I have no idea what I just saw but it's phenomenal

Rating: 10/10 (30 October 2012)

You can hardly talk about this film without giving spoilers. If you ever had any doubts about Tom Hanks as a superlative and versatile actor, this film will settle it. Watch the ending credits to see who played what because it will blow you away. Hugo Weaving does what he does best. As everyone who's read reviews knows by now, the film involves six interlaced stories from the mid-19th century to several centuries in the future. The stories are linked very lightly. There's no ham-handed reference in one story to a previous or future story line. At most there are hints. A journal and letters from one story turn up later, and so on. The pace is vigorous, and the stories, though not tightly linked, flow smoothly from one to the other; the action in one makes sense in view of what just happened in another, and so on. Even thinking about trying to keep this straight makes my head hurt. There's action, good special effects, and richly satisfying conclusions to most of the stories, but not uniformly happy. Unlike Roger Ebert, I don't want to see this film again. It would ruin the experience of watching it unfold for the first time.