Category Archives: Sci-Fi

Admission up front: I have a weakness for cosmic-scale, philosophically inclined sci-fi stories. That’s a pretty niche market, and includes such polarizing epics as “The Fountain” and “The Tree of Life.” Are these movies ambitious? Yes. Are they impossibly pretentious? Maybe so. And “Cloud Atlas,” love it or hate it, is perhaps the grandest entry yet into this narrow subgenre.

I loved the source material (David Mitchell’s novel), and reviewed it several months ago. Naturally, I was curious to see how such a complex and multilayered plot would translate into a big-budget cinematic blockbuster – particularly one helmed by the Wachowski siblings (responsible for the “Matrix” trilogy).

It’s hard to explain the plot, as six seemingly unrelated stories are intertwined into one: a lawyer in the Pacific Isles who learns about human dignity; a bisexual composer in Edinburgh struggling to distinguish himself; a daring tabloid reporter investigating a nuclear power plant; an elderly publisher trying to escape an oppressive retirement home; a cloned girl who becomes the leader of a futuristic rebellion; and a tribesman battling subhuman cannibals in post-apocalyptic Hawaii.

In a departure from the source material (more on that to follow), “Cloud Atlas” is interpreted for the screen as a reincarnation story. The same cast of A-list actors (Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugh Grant, Hugo Weaving, Jim Broadbent, etc.) occupies each of the six stories, playing different roles. This is a fascinating technique that beautifully captures the motif of souls traveling across centuries. At times, this even employs gender- and race-changing makeup for dramatic effect. Say what you will about its worldview…it’s a remarkably inventive piece of filmmaking.

For that matter, the worldview of “Cloud Atlas” is inseparable from its plot and other merits – this is a movie that demands to be evaluated holistically. Most notably, “Cloud Atlas” drastically diverges philosophically from its source material. Mitchell’s novel was fundamentally dystopian, envisioning a brutal future ruled by Nietzschean principles of subjugation and violence. Conversely, the Wachowskis’ interpretation posits a counter-principle: something that may be best described as “the Power of Love.” As a result, the storyline moves from entropic (“everything is getting worse because of humans and their depraved natures”) to karmic (“every action shifts one’s rebirth and impacts the course of the future”).

When compared to the much bleaker novel, the endings of several stories are completely inverted. This was highly jarring to me at first, until I realized something critical: the worldview underlying the story has been completely stripped out and replaced with something much more comprehensible to mainstream audiences. The film is a hopeful humanistic vision, whereas the book is a grim warning against the “will to power.”

None of this means that “Cloud Atlas” is a failure as a film. In fact, the Wachowskis’ changes probably make for a better and more accessible movie. (It’s fair to say that the original text, if rendered as written, would produce a disastrously choppy result.) But as a work of art or literature, the movie lacks the nuance of its source material. The Hollywood-added epilogue (a “seventh plot,” if you will) particularly grated on me: its tone is joyous and optimistic, a far cry from the thought-provoking sobriety of the original conclusion.

The acting is great, as one would expect from performers of this caliber, and the visuals are breathtaking (particularly the science fiction-themed segments – I got the feeling the movie blew most of its $100 million budget on these). The story’s flow is surprisingly fluid…anyone put off by the obtuse imagery of “The Tree of Life” will find “Cloud Atlas” far more comprehensible.

Of note: this is definitely not an all-audiences film. “Cloud Atlas” is oftentimes brutally violent, and none of it feels sanitized or stylized. There’s also some momentary nudity (in a non-erotic context), a sexual encounter between two protagonists, and occasional harsh language. Overall, the movie’s R rating is justified.

There’s so much I could say about “Cloud Atlas.” At almost three hours in length (it never feels this long), the film is jam-packed with ideas, images, and themes that demand a more thorough deconstruction. (I was very glad I’d read the novel before seeing the movie.) Aficionados of the genre, like me, will be blown away by the stellar production values on display here.

Audiences with more mainstream tastes, however, probably won’t enjoy “Cloud Atlas” without a knowledge of the source material. At times, characters’ thick accents can be impenetrable, which muddles important plot points. The six-stories-in-one structure, while inventive and well-executed, sometimes moves too abruptly between time periods (cutting from the middle of a futuristic chase scene, for instance, to an argument aboard a ship).

Would I recommend this movie? Undoubtedly – but with caveats. Read the book first…I can’t imagine seeing the film any other way.

VERDICT: 8.5/10
A majestic, though imperfect, vision of human existence.

Normalized Score: 6.9

As anyone who’s been reading these reviews for awhile already knows, I’m a big fan of cerebral sci-fi. There’s not much of it around anymore, given the increasing tendency to “dumb things down” for mass consumption. Accordingly, I’ve been looking forward to “Looper,” Rian Johnson’s dark time-travel adventure, for several months now. Given that it’s currently sporting a 93% feedback rating on RottenTomatoes, I was decidedly optimistic.

The premise is extremely unique: thirty years into the future, when time travel is invented and outlawed, organized criminals will use it to send their victims back into the past. In the past are men with guns – “Loopers” – who execute them and promptly dispose of their bodies (no corpse = no evidence in the future). Eventually, when a Looper’s contract has run its course, the mob sends back the assassin’s future self. If the Looper does as instructed and kills himself, he lives out his remaining thirty years in relative prosperity. If not…the consequences are grisly.

Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, last seen as John Blake in “The Dark Knight Rises”) is a Looper who encounters an unexpected predicament: his future self (Bruce Willis) fights back and runs away. In the future, older Joe’s wife and unborn child will be killed by a vicious crime lord known as “the Rainmaker” – and older Joe will do anything to prevent that from happening, even if the Rainmaker is still no more than a child himself.

It’s a great setup, and the first act is brilliant. Director Johnson’s urban-grunge aesthetic is beautifully realized, a vision of future noir that never becomes banal. Performances – especially from Gordon-Levitt – are expectedly strong, and the action (though a little lacking in memorable set pieces) is high-octane. What’s more, the flexibility of an R rating allows Johnson to deliver an uncompromising cinematic experience (this film goes to dark places, but this genuinely results in a more compelling product).

That said, “Looper” suffers from several unfortunate flaws that hold it back from top-tier status. Most glaring are the lapses in time-travel logic the film occasionally asks its audience to accept. I recognize that the subject is necessarily paradoxical (and gets confusing almost immediately) but in a critical scene, the film appears to blatantly rejects the rules it’s previously established for itself. (I saw it with a friend, and we discussed it at length afterwards. In order for the climax to make sense, we had to establish several time-travel principles that the movie never itself stipulates. That’s a mark of sloppy writing.)

There’s also a B-plot involving humans born with the “TK” or “telekinetic” gene. This is a completely unnecessary addition that only damages the movie’s credibility. I’m willing to accept time travel as a semi-realistic plot device, even with all its foibles…but throwing mind-magic into the mix starts feeling a little too reminiscent of “Chronicle” and “X-Men.” At no point does the telekinesis element result in any earth-shattering plot developments. It’s either another mark of weak plotting, or some Hollywood executives mandated its inclusion.

As a result of these and other vulnerabilities, the film suffers a marked drop in quality by the end. It never becomes terrible or unwatchable, but more attention to detail in its final act would’ve helped quite a bit.

Worldview elements are subdued at best. There are a few interesting ideas one could pull out of the film – mostly involving causality, predestination, and the like – but there isn’t much discussion regarding the overall ethics at stake. Objectionable content is as follows: high doses of violence (bloody but not extraordinarily so), some brief but unnecessary nudity in a strip-club scene, and fairly pervasive language. It earns its R rating, but I wish it had done so for thematic rather than titillating purposes.

Is it worth watching?

If you’re a fan of dark, cerebral science fiction (like me), “Looper” probably merits viewing…at least on DVD. Even though it aspires to Christopher Nolan levels of inventiveness and falls short of the mark, it’s a well-crafted, intelligent movie that serves as an interesting conversation starter. Just don’t expect “Inception”-caliber brilliance. Less interested viewers probably won’t find it appealing – and that’s perfectly okay.

VERDICT: 7.5/10
A highly original, but flawed, mind-bender. Recommended with caveats.

Normalized Score: 4.6