It's tough and not easily digestible, plus the Wachowskis have once again mined their "humans as resources" motif making its reveal somewhat trite and thus its climax hollow. The most difficult part is accepting that each character arc spans several lifetimes, specifically the notion that the same actor undergoes racial make-up that simply does not work on a visual level. It's almost impossible to maintain suspension of disbelief when Keith David is playing a Korean freedom fighter.
I get the idea it's a much easier novel to read than a film to watch.
That being said, I would say it's somewhere between the sprawling fictional mythos of LOST combined with the overwrought, "driving" narrative style of Nolan.
I kind of figured that's what they were trying to show, but fuck it was hard for me to follow. Knowing that is indeed the case might make a big difference in understanding it, I'll try and rewatch it I suppose.
Agreed. It was when the second brother also did that shit where I was like, What in the actual fuck?
I figured he was just putting up with his brother's shit because, you know, it's his brother. So when he went in the same direction I was quite surprised.
Normalizing atypical sexual orientation is a tough row to hoe, and man are they rather insistent on it. It's a hard balance to strike: a film being progressive but at the same time palatable to the marketplace. Either they don't know their audience or they're trying to create one that doesn't know how to support its own progress. Maybe that's unfair of me to say, because how does a film achieve such a thing as a motivated audience?The reason they are done is because every story they tell now includes some androgynous or homosexual character engaging in uncomfortable man on man or woman who used to be a man on man who used to be a woman love scenes. They make these characters the focal point of the story making many moviegoers uncomfortable and unable to relate.
CLOUD ATLAS was a novel before it was a movie; not sure whether it predates the Piers Anthony thing.Pretty sure they stole the idea from Anthony.
I would point to too much wealth.Wouldn't two siblings being transgender be ultimate proof of mental illness ?
Wouldn't two siblings being transgender be ultimate proof of mental illness ?
Normalizing atypical sexual orientation is a tough row to hoe, and man are they rather insistent on it. It's a hard balance to strike: a film being progressive but at the same time palatable to the marketplace. Either they don't know their audience or they're trying to create one that doesn't know how to support its own progress. Maybe that's unfair of me to say, because how does a film achieve such a thing as a motivated audience?
"By not being shit" of course. But no one really knows how to do that with 100% accuracy.
CLOUD ATLAS was a novel before it was a movie; not sure whether it predates the Piers Anthony thing.
I read some of his Xanth books, which were all well enough but for that level of fiction I prefer Steven Brust and Neil Gaiman -- something on the level of THE STARS MY DESTINATION. Punchier.
I would point to too much wealth.
Why? Who gives a flying fuck what they look like? Beyond their movies, who gives a shit what they're up to?Was totally mind fucked a few weeks ago when I found out what they are now.