The True True is a Knuckle Sandwich?

Rating: 6/10 (10 February 2013)

This film really attempted something noble in it's artistic scope and especially with it's formatting--which was worth 3 stars on its own (amazingly all 6 stories were worthy of their own feature). Throw in another 2 stars for attractive sets, cinematography, competent acting, and the enchanting Cloud Atlas Sextet symphony. And finally toss in that final star for a couple of legitimate "lol" moments, namely Tom Hanks' present-day character tossing a book critic over a ledge, and for most of Jim Broadbent's caper in the 2012 strand. However, I can't go any higher than 6 stars for this...
...mainly because it was a very long film, that was perhaps overly ambitious to the point of being muddled. We're left with a story that's a near 3 h run time of editing contortionism to try and make a point about what exactly? Well, there's love and redemption certainly. There's also attainment of consciousness and struggle against oppression (slavery, stratification, "big oil," unfair criticism/imprisonment, fascism/tyranny, savagery/tribalism). Not to mention, that the karmic theory of reincarnation is touched on heavily. What about that we're all connected in some small and large ways (we are not our own...etc)? Yep, that too. How about the strong trying to crush the weak? Sure, that was also mentioned. Conspiracy theories? Check, present in each timeline. Quantum physics and uncertainty? Yeah, that too...
While none of these theories are boring in and of themselves, it's just really too much to cram into a single movie with any degree of philosophical depth, even in a 3 h picture. The filmmakers would have been better served to cull out ONE of these philosophies (whichever they felt most strongly about) and use the plot device of multiple stories/repeating characters to drive that home and explore it in some depth. As it is, we have just a cursory examination of a number of philosophies, but it's just a jumble and much ado about nothing.
As for the plot itself, the movie is actually very good in that regard, with solid dialogue (except for the future story arc in which Jar Jar Binks could've easily held a conversation with Hanks and Berry's characters) and very good acting. Hugo Weaving and Jim Broadbent stood out. As did Doona Bae in the neo-Seoul story arc. Tom Hanks actually gave one of the weaker performances, and Halle Berry was just passable.
Basically, there are 6 "vignettes" that are separate but they are in the "same universe."
1. There is an 1849 story arc largely about an abolitionist achieving consciousness through befriending a stowaway slave. The protagonist writes a journal of his sea-faring adventure.
2. There is a 1930s story about a young, gay composer composing a brilliant symphony before committing suicide. This composer was heavily influenced, haunted really, by reading a partial account of the journal written in Story 1.
3. There is a 1970s story about an investigative reporter finding herself in a cloak-and-dagger world of corporate espionage. The protagonist is enchanted by a rare recording of the Cloud Atlas Sextet symphony from Story 2. Uniquely, this protagonist also meets the lover of the gay composer from Story 2.
4. A present-day story about a publisher who gets into hot water and hijinx ensue. This protagonist reads a mystery novel written by the protagonist from Story 3, which inspires him to write a screenplay.
5. A futuristic Seoul, Korea setting in which corporate/military fascism creates a kind of android who is liberated and discovers her humanity. This protagonist is influenced by the screenplay (made into a movie) written by the protagonist in Story 4 to start something of a revolution and become a martyr.
6. A story set further into the post-apocalyptic future, where the protagonist thinks of the character from Story 5 as a sort of deity.
So the physical connectivity of each story arc is obvious, though perhaps minimal. Also, one must mention the comet-shaped birthmark that the main character from each story sports, which happens to match the cosmos that Tom Hanks' elderly character gazes up at the beginning and end. However, the spiritual connectivity is really left to the viewer to decide and wade through a soup of philosophical/metaphysical underpinnings of who is reincarnated as who (if anyone) and to what purpose.
TL;DR: An almost spellbinding film that gets stuck in the undertow of it's own philosophical wake. Very crisp, clean, and attractively executed for the most part. Best aspects come in the form of very strong acting especially from Hugo Weaving always showing up to reprise his Matrix role (don't fight the natural order of things...) to the other characters' Neo roles. Jim Broadbent deserves a nomination for Best Supporting Actor. For such a handsome production, though, some of the make-up is stunningly bad, especially the faux Koreans with laughable prosthetics on their foreheads.