamless compared to the mix of make-up and good old-fashioned in-camera effects of the different characters onscreen. I was literally blown away. 

TP: The special effects were simply awesome. I have a weakness for grand landscape shots and being taken to new and fantastic worlds. This film delivered in that area and then some. It was interesting to see how the use of special effects increased as the story moved forward through time. From the simple make-up job to the astounding CGI, this movie delivered on a scale worthy of mention with all those we associate as the greats. Although it’s in every movie, there hasn’t been a film that comes to mind recently that has taken the craft of make-up to another level. I honestly didn’t recognize many of the actors in some of their roles until revealed at the end of the film... a testament to such excellent work.

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK:

AV: As one of the most ambitious Hollywood story-telling undertakings I have ever seen, Cloud Atlas does fall short in a few areas. First, the lack of an easily digested concept and storyline leaves audiences dazed and confused. American culture tends to be less refined and considerably less tolerant that other audiences. This movie qualifies as a film noir or 'artsy' film treatment, leaving the effect and the experience to be at the discretion of the viewer. While one could argue that should be the intent of EVERY movie, most American cinema releases hold our hands so much, we are almost told when and how to respond. Not so with Cloud Atlas, and that is also it's Achilles heel. Next, the continuity and pacing is also at a tempo followed only by the sharp-witted. With a concept coming out of left field and a story-telling treatment not often experienced in America, Cloud Atlas has made wide-scale acceptance almost unattainable in regards to movie-going audiences. Pontificator, what were your thoughts? 

TP: I completely agree with you Vader. Count me among the lost for the first twenty minutes of the film. As I was dazzled by the superb acting, I was also trying to find my way on the road of significance to what I was seeing. Not only that, but the first few jumps to different eras had me frazzled as the connections were not readily revealed. Just the very nature of the film makes it the type of movie you want to see again, just to make sure you “get it.” As the film progressed and I found myself understanding the concept, I was miffed at what I’m sure I missed during my tenure among the lost. This became even more evident, but the euphoria of revelation was just awesome, when the film was over and the end credits began to roll...visually revealing every character each actor had played. This was the biggest lightbulb moment for me as more dots were connected that just weren’t evident the first go round.

ON SEQUELS:

AV: I don't have a lot of knowledge about the story's intended follow-up, however, as I have shared many times in past posts, movies like this are okay NOT to have sequels, prequels and follow-ups. Sadly, the audience exposure and viewing of this movie will probably cement there is no follow-up. And honestly, Ponty, that's is fine by me. 

TP: Agreed Vader... this film was a handful by itself, an exercise in comprehension and cognitive thinking. There is certainly no reason to sequel that experience when there is still so much that can yet be gained by simply watching the first... again.

RATE IT! 

ARTH VADER rates Cloud Atlas: A beautiful movie, engaging–if not complicated script and an all-star cast reads like a who's who of Hollywood Elite, the visually breath-taking Cloud Atlas will delight, confuse and inspire, given half a chance. While I am still sorting out what I saw, I loved it and I encourage everyone to see it but I will also say, it's NOT for everyone. So with that, I give Cloud Atlas the "true, true" rating of 8.25 busted blocks. 

THE PONTIFICATOR Rates Cloud Atlas: A visual delight with superb acting from an all-star cast. I am the type of person this film was made for, but not everyone is as inquisitive or patient to take the journey this film embarks on. Any viewer is encouraged to have an open mind while paying close attention to detail...and this film will reveal itself to have busted 8 solid blocks. 

CLOUD ATLAS: 8 Busted Blocks