Impressively ambitious, but noticeably flawed.

Rating: 6/10 (11 November 2012)

How can so many stories be told in one movie and be connected across so many different landscapes? The answer: with great (and often noticeable) effort.
Positives: First and foremost, I was impressed by each actor's ability to portray similar or completely different characters; Tom Hanks and Jim Broadbent especially, they were the characters I liked the most. No weak performances as a whole.
The writers also did a good job making nearly all the main characters in the story distinct; many of them using archetypes that are satisfying to see on screen (though I guarantee you will root for some and be bored by others).
The visual and editing styles of the movie are an art form in and of themselves. It deserves to be commended how they blended a historical movie, a fantasy movie, a sci-fi, a comedy, and detective movie all in the same film. The transitions are expertly done- going from one world to another often feels natural or unnoticed- it undoubtedly took great planning and great work.
The Negative: I didn't like two of the stories told here: I'll just refer to one as the "sci-fi" story and the other as the "fantasy." My complaints: First, not enough exposition or character development. When the world you're telling your story in is weird and alien, you have to include a lot more information for the audience to suspend their disbelief. Or barring that, at least give us characters we love and can relate to. This is a fundamental rule of sci-fi movies and I'm surprised the Wachowski brothers messed it up here. Both of these worlds are given to us at face value, with little or no explanation of when/where they are or how they got to be. And the "plots" of these segments are the weakest and most clichéd in the movie- stuff we've seen done better in dozens of other sci-fi movies.
Second, both of these stories suffer greatly from a very forced "new language" element. It takes a lot of effort to understand what the characters are trying to say in these worlds- one of them uses a devolved English dialect (which I found cheap and inconsistent), and in the other people talk like over-articulate robots- like the architect scene in the matrix movies (remember how *great* that dialogue was?). This made it incredibly difficult to care about these characters- we can't understand them when they talk. Beyond that, their actions are all basic "survival" stuff, none of which reveals any unique character (though there was one very cool element used to show one of the character's inner turmoil, it was nonetheless a trick we've seen before and didn't add to what we know about him).
Third, and I hate to say this after only seeing the movie once, but I fail to see how these stories are interconnected in any meaningful way. Maybe that's just me, but I was expecting a very clear indication of how and why these stories interrelate. Nope. It's all vague and analogous. Also unclear- are we seeing the same character through different lifetimes or not? One viewing wasn't enough to convince me that Tom Hanks in story A was the same character he played in story B. It *could* be that way, (I'm sure the book makes it more clear), but like I said, I wasn't convinced.
Fourth- Odd attempts to change actor's races with make-up. I have no problem with an Englishman being married to an Asian woman in 1843, but trying to make her look white is at best a "nice try" and at worst offensive. I'd rather they leave the actors faces alone or just use different actors- it's an impressive display of make-up and effects, but it calls attention to itself and takes us out of the movie.
Fifth- what was the message of the movie? No, really, what was it? Was it the line from the trailer? Was it something about love surviving between lifetimes? Was it anti-government? Was it that evil will always exist? I just saw the movie, and I can't tell you what the point of it was. Some of the stories involve broad statements about the human condition, and others focus on the humor in modern life. And unfortunately, no message here is strong, clear, or unique. It's all vague new age philosophy with symbolic (rather than relatable) justification.
So in the end, this movie deserves credit for being a genre-blending prototype. A film that does successfully show 6 different stories in one movie- but unfortunately, the quality of those 6 varies greatly, and connections between the them are only loosely if not superficially available.
Maybe save this one for netflix with your intro to psychology class.