Reader Request Review - January: The Cabin in the Woods

Adam: After two months of “I swear I’ll post it soon!” here it is—the first monthly Reader Request Review. This month’s request comes from my friend Stew, who (clearly) has excellent taste in movies. (Actually, he requested this in, like, October…but who’s counting?) In fact, his request wasn’t meant to spawn a series of reviews for this blog, but it planted the idea in my head and here we are.

Speaking of which, if you have a movie you’d like me to review, feel free to comment or email me, as I’m looking for a February RRR. Start thinking of titles! It can be any movie at all, any genre, length, year, etc. I’ll look over the requests and choose the one I think will give the best review (for instance, I’d pick Zodiac over Live Free or Die Hard because it’s easier to review a standalone film than the fourth in a franchise...but don't let it stop you from requesting), and get my hands on a copy to watch. This could get interesting. I’m looking forward to your requests!

One more thing: Adam and Riley's Best Films of 2012 lists will be posted in the next day or so. Get excited!

It’s been months in the making…so without further ado, here is my review, the first Reader Request Review, of The Cabin in the Woods.

--

Reader Request Review – The Cabin in the Woods

As I’ve mentioned a few times in past posts, I am a self-proclaimed horror film buff. Ask anyone; I will gladly have a conversation about the differences between walking and running zombies, a discussion about why I enjoy the Paranormal Activity movies so much, a talk about how you or I would rank the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise, or a debate about which remakes outdo the originals and vice versa. I take the stuff far too seriously a lot of the time. The horror genre is home to many of my favorite films, actors, and directors, and I am quite passionate about it. (I’ve even written a full-length horror screenplay of my own.) I have a lot more to learn and many more films to watch, but the realm of horror feels like a little twisted bit of home to me.

So naturally, when I first heard about The Cabin in the Woods, a sort of satire/homage to the horror genre, I was overwhelmed with excitement. My imagination was rampant with anticipation for references to The Evil Dead (one of my favorite horror films of all time), or commentary on “a group of drunk, horny teens alone in a cabin in the woods” clichés, or maybe even some fresh horror satire outside of the brilliant Scream franchise. I followed every bit of information about The Cabin in the Woods I could with a creepy intensity.

But my enthusiasm wasn’t without skepticism, especially when I saw who would be helming the feature. Joss Whedon (creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, recent director of The Avengers, and more-or-less God of the Nerds right now) and I have had an interesting relationship over the years. I love his work, I find him brilliant, but a lot of his fans drive me crazy and the hype is overwhelming, and that sometimes leaves me feeling sour. (This is also true of Quentin Tarantino, but that’s another post for another time.) So when I saw that the Mr. Whedon would be co-writing a horror film, I admit I was a bit worried. And the other co-writer (and director), Drew Goddard, was the writer of Cloverfield, a film I thoroughly enjoyed. So we have a Nerd King whose main horror experience is Buffy, and the guy who made a shaky-cam monster movie; these were not the names that would have popped into my head to handle a horror satire. I was worried for this take on one of my favorite genres. This would surely be an overhyped, lukewarm disaster, right?

I could not have been more wrong.

I saw the first trailer for the film and all of my doubts were hacked to pieces. I was rolling with laughter, jumping in terror, and awkwardly dancing in my seat as the teaser unfolded in front of me, and it was then that I knew this movie couldn’t possibly let me down. My skepticism had vanished.

(Okay, enough with my Cabin back-story. Time for the actual review.)

The Cabin in the Woods starts with a simple-enough premise: a group of college-age kids go to a sketchy cabin in the woods to drink, get high, and have lots of sex. The group is comprised of a stereotypical jock, slut, stoner/joker, nerd/scholar, and virgin. We’ve seen this an uncountable amount of times before, right? Well, it is soon revealed that this entire trip is being monitored and ultimately controlled by a bunch of suit-wearing puppet masters (under the command of an unseen Director), whose purposes are to keep the whole situation going according to the tried-and-true formula of every character dying, one by one, ending with the virgin (if you haven’t seen this trope a million times, you don’t watch enough horror flicks). They use means of mind-altering gas, unleashing a myriad of monsters, and a slew of hidden cameras to keep the players playing the game, all the while betting on the source of the teenagers’ demise.

This eye-in-the-sky business can be read in three (erm…two and a half) ways:

- a metaphor for making a horror film, including the demented mindset it takes to create people in situations that ultimately kill them

- a way to poke fun at making a movie in general

- a statement arguing the “bully-like” attitude of a God and His angels

The moviemaking readings are straightforward enough: the businessmen/Director are the crew, and the college kids are the actors. The Director and crew direct the situations that lead the actors through telling the story. Since there are multiple different monsters that can be unleashed, this could stand for the “bank” of monsters to be re-hashed and re-used in horror movies time and time again. The “gods” that the workers are keeping at bay with these deaths could represent the moviegoing masses craving meaningless violence.

The bully-in-the-sky reading is similar. God and His angels control the situations, but give the illusion of Free Will (when the college kids “choose” what monsters will kill them) and kill off the creation for entertainment purposes alone.

But I think I’ll ease off the “deep reading” of this movie, since this is a review and not an essay. I could go into much more detail, citing scenes from the film, but that would take far too long and I don’t think anybody wants to read such a thing. Let’s just stick with the usual review stuff.

The writing, if you haven’t gathered by my review thus far, is original, clever, and brilliant. The characters are hilarious and real enough, despite being satires of clichés, and when they’re picked off one by one, you almost feel for them. All of the parts are played excellently and I wouldn’t call any of it “bad acting” despite almost all of the films they are parodying have terrible acting. Whedon fans will recognize a few familiar faces from former efforts, even if all you know of his work is The Avengers (who knew Thor was such a bro?).

The film is littered with references to classic horror flicks (a plethora of which belonging to the Evil Dead series) and fans of the horror genre will find themselves clutching their guts and shaking with laughter, especially in the film’s monstrous climax. But this movie isn’t just for horror nerds. The casual moviegoer may be slightly off-put by the amount of gore, but those looking for an introduction into the world of horror will be warmly welcomed. This isn’t a pretentious “look at all the horror stuff we know!” type of film. It’s a fun ride for non-horror fans, and an Easter egg-laden treat for those more well-versed in blood-soaked, dark-skulking cinema.

The Cabin in the Woods is not only one of my favorite (and best) films of the year, but one of my new favorites of all time. It sits on my shelf between Scream and The Evil Dead, and there couldn’t be a better place for it. If you have even the slightest interest in horror, whether you’re a seasoned veteran or fresh meat, I urge you to watch this movie.

Adam's List of 2012 Films

Adam: After a very long year of attempting to watch every single film released in 2012 that I had an interest in seeing, my time of missing sleep or social events in favor of films is over...more or less.

Below is a list of every single film I saw this year, along with the amount of times I saw it (in theaters). A few of these were watched on DVD or Netflix, but they were watched this year. I also included theatrical re-releases.

Sadly, I missed around 30 films that I wanted to see, but it’s obvious that I tried (and obvious that I spend way too much time in front of a screen). Keep in mind that, even though this list is long, there's a chance I missed a couple. This list also does not include movies I watched on DVD, Netflix, television, etc. that were not released in 2012.

And so you don't have to count them, the total count is:

85 (without repeats)

107 (with repeats)

--

The List of 2012 Films I Saw This Year (in no particular order):

The Grey

Chronicle

Tim and Eric’s Billion Dollar Movie

Beauty and the Beast 3D

The Woman in Black

Star Wars: Episode I 3D

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

The Secret World of Arrietty

Wanderlust

The Lorax

Silent House

21 Jump Street

Jeff, Who Lives At Home

The Hunger Games

Titanic 3D

The Cabin in the Woods

Monseiur Lazhar

The Five-Year Engagement

Pirates!: Band of Misfits

The Raven

The Avengers (3x)

Dark Shadows (2x)

The Dictator

Men In Black 3 (2x)

Moonrise Kingdom (2x)

Snow White and the Huntsman

Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted

Prometheus

Safety Not Guaranteed

Your Sister’s Sister

Sleepwalk With Me

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

Brave (3x)

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Magic Mike

People Like Us

Ted (2x)

The Amazing Spider-Man

Katy Perry: Part of Me 3D

The Dark Knight Rises (3x)

Ruby Sparks

The Watch (2x)

Total Recall

Celeste and Jesse Forever (2x)

Hope Springs

The Campaign (2x)

The Expendables 2

ParaNorman (2x)

Robot & Frank

Premium Rush

Lawless

The Possession

For A Good Time, Call…

Raiders of the Lost Ark IMAX

Resident Evil: Retribution

Finding Nemo 3D

The Master

Dredd

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Looper (2x)

Hotel Transylvania

Frankenweenie (2x)

Argo

Seven Psychopaths (2x)

Sinister

Paranormal Activity 4

Cloud Atlas (2x)

Bachelorette

Wreck-It Ralph (2x)

The Man with the Iron Fists

Lincoln

Skyfall

The Sessions

Life of Pi

Rise of the Guardians

Silver Linings Playbook (2x)

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2x)

This Is 40 (2x)

Texas Chainsaw 3D

Django Unchained

Les Miserables

Monsters, Inc. 3D

The Guilt Trip

Zero Dark Thirty

--

Stay tuned for Adam and Riley’s Best Films of 2012 lists, coming soon!

This Is 40

Adam: Merry Christmas Eve, everyone! As promised, I'm posting a review of Judd Apatow's latest directorial effort: This Is 40. Since Christmastime is a busy time of year (and I'm filming a short film this week), I can't promise my "Best Films of 2012" or "Favorite Films of 2012" lists before the New Year, but I can promise to try.
If you're looking for something to do with your family (and if your family can handle some R-rated humor), go see This Is 40 after eating some delicious food and enjoying each other's company. Or go see The Hobbit: An Expected Journey, which is an adventure the whole family can enjoy, no matter your age.

The happiest of holidays to you and yours this season!

--

This Is 40: R-Rated Family Fun!

viewed and reviewed by Adam Stutsman

Writer/director Judd Apatow’s signature style of blending gut-busting comedy and real, heartbreaking drama is one I’ve yet to see even remotely duplicated. 2009’s Funny People split audiences with its lengthy run time (2 hours and 15 minutes is, for some, quite long for a comedy) and its heavy dramatic tone that left the viewer’s laughs to have to fight through tears. However, the plot and characters were some of Apatow’s best writing, and I for one adored the autobiographical feel of it. Because of these reasons, I have been eagerly awaiting his follow up, a sort-of-sequel spin-off to Knocked Up called This Is 40.

This Is 40 follows Pete and Debbie, the dysfunctional couple from Knocked Up who filled the background with laughs and uncomfortable squirms, as they both hit the 40 year-old milestone. The story is very slice-of-life, since most of the couple’s problems come from money, family (parents and children, often at the same time), and each other. Pete’s record label is failing, and an employee is stealing from Debbie’s store; Pete’s father is sucking money from the family while Debbie’s father is hardly present at all; Pete and Debbie’s daughters are getting older and far more technology-savvy than either of the 40’s try to be; and Pete and Debbie fantasize about murdering each other. No matter where you turn, stress and pain run rampant. But since this is an Apatow film, every situation is filled with moments that make you wonder if you should laugh or cry, so I tend to just do both.

This type of comedy is not for everyone, however. Many of the situations are uncomfortable to watch, and some viewers simply can’t find reason enough to laugh. For instance, the film opens with a shower sex scene (you don’t see anything, calm down) that leads to an argument about Viagra and a rant about turning 40. The viewer can choose to laugh at this, or to read further into it and realizing just how heartbreaking growing older can be. To me, this makes everything seem more real; one can laugh or cry as a reaction to life’s messes, or choose to do both.

As always with an Apatow film, sex jokes and vulgarity are to be found in almost every scene, but there is a surprising sparseness of marijuana jokes considering how many there were in all of Apatow’s other joints (pun intended). If you can’t handle hearing foul language, dark jokes (a hilarious Melissa McCarthy telling a school principal she would be set on fire or Albert Brooks telling his son, Paul Rudd, that Rudd’s mother wanted him aborted), sexual innuendos, or all of the other things that weave through conversation in every day life, you may choose to avoid this film. However, if those things don’t bother you, and you’re wanting a real look at turning 40 while trying to manage work, family, and life in general, while also wanting to laugh until you cry (if you aren’t already crying), I recommend This Is 40. I would argue that this is Apatow’s most mature, most skillfully written, and (although not funniest) overall best film.

Another great title: The 40 Year-Old Not-Virgins

The Sessions

Adam: Hello, everyone! Today I'm posting a review of the film The Sessions. I wasn't entirely sure that I wanted to post this review, as The Sessions has been out for a while and not many people know what it is, but I feel that this review will offer some variety (since the last few reviews have been history or franchise-related). Hopefully this will inspire someone to check out some of those smaller movies that usually get passed over in favor of the bigger, more well-known films (even though my reaction wasn't the most positive to this one).

I would also like to give, before I post this review, a preview of what December will (hopefully) look like on my end. I haven't spoken to Riley about any joint-reviews or reviews on his end in a while, but I'm seeing him tonight, so that should change. But right now I'm going to discuss my personal plans for December on this blog. As I've mentioned a few times, I want to start doing monthly reader request reviews. My friend Stew asked me to review The Cabin in the Woods and that was going to be my plan for November, but I got so caught up with seeing all of the new movies coming out (as well as work, and other silly things like that), that I never got around to it. Considering December will bring This Is 40, Les Miserables, Django Unchained, and of course The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, as well as some other much-anticipated films (I really want to see The Silver Linings Playbook), I highly doubt I'll have time to do said RRR (reader request review). Even if I don't review those four films, I also want to do a joint Best Films of 2012/Favorite Films of 2012 list before the month ends. Add that in with shooting a short film mid-December (so excited!), December is pretty much packed for me. So that's why the RRR hasn't happened yet, and probably won't until January. But hey, new year new segment, right? Anyway, it looks like December is going to hold a lot of reviews, lists, and other posts for this blog. I hope you're as excited for it as I am!

Thanks for reading all of that. If you're still up for it, here's my review of The Sessions.

--

The Meh-ssions

viewed and reviewed by Adam Stutsman

When I first saw the trailer for The Sessions, I was certainly intrigued; a true story about a man with polio who wants to lose his virginity, so he asks his Catholic priest (played by William H. Macy, no less) for permission to use a sex surrogate certainly caught my eye. I expected a heartwarming tale beneath a veil of racy sex jokes, with occasional moments of heaviness and depth that were quickly redeemed with a lighthearted crack of a joke. I expected award-winning performances from the whole cast, and an overall sense of satisfaction when the credits rolled. I expected a story that transcended a simple “I want to lose my virginity because that’s what makes a man a man” message. I expected these things, because that’s what the general response has been and what the trailer led me to believe.

I am sorry to say, my expectations were not met in the least.

The Sessions is a story about a man with polio who wants to lose his virginity. He writes poetry. He is Catholic. He doesn’t have much luck with the ladies, because…well…he has polio and can’t be outside of his iron lung for more than a few hours, and requires a lot of very intense care. I would like to say there were deeper things to draw from these traits, but I cannot. This film pretty much takes place entirely on the surface, which isn’t completely a bad thing unless it’s in talks for Oscar nominations, which it is. Before I go into more detail, I will say this: this film does not deserve a single Oscar.

Okay, now that you think I hate this movie, let me review it and show you that I do not hate this movie.

The protagonist Mark O’Brien, our polio-plagued poet, is played beautifully by John Hawkes (seriously, if anyone should be in Oscar talks, it’s him…but still, no). The sex surrogate he hires is played by Helen Hunt, who looks far too good naked for any 49 year-old and should never attempt a Boston accent again, and Mark O’Brien’s priest is played by William H. Macy, as I mentioned before. The three of them do a terrific job in their rolls, yet they didn’t blow me away (except for some of Hawkes’ more vulnerable moments). Even in the juicy “sessions” where Cheryl (Hunt) is teaching Mark how to be aware of his body, and eventually how to have sex, there is a strange disconnected feeling in the tone. Moments that should be deeply intimate and revealing to the audience about these characters are far too shallow for their attempts. When we are finally given a taste of some real depth, our toes touch the bottom of the pool.

As for the rest of the usual “review” topics...the directing, editing, etc. were all good enough, but again, nothing astonishing or resonating. Heck, the best writing in the film was O’Brien’s actual poems (a nice touch) and the occasional one-liner.

But I can’t get over one massive flaw: there was no purpose to Mark losing his virginity besides he wanted to and “that’s what makes a real man.” Apparently the filmmakers found no need to add a layer of depth or meaning to a devout Catholic losing his virginity outside of marriage. I mean, I’m not Catholic, but I do know that believers don’t exactly look lightly upon sex outside of marriage. So to have a strict Catholic decide he wants to lose his virginity because he doesn’t think he’ll ever get married, and then to play it off as nonchalant until moments when the story calls for the Catholic Guilt Complex, is simply poor storytelling. Quite frankly, that downright bad moviemaking flaw is what ruined what could have otherwise been a nice little true-story film. Despite it’s subject matter, it wasn’t particularly raunchy, but in the end I kind of wish it were.

If you do decide to see The Sessions, I hope you enjoy it, but don’t feel the need to see it in order to join in with the Oscar talks this year, unless you want to have proper ammunition to argue why it doesn’t deserve more than a rental on a rainy day.

Skyfall

Adam: Hello again! As promised, I have seen and reviewed the most recent James Bond film, Skyfall, which can be read below. Hopefully the next time I review something, it won't be a movie about a person with whom everyone is already very familiar (I'm of course referencing Abraham Lincoln and James Bond). I guess there's no need for further introduction; here's my (still kinda short) review of Skyfall.

--

Skyfall: Double-Oh Heaven

viewed, reviewed, and sassily titled by Adam Stutsman

As most of the movie-going population knows, James Bond is an iconic character spanning 23 (yes, twenty-three) films and 50 (yes, fifty) years on the big screen. Fictional MI6 agent 007 is a legend in the film world, and despite claiming to be a man, I’ve actually only seen four of the James Bond movies: The Man With The Golden Gun, Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and obviously Skyfall. The latter three of that list were all viewed within two days of each other, so I went 23 years of my life without having seen more than one James Bond film. I know. I am a disappointment to my sex.

Now that you have some background on my James Bond background, you can rightly weigh my next statement: Skyfall is without a doubt my favorite James Bond film. Casino Royale comes close, but Skyfall ultimately takes the martini-flavored cake. I love Daniel Craig as Bond, Judi Dench as M, and Javier Bardem as the villain. I love Sam Mendes as the director. But overall, I love a story of resurrection and the return to one’s roots.

In this installment, the very existence of MI6 is at stake with M on the chopping block and Bond seemingly indisposed. But when 007 reappears from “death” after being informed of a gruesome terrorist attack on MI6 headquarters, the secret agent sets out to find the person/organization responsible and set things right. For the next 140-ish minutes of explosion-filled, sex-laced, all-or-nothing spy flick, we also get a fleshed out backstory of our hero, some gorgeous scenery, and a grandiose tale of a fall, redemption, death, and rebirth.

I would love to give a more in-depth review including the subtle nods to the other films that the writers put in, but since I’m so new to the series, I feel like I can’t truly do it justice. But what I can tell you is this: Skyfall is fantastic. I’d recommend picking up copies of Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace before you watch it, but honestly, that isn’t necessary. Watching the first two Craig-Bond movies will give you a stronger connection to James Bond and M, but not seeing them won’t take away from your enjoyment of the most recent installment. Skyfall is a must-see for fans of the franchise, of course, but it’s also one of the best action movies I’ve seen in a long time. See it.

Lincoln (and an apology)

Adam: Hey, everyone. I'd like to start off by apologizing for the lack of a Wreck-It Ralph review. I did see it, but it was a 2D show and after seeing it, I really wanted to see it in 3D before I reviewed it. Then, as fate would have it, I fell ill for a few days and didn't get a chance to go out and see it again. I mean, if you get a chance, definitely go see it because it's the most fun animated film to watch since Tangled, but sadly I won't be reviewing it.
However, I'm going to review Lincoln right now and then watch Skyfall tonight and hopefully get a review up on Wednesday. (Who knows, I might even review The Sessions as well, if I get a chance to see it.) And don't forget about this month's reader recommendation review! (That's more of a reminder to me to watch The Cabin in the Woods again and review it.)
So, again, sorry for the lack of Wreck-It Ralph review and here is my review/Oscar-rant for Lincoln!

--

Lincoln: The Best Abe Has Ever Fared in a Theater

viewed and reviewed by Adam Stutsman

Honestly, this probably won’t be a very long review. Let’s face it: Steven Spielberg doing a historical drama about one of the United States’ best-loved presidents with a cast of some of the most talented people in the business simply cannot fail. And frankly, if I didn’t know that Spielberg and his crew had a legitimate love and passion (okay, obsession) with the source material, I’d be convinced this was just a big, juicy piece of Oscar-bait. But Lincoln is more than that. It will win (probably too many) awards come February; Spielberg has created a flawless historical drama, and the Academy will love him for it. Lincoln is beautiful, moving, historically accurate, and probably the best film about Abraham Lincoln ever made. (And before you say, “lol but what about Abe Lincoln: Vampire Hunter man? It was so good haha” I will say, “shut your horrible little mouth, that movie was terrible” and continue pontificating without a second glance at you.)

If you’re detecting a hint of annoyance in my tone, I assure you it is not toward Lincoln itself. Movies that are sure-sweeps at the Oscars generally leave me with a terrible taste in my mouth, and sadly, Lincoln is no exception. It is expertly written, acted (Daniel Day Lewis had such a magnetic presence and did a job worthy of Best Actor in every scene), directed, and filmed. The score is sweeping and inspiring. So why am I rolling my eyes at some of this Oscar talk? Because Lincoln has done nothing new; it is the definition of a safe film. But before the Lincoln fans grab their pitchforks and head for my apartment, let me explain why it being a safe film is not a bad thing. Lincoln is the kind of film that occurs when someone who has made more than his fair share of movies decides to make a film that is an expression of the fact that he has perfected his craft (or two, if you count last year’s War Horse); it should be safe. Spielberg set out to make an accurate portrayal of Abraham Lincoln’s last years of living, with candid moments and personal information about the man that sheds more light on his already glowing life story, and he did it perfectly. There was no need to push the envelope. I'm not saying Lincoln shouldn't win a single Oscar by any means. It deserves Best Actor, Best Actress, and probably Best Cinematography (even though I'm still pushing for Cloud Atlas to win a few). My issue with safe films sweeping up awards is that the best picture of the year should go to something that has pushed the art form forward in new ways. For instance, in 2010 when The King’s Speech won Best Picture, I was annoyed. Sure, it was a fantastic film (seriously if you haven’t seen it, see it) but the best film of the year? No. The films that year that really made everyone look at movies and go “wow, that’s new and original” were Black Swan, Inception, and The Social Network. In fact, I personally thought The Social Network should have won Best Picture; it was an excellent statement on where we are (or were in 2010) as a society and how we communicate. But alas, the safe historical film won, and that is what I think will happen with Lincoln this year.

My apologies for the Oscar rant, but I needed something to fill the space. I can’t just say, “Go see Lincoln. It’s near perfect.” A six-word review would look silly.

But hey, go see Lincoln. It’s near perfect.

Crowd Atlas: An Observation of the Audience Reaction to the Film 'Cloud Atlas'

Crowd Atlas: An Observation of the Audience Reaction to the Film ‘Cloud Atlas’

written by Adam Stutsman

A week or so ago, I drove to Grand Rapids, MI with a good friend to see the epic and hype-surrounded film experience known as Cloud Atlas on a glorious IMAX screen. The three-hour brain workout was absolutely worth the drive, but the aspect of this film that has interested me most isn’t the sprawling storyline(s), the beautiful themes, or the impressive acting (seriously Academy, pay attention); the thing that has fascinated me most about this film is the various audience reactions to it.

After weeks of observation, investigation, and surfing IMDB, I realize that the audience of Cloud Atlas can be split up into three groups: the haters, the fanatics, and the realists.

The Haters:

This collection of individuals can be further split into two sub-groups (don’t worry, this shouldn’t be too confusing). Those sub-groups are as follows: those who hated the film because they didn’t understand it, and those who hated the film because they think they are above it.

The first sub-group consists of the people who walked out of Inception because they couldn’t handle the mental workout that is Nolan. This group of people doesn’t like anything that isn’t straightforward when it comes to film. If you have to dig beneath the surface, it’s too much work, and therefore not worthwhile. They would probably hate this post for these reasons. This particular moviegoer isn’t “stupid” or “ignorant” by any means, necessarily; they simply do not enjoy films with many layers. They go to the movies to enjoy light entertainment before likely continuing their Friday evening with their friends. At the same time, these are the people who go see forgettable film drivel and enjoy it, which is annoying to people who crave more than remakes and special effects. Hollywood caters to this crowd more often than not because this is where the big money lies. Why was The Avengers so successful? Because it was chock full of special effects and blockbuster goodies for the aforementioned group, but was also smart and faithful for the die-hard fans; it catered to the largest amount of moviegoers, and therefore broke a plethora of film records. But I digress. This group of Haters didn’t like Cloud Atlas because there are not only six different storylines happening at once in the film, but all of these storylines contain the same actors playing different characters. That’s enough to overwhelm the majority of American moviegoers, and sure enough, Cloud Atlas did just that. But this film was anything but a failure (see The Fanatics and The Realists).

The second sub-group of Haters are the people who get under my skin more than anyone else when it comes to discussing cinema; these are the people who hated Cloud Atlas because they found it pretentious, too complex to work, or conversely, too simple and “trying to be smarter than it is.” I’ve often heard this group dub Cloud Atlas “Terrance Malick for dummies” which is insulting to not only Malick (who, if you don’t get the reference, is an extremely talented director who uses gorgeous cinematography and deep storytelling to explore themes resulting in films that most people don’t fully understand, myself included, and has divided film critics more than almost any other director) but also to the Wachowski’s and Tom Tykwer (the directors of Cloud Atlas). What they mean by this is that Cloud Atlas discusses massive themes (life, death, love, beauty, truth, etc.) in a way that is palatable to the masses, and that this is a bad thing. Now, I don’t disagree that Cloud Atlas is far easier to understand than Malick’s Tree of Life or even Nolan’s Inception, but I do disagree on the notion that this is a negative thing. Cloud Atlas is an epic film that you’ll want to see multiple times if you want to fully absorb the beauty and importance in each layer, but you can also walk away from a first viewing feeling satisfied. I could honestly never watch Cloud Atlas again because I feel as though I understood it. However, I would love to see it again so I could not only revisit the things I felt, but perhaps unlock some new responses that didn’t get through the first time. The people who go on about how pretentious they think it is or how stupid the people who enjoyed it are reveal themselves as nothing more than self-absorbed and pretentious themselves. Cinema is not about proving how intelligent you are, but rather about sharing in the vision that other people conceived and drawing your own life-altering message from it, or simply enjoying said vision in a way that takes you out of your own life and places you in another that you could not otherwise experience. This is precisely what Cloud Atlas has attempted and achieved.

The Fanatics:

This group is partially the reason for the second sub-group of Haters. These are the die-hard Wachowski fans that saw The Matrix twenty times in theatres, wrote books about it, and trained with wooden rods to fight like Neo in The Matrix: Reloaded. These are the people who saw Inception twice in one night and took notes, swearing they had figured out the ending, down to the last detail, and will defend their theory to the grave. But most importantly, these are the people who think Cloud Atlas is the greatest film achievement to ever happen in the history of the art form, and if you think otherwise, you simply didn’t “get” it. This group is like The Realists on a sugar high in the sense that they not only see the positives in Cloud Atlas, but they believe that only these positives exist and the film is a flawless masterpiece. There is no shame in belonging to this group, I assure you. I’ve lost my mind over more films than I can mention, many of which did not deserve such hysteria. But here’s the thing: Cloud Atlas not only deserves such fanatics, but demands them. Cloud Atlas is overflowing with reasons to freak out over it. The acting is brilliant, the themes are vital, and, quite frankly, it’s a miracle this film was even made in the first place. You like sci-fi action? Here’s a storyline with robots, laser guns, and an oppressive government. You like post-apocalyptic societies with grandiose religions and the best Devil representation ever? Here’s a storyline starring Tom Hanks wearing a loincloth and speaking an altered version of English while Hugo Weaving whispers terrifying things to him. You like a heart-wrenching love story? Here’s a tale of a composer, his lover, and his quest to compose an opus of his own. You like thrillers about journalism and truth? Here’s Halle Berry on the run from money-grubbing businessmen because of the information she possesses. You like a lighthearted tale about getting older or stories about slavery and freedom? You guessed it; Cloud Atlas has it. The fact that all of these things can exist simultaneously and work together in harmony to express the same themes is nothing short of miraculous, and I believe that wholeheartedly. But I wouldn’t say this is the group to which I personally belong.

The Realists:

This is the group that, I assume, Cloud Atlas was aimed at (in addition to banking on the fanatics and the curious coming to see it, of course). These are the people who saw Cloud Atlas, were open to what it was attempting, spent some time chewing it over, and realized this: Cloud Atlas is an astonishing film, but not the greatest film ever made. This is not an opinion, but a fact. If you’ve studied cinema at all, or ever seen a movie in your life, you simply must acknowledge that Cloud Atlas is an artistic accomplishment deserving of notice, and that it is one of the most important films of the year, period. It is not without its imperfections, but what film is? (All together now: The Dark Knight!) This group looks at Cloud Atlas for what it is, faults and all. It acknowledges the importance without jumping down your throat about how great it is, and it is open to criticism and discussion of the film. I much prefer to have dinner with these people.

My (Sort-of) Review:

Overall, I’d say I feel as though I am 90% Realist and 10% Fanatic. Let’s face it, I loved Cloud Atlas and I highly recommend seeing it, if only to put your own opinion out there.

But what is my opinion? Let’s break it down, shall we—

The direction: this film has three directors working together as a team for equal directing credit. This is highly irregular, yes, but it also shows just how in-tune these three had to be with each other to create a film with no jarring changes in tone when the storylines switch directors. Cloud Atlas feels like a singular vision, and honestly, despite having three directors, it is.

The funding: I just want to point out how amazing it is that this is still technically an “independent film.”

The writing: I have never read the source material for this film, but I’m not reviewing the novel here. As a writer, the thought of weaving together six epic storylines into one cohesive unit is daunting to say the least. To attempt something this huge is nothing short of brave, which is further supported by just how many important actors were involved here, because if this had failed, it would have been a titanic disaster of money-loss, career-dives, and wasted time. Luckily for the cast and crew, it was none of these things.

The acting: okay, seriously, if Tom Hanks and Jim Sturgess aren’t both nominated for Best Actor, Hugo Weaving for Best Supporting Actor, and Halle Berry and Bae Doona for Best Actress, I will be more disappointed in the Academy than when Rooney Mara lost Best Actress last year (I know, I know, “but it’s Meryl Streep!”). Every single player in this movie brought absolute passion into these characters and played them with such fervor and belief that I stopped trying to figure out which actor was which character under all that make-up (Best Make-Up Oscar, please) and let them tell their stories to me.

The score: if you’ve seen the trailer, you know just how emotional and beautiful The Cloud Atlas Sextet is. Well, take that passion and make a whole film score out of it. Gorgeous.

The cinematography: this is where I can stop sounding like a Fanatic as much. The cinematography and effects were great, yes, but they didn’t stick out as anything that should be adored. Some of the effects were incredible, I’ll give it that, but no specific shots stuck in my mind. Then again, the purpose of Cloud Atlas was not the visuals, but the stories and themes. This isn’t to say the cinematography was bad by any means, but it didn’t blow me away like the stories or acting. Maybe you’ll feel differently.

In fact, maybe you’ll feel differently than anything I’ve said thus far, and honestly, that’s a good thing. I am by no means an end-all source for film analysis, and I think that’s what I like so much about Cloud Atlas in general. It offers up many different possibilities for different readings. People who are open to talking about film, regardless of disagreements, are part of the reason I find so much joy in the art form, and movies like this are just begging to be discussed.

Oh, and can we please talk about how Cloud Atlas is one of the only films to incorporate a homosexual relationship and not have it drown out the rest of that character’s attributes? Seriously, this is one of the only films I’ve ever seen that isn’t using its homosexual character as a gimmick to bring in the LGBT supporters or taking a stand one way or the other on homosexual relationships or marriage. The relationship is pivotal to the story, it is genuine, and it is real, just like a relationship (regardless of orientation) should be.

(If you’ve made it this far, thank you so much for reading. I’m almost done, I promise.)

Okay, so, to recap: go see Cloud Atlas, be open to it, and draw your own meanings from it. Don’t be a jerk, don’t be a snob, and if you don’t understand it, don’t hate on it. Be open to discussion with others, whether it’s about the successes or failures of this or any other film (or subject, for that matter).

--

Adam: And with that, I bring this Cloud Atlas-length post to a close. Thank you all for reading, and stay tuned for my upcoming review of Disney’s Wreck-It Ralph sometime this week, and our first-ever monthly Reader Request Review (or ReReRe) in the near future!