2012 epic
Rating: 17/20
Plot: Six semi-connected stories about human beings spanning from the 1840s to the 24th Century. There's a lawyer on a boat, a slave on the same boat, a bisexual composer, nuclear physicists, a reporter trying to uncover a secret, a publisher in a nursing home operated like a prison, that guy's brother, a clone, a bunch of other clones, a tough-guy rebel, Forrest Gump, a visitor from a distant and technologically-advanced society, and a guy with a hat. I'd like to apologize to any characters I may have left out.
This is the best thing that Tom Tykwer or the Wachowski siblings have ever been associated with, and I can't figure out why it A) wasn't critically lauded and B) the recipient of countless awards. I went into this thing expecting to hate it, partially because I thought it looked kinda stupid in previews and partly because of its almost three-hour running time. And it is an exhausting experience, one that I started too late at night and ended up watching in two installments. I still wasn't thrilled about the length, but when you essentially have six movies packed into three hours, you really can't complain. That's six movies for the price of one, people. This is also exhausting because it does take a little intellectual effort from the audience. The individual plots aren't that difficult to follow unless you, like me, are confused by science fiction. What might be frustrating to a lot of viewers is how these six stories are portrayed--in disjointed snippets, some lasting barely longer than a few seconds. There's a jumpiness that at first I didn't like or understand, but once I got used to the rhythm and started finding connections between the individual stories, it made sense. And a lot of the transitions between these time chunks were pretty brilliant. Also connecting the stories were that the characters in the different eras were played by the same actors. Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, and Hugh Grant play six characters each while Jim Broadbent and Ben Whishaw play five each. Nobody gets away with just playing one character, and some of these performers brilliantly play people of drastically different ages, different races, and even different genders. A lot of times, they're unrecognizable. Well, not Tom Hanks. He's pretty easy to spot. Maybe it sounds cheesy or gimmicky, but it works with the movie's themes and it's all so well executed. Tom Hanks is mostly very good, but he and his forehead were a little distracting. I almost wished those parts were played by somebody not as easy to recognize. Don't get me wrong though--I'm not trying to put down Tom Hanks. I would never do something like that. Hugo Weaving plays villainous dudes, and he plays villainous dudes so well that you suspect the guy tortures small animals in his spare time. I found this whole thing enormously entertaining. There were several of those big memorable moments where you think to yourself, "Man, this is something special." There are fragments of dialogue that are very beautiful. There's action, romance, some humor. There's historical and science fiction, a story that plays like a political thriller and one that is nearly slapstick comedy. And there's a message that, while maybe simple when compared to the complex layout of this beast, is also beautiful. I really liked this! Epic, enthralling, and ambitious, this is a movie that I think people will finally be ready for in ten or fifteen years.
I fully expect at least one of my 4 1/2 readers to disagree completely. I'd love to hear why I'm wrong about this one.
6 comments:
It definitely is an ambitious film and I also went in not expecting to like it very much. I would disagree with the Wachowski brothers comment since I am a big "Bound" fan, and think the original "Matrix" movie is an all-time classic sci-fi, but I certainly don't have an issue with you liking this. The stories weave in and out effectively, and most are great. I was especially moved by the brilliantly realized robot girl world, and how that impacted retro-super-future-world. The acting is generally very good, and even the multiple roles thing isn't too distracting (is the movie promoting the idea of reincarnation or are the producers saving money?). I didn't buy or love everything, but they went big and mostly pulled it off. A 16.
I would say no RE: reincarnation, but I don't really know. I think the same actors were used as a visual way to show that people, despite being so far away from each other in time, have the same flaws, ambitions, jealousies, bad urges, and evils. I think it's more about human nature being reincarnated rather than people's souls. Of course, the heroic characters--the ones who influence characters in the other--have their positive attributes that manage to float into the future.
Boy howdy! They sure did go big here! I think that's what I'm most impressed about. It just seems like this would have been really hard to pull off. I was reading about this movie after I posted this and saw that it was the most expensive INDEPENDENT movie ever made. It's hard for me to think of it as a little indie film, especially with the star power.
Forgot about 'Bound'! That's something I would see again to see if I liked it more.
This movie was not in your top ten for 2012. Is it because you're anti-indie film?
I just saw it about a month ago, and it would be borderline revised top-10.
Just finished this, and it just doesn't make its point. I'm not one to always have my plots and themes spoon-fed to me, but when diving into something as deep as this, you really need to "SAY" something on the matter. Every character just couldn't seem to put their finger on what was going on around them. That means there's no revelation; which sucks. I really like it when character learn things about themselves and the world they live it. It's kind of an expectation with storytelling. If you separated these stories, they'd be pretty straightforward. So, I guess the "smart part" was mixing them altogether and saying that they effected one another?
Aside from the out-of-reach plot, I could NOT get past the make up. I mean, an Asian playing a white southern belle...and a black guy playing an Asian...and a white guy playing an Asian...I guess my problem was with the obvious fact that Asians should really play themselves in movies. There's no room for so-called "round eyes" to take those jobs. Seriously though, Hugh Grants "Last of the Mohicans" getup was just laughable.
I understand the idea of a great ripple effect. I also understand this concept that the shooting star birthmark meant that their souls were carrying on throughout space and time. But, the peripheral characters being played by the same characters had no meaning (Hugh Grant was not the villain in every time frame nor was Tom Hanks the hero or love interest or protagonist). It became gimmicky. It wasn't as purposeful as I think the writers and directors wanted it to be. I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on how effective the novel makes these characters. The movie just aimed a little too high, and I don't think it hit its mark.
I've looked up some reviews and summaries (they even have diagrams out for this damn thing), and I haven't seen much help out there. No one has been able to explain the "genius" that rests behind this film. No one has been able to articulate why people believed in this so much that not only did every major studio drop it, but the Warchowski's and Tom Hanks had to put in their own money to get it done.
I'd give it a 12 for trying REALLY hard to be something meaningful.
Ok, I found one thing that says "The directors responded that the same multi-racial actors portrayed multiple roles of various nationalities and races (not just Asian), across a 500-year story arc, showing "the continuity of souls" critical to the story." This was a statement released because an Asian actors union made some uproar about about white/black people playing Asians. This was "yellowface makeup" and the fact that we no longer use blackface is a double standard.
I think I'm on the side of the directors for this one. I think the movie would have been different if each time frame had its own set of actors. Still, the idea of continuous souls seems like a non sequitur. I mean, the multiple story lines already feels like several movies in one. Now, you add this idea of continuous souls...
As I see it right now, this movie is 2 movies in 1:
1) Several story arcs overlaid to show how humanity and human nature never really change. There will always be heroes and their will always be villains. There will always be deceit, lying, self-sacrifice, loyalty, greed, power struggles...Basically, each story is comparative to the other.
2) There are souls that float through time and space, one to the other, and allow for humans to transcend their current situation in order to effect change.
I think the first one did a great job. The second didn't shine through well enough to really matter.
Since the movie isn't really about individual characters, I don't think they need to learn anything individually for it to be satisfying thematically. The main character is more "humanity," isn't it? Not like an Everyman, but all of humanity from the beginning of us (obviously Adam and Eve) until the end of us.
I wish I had a better movie memory to reply to your comments more intelligently.
The makeup...that was a big turnoff for me when I saw advertisements for this. I thought it looked pretty stupid, and I guess it did. For whatever reason, I was able to look past it when actually watching the movie though.
I haven't read the book either, and I'm not sure whether "soul" is meant to be a literal thing, like the idea of reincarnation or something. It might be something mystical like that, but I saw this much more concretely...more about the flaws in human nature affecting our decisions and lives and the lives of others rather than soul strands winding through time--your #1 instead of #2 up there. But it'd be silly for me to argue with what the directors say, and if they're throwing "continuity of souls" out there, they're probably talking about literal souls.
Post a Comment