Cloud Atlas (2012)

3/5

Cloud Atlas is an ambitious project for even the most visionary directors. It tracks six separate storylines that connect and intersect in moods and themes. Directed by three people, the Wachowskis and Tykwer attempt to use the same actors across time and space to link the storylines. That unnecessary dedication to a concept is perhaps the reason for dressing its white actors up in "yellowface" to make them look Asian, which is off-putting and unsettling to say the least. Ignoring that, the movie still has its imperfections and failings.

Although the movie intercuts six stories remarkably well, it feels lopsided and uneven. The stories are given equal weight even though some are far less interesting than others. While the book tells the various fictions sequentially, the movie unifies them into a singular, simultaneous narrative. I'm not sure it was the right decision, as it comes with numerous compromises, but it shows that the directors care about the story enough to attempt to adapt the ideas instead of the words.

As the movie ended, I wasn't sure what I got out of it. Its self-importance was lost on me. I felt like the movie is engaging and compelling for its storytelling, but not its story; its filmmaking, but not its content. It's appealing but empty, exciting but unsatisfying. It was made to be bold, not to be felt. I can't imagine anyone going into the theater will go out feeling anything but disappointed.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1371111/

Upside Down (2012)

2/5

Upside Down is a rather silly movie about two worlds connected to each other by an international corporation's elevator bridge, but kept separate by opposing gravitational forces. It provides three "rules" at the beginning of the film: the first two are pretty much assumed and do not require enumeration, but the third doesn't really make any sense at all and is just there to provide an artificial complication to an otherwise simple premise. It tells a cliched love story between an up-worlder (Dunst) and a down-worlder (Sturgess) in a visually titillating universe. But the world they live in gets boring fast. Unlike a Jean-Pierre Jeunet movie, it doesn't bring any creativity or cleverness to the world it creates. (Also, they just seem to ignore the parts of each world that aren't in apposition (i.e., the "dark side" of each planet).

Add on top of all that inane acting and a bland script, and you have a disappointment. But the ultimate--and most frustrating--problem with the movie is that it lacks a climax. It just ended without a confrontation or conflict. It floated about until it eventually had nothing more to happen besides give the two love-birds their happily-ever-after. Honestly, I really can't recommend this movie to anybody. Don't let the trailer deceive you into thinking this might turn out to be a good movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1374992/

One Day (2011)

2/5

One Day feel like a concept film, an experimental trial of style regardless of its impact on content. The movie starts with Emma (Hathaway) on July 15, mid-2000, then reverses back to July 15, 1998 and goes forward year by year until we catch up to the start of the film. The relevance of this day is obfuscated for no particular reason. It initially seems as if it commemorates the day she first meets Dex (Sturgess), as it follows their interactions on that day each year, but the true "secret" is revealed near the end. After that secret is revealed, it goes even further back to uncover even more unseen scenes.

And that is the real problem with the movie. It is mysterious for the sake of being mysterious. It does it to hide the story in the hopes of surprising you at the end, instead of doing it for any thematic benefit. You watch the first half of the film wondering why you're sitting there watching the film at all. This frustration is made worse by the fact that there is no chemistry between the two leads. There is no electricity or excitement. The acting is competent, but there is nothing tying the two together through time and space. They are two independently adequate actors. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how good the technical aspects are (they are decent) because the movie fails to engage us with its storytelling.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1563738/

21 (2008)

2/5

21 is a laughably bad movie; it is a fake version of a true story wherein six MIT students counted cards to win big from blackjack tables in Vegas. Except of course for the second and third acts, where things go wrong and become right again thanks to our hero. The story lacked creativity and insight. The writing was atrocious, the characters one-dimensional, the acting flat. Even Spacey was disappointing; while he wasn't bad, he just didn't have any opportunity to be good with the script. The music was always out of place. The scenario was exceptionally unrealistic: who believes that the only way to go to med school is with tuition for four years pre-paid? "Don't have $300k in your pocket? Can't go to med school!" And how can the idiot who believes this have gotten a 44 MCAT?

At the same time, there were a number of parts I enjoyed. Some of the action and exciting moments were gripping. There is one devastating moment in the film, where everything comes crashing down, and I really felt what the character felt. Several of Spacey's lines are brilliantly delivered, especially his vicious insults. The Asian dude is hilarious. It's fun to laugh at, but even then it's not worth it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478087/

Across the Universe (2007)

3/5

Julie Taymor's Across the Universe is essentially a series of Beatles covers with hints of a story feebly wrapped around it. What little plot there is follows uninteresting characters falling in and out of love in uninteresting ways during the Vietnam era. These faults would sound the death knell of an ordinary movie, but this one more than makes up for it with its bold images and exhilarating creativity. The best thing one could say about Across the Universe is that it tries. It tries so hard it infects the audience with its own joyous celebration. But sometimes it tries too hard. And despite its successes, it manages to fall flat on its face a number of times.

The first hour and fifteen minutes was absolutely perfect. It was everything a movie musical can and should be. The cinematography was crisp and beautiful, the special effects awe-inspiring, and the characters engaging. But the best part was the music. It successfully enhanced the entire film experience. It strengthened every emotion, deepened every character, and moved the audience more profoundly than any other single filmic technique. "Let It Be" and "Come Together" are by far the highlights for me, perhaps of any musical I've ever seen. I cannot imagine how wide-eyed and open-mouthed I must have been watching them. Even the more lively dance numbers I found myself comparing to Singin' in the Rain.

But the movie lacked a legitimate take-home message, just that love is cool and war is not. The editing seemed nonexistent, as if every scene they shot was included no matter how much it destroyed the pacing and alienated the audience. The acting redefined average. To be fair, the script and dialogue were pretty pitiful in the first place, so the actors didn't have much to work with. I hated how the movie idealized the bohemian lifestyle and bellowed its anti-war mentality. But more than that, I hated the 30 minute hallucinatory dreck masquerading as a subplot people might actually care about. Not even cameos by Bono, Eddie Izzard, and Salma Hayek could salvage them. To drop so dramatically from amazing to amazingly bad is impressive, and not in a good way. But in the last 15 minutes or so the movie picks up again to end it on a saccharine, innocuous note. For any fans of the Beatles, which should be a vast majority of people, go watch this movie. You will most certainly not be disappointed.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0445922/