The Best Picture To Not Win Best Picture This Year

Rating: 9/10 (7 November 2012)

How does one describe Cloud Atlas? Indescribable is a good place to start. Here we have the most ambitious film of the year, probably of the decade (yes, I'm including you Avatar) and there is simply no way to describe it. What I can tell you is that the film explores 6 different stories spanning a vast amount of time and space. Connected to each story is the soul, love, death and life that encompasses us all. Cloud Atlas isn't here to obey narrative structure, classically filmmaking nor does it try to please the masses. It's simply an experience, a dream like experience that will stay with you long after you witness it.
The Wachowski Siblings and Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) embark on a journey and ask us, the viewer to go on that journey with them. This journey isn't supposed to make some kind of logical sense, or have a sense of familiarity. From womb to tomb we are bound to others, past and present. Our lives in this world are small in nature, big in scope. If you want to witness something fresh, exciting that pushes the boundaries and makes you think, then see Cloud Atlas.
Prometheus was suppose to be the film of the year that made us ponder about our existence and what lies beyond our own world. It failed. Where that film fails, Cloud Atlas succeeds. Abandon the idea that the film is 6 stories and accept that it is one. Each segment blends itself into the next. Some people will try and fail, to see literal connections between each one. We are connected by love, life and death, wanting to see more of a connection between each segment will have you hating everything. This film is not a typical film. We are not given ten minutes of each segment before going onto the next. The film is not told that way, instead it is brilliantly edited to the beat of a heart, the notes on a music sheet, the breaths we take. It's flawless in its presentation.
Can a killer in one story, be a hero in another? Played by the same actor, is this the same soul? There is without a doubt, one image that connects every segment. It's a birthmark in the shape of a shooting star/comet. Is this the same person, reincarnated in the next life? The film won't answer your questions, it doesn't want to, or even need to.
Having those actors play several roles is an inspired choice. Half the joy of the film is discover who is playing which character. By the credits, all is revealed and some are a shock to see. The make-up effects are astounding. Well recognizable actors disappear behind the make- up, changing sex or race. One hiccup, if I may say, is that we still cannot age our actors correctly. Hugh Grant looks like he is wearing a mask, instead of playing Jim Broadbent's brother.
Clocking in at just under 3 hours, the film may seem like a chore to get through, especially considering the amount of stories and characters is has to cover, but not once did I ever think the film was too long. Some stories do drag more than others, but never once did I think it was boring. We are too busy interweaving through time to be bored. If you are looking at this movie in terms of acting, writing, directing, you are looking at it wrong.
Will there be another film like Cloud Atlas? Maybe. But the general movie going public isn't ready for a film like this. This is a polarizing film, it has to be, it needs to be, otherwise it doesn't work.