I read the book a while ago and it's probably best that you do in order to enjoy the film, or at least make sense of it. To be able to translate such a conceptually complex book into a film is quite an achievement, and it almost works. The visual effects are quite stunning and there must be an Oscar somewhere for the best make-up: Tom Hanks, Hugo Weaving and Hugh Grant are unrecognisable in some of their roles. Both the main and supporting cast are top drawer, especially Jim Broadbent, but what brings the film down, as in the book, is trying to link disparate stories together: it's too flimsy. Still, the film is worth watching.
... about programming, growing up in the 1970's and 80's, games, science fiction, working in a charity book shop, films, spending too much time watching television, living in Basildon and Essex, and whatever else emerges from my fevered imagination. If you're reading this, it's your fault you clicked on the link: I am not responsible for your actions.
Saturday, 4 January 2014
Cloud Atlas
Through my LoveFilm subscription, this is the adaption of the book by David Mitchell. Six interlinking stories are told interleaved: the journal of an 19th Century man on an Pacific ocean journey; a young composer in the 1930's trying to work for an aged genius; a 1970's journalist investigating the death of a nuclear scientist; a present-day publisher trying to escape from a care home; a recently freed clone in the 22nd century; a primitive goat-herder in a post-apocalyptic future.
I read the book a while ago and it's probably best that you do in order to enjoy the film, or at least make sense of it. To be able to translate such a conceptually complex book into a film is quite an achievement, and it almost works. The visual effects are quite stunning and there must be an Oscar somewhere for the best make-up: Tom Hanks, Hugo Weaving and Hugh Grant are unrecognisable in some of their roles. Both the main and supporting cast are top drawer, especially Jim Broadbent, but what brings the film down, as in the book, is trying to link disparate stories together: it's too flimsy. Still, the film is worth watching.
I read the book a while ago and it's probably best that you do in order to enjoy the film, or at least make sense of it. To be able to translate such a conceptually complex book into a film is quite an achievement, and it almost works. The visual effects are quite stunning and there must be an Oscar somewhere for the best make-up: Tom Hanks, Hugo Weaving and Hugh Grant are unrecognisable in some of their roles. Both the main and supporting cast are top drawer, especially Jim Broadbent, but what brings the film down, as in the book, is trying to link disparate stories together: it's too flimsy. Still, the film is worth watching.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment