I Wish this Had Been The Matrix 4

Rating: 3/10 (16 May 2013)

As much as people's eyes light up when discussing how ambitious, beautiful, or transcendental this film is, I think they are forgetting to admit that it's also quite simply long and boring. I'll admit that I had a tough time realizing it myself after three viewings. But it's true. Everyone is so focused on interconnectedness and reincarnation that they fail to see what is actually sloppy filmmaking, or sloppy storytelling, or perhaps both. I believe that many of those who watch Cloud Atlas are afraid that if six concurrent stories seems confusing or incoherent it must mean that they "don't get it" and therefore apply their own vague understanding of Eastern religion so that it becomes a profound tale of humanity.
I'll be honest. I wanted to like Cloud Atlas. Really bad. I resisted the urge to fiddle on my phone. I paused when I had to pee. I rewound when my kid yelled from the next room. But after 3 viewings, 2 one day and 1 the next, I realized that I was bored. I realized that I didn't miss anything walking out of the room for 60 seconds. Contrast with something like Mulholland Drive. That feels like an incomprehensible film at its end, but its never boring, and each minute holds import, even for someone who doesn't understand exactly what's happened. But Cloud Atlas tricks you. There's no payoff and the ride isn't even fun. But of course the less sense it makes must mean its all the profound, just waiting for little old super smart film loving you to discover its wondrous secrets. It's alright to admit that just because a film was made with 6 stories doesn't mean it's good. Ask someone to really tell you what's so fantastic about it, in detail, with specifics. It will be a bumbling affair with lots of vocal filler and big words like "connectedness."
I first went in expecting at the very least some very clever exercises in causality. I was pretty disappointed at the lame "connections" and a flimsy, undeveloped notion of reincarnation. Moreover the stories were just boring. For this film to even begun to have worked it needed to deal with stories that could stand on their own. But the viewer is so distracted by making connections and abrupt transitions that it takes a little while to see that these stories are incomplete. In fact, I was waiting for all but one to get to the "good part" and it never happened. Each is filled with a dull anti-climax culminating in insignificance. The very structure doesn't allow any time to connect with anyone. When you have a story devoid of anything to personally "connect" to, it gets very boring very quickly.
1849 is a dull plod through one man's minor morality struggle while he himself is subjugated by evil near and far. Surprise! Good guys win, yeah! 1936 wants to show off the purity of love and art by giving us a protagonist who can't find the time or courage to face his lover and would rather kill a man than give due credit to his composition. What is this? The world is cruel? Maybe, but your moral compass could sure use some calibration before we throw the pity party over your suicide. 1973 Corporations are evil and will clearly blow up planes. But daddy's little girl can't be beat down by "the man!" Power to the people yo! 2012 Yawn. Why should we care about this guy? He's obviously a little less honest with money than he ought to be and he slept with his brother's wife. What are you cheering for? 2144 Easily the most boring. A tired tale of revolution trimmed down to 30 minutes. And the bad guys win anyway. Revolution failed. 2312 or whatever. What could've been the most interesting segment is whittled down to incomprehensible babble, and for a story about contacting the colonies of a post- apocalyptic Earth it's made as purposefully uninteresting as possible.
It's just not that grand. Just because something has never been done doesn't mean it should, and just because someone did it doesn't mean they did it well. I will concede that Cloud Atlas is a fine treat for the eyes, but it doesn't contain the genius ending that justifies its tedious approach. I know the cuts between stories are quick, but don't let it fool you into thinking anything important is really happening.
As I said, I wanted to like this film, I still do. But it's so inflated with purpose, so intent on being profound, so dazzling in its premise, that it could never live up to whatever vision someone like me hoped for. What's there is even difficult to understand. Something is peculiar with the sound (very noticeable in The Matrix as well) that makes characters particularly hard to understand, more so considering the British and Asian accents in the first two, fourth, and fifth segments and the sixth remains all but a mystery without subtitles. The inclusion of a handful of actors for a few dozen roles is, like the film, surely ambitious, but ultimately distracting.
Ambitious does not equal pleasing, entertaining, or coherent. Sprawling does not imply meaningful length. Grand in scope is not synonymous with a cohesive narrative. Stop letting these words "cloud" your mind when you find yourself just plain uninterested in this ambitious, sprawling epic of grand scope. What one forgets amidst all this pomp is that things like pacing, restraint, and focus are consistent hallmarks of good filmmaking and good storytelling. The gimmick makes us too many promises that no one can keep. The objective ought to be to figure out what one wants to say and then form a creative way to say it. Instead, when it comes to Cloud Atlas, it seems that too many are wrapped up in how the story is told rather than the significance of what is told.