Cloud Atlas

[wenshu]

I don't remember the book being that corny.

The Wachowski's suffer from the same problem Nolan does; an otherwise good story ruined by explication. They're so proud of their clever little plot they browbeat the audience with it because they have to make sure everybody understands just how clever it is.

We get it; interconnectedness.

[mawali]

I thought it was a decent moral play on the interrelationship/communality that we share and people benefit or lose because of that link.
The movie could have been less time but that was OK.
p.s. I did fall asleep withinthe first 30 minutes

[wenshu]

You should read the novel if you haven't.

Despite its gimmicks the stories are really very good in and of themselves and the metaphysical "butterfly flaps its wings" sentimentality was graciously subtextual compared to the heavy handedness of the film.

[Jimbo]

I'm interested in seeing this, but kinda fearing the sheer length of it. If theaters had seats as comfortable as recliners, I'd go in a heartbeat.

Maybe I should read the book first.

[MightyB]

Actually the Wachowski's suffer from the same problem as M. Night Shyamalan. The fact that they made one great movie in comparison to the movies of its time doesn't translate to being able to create another great movie. They peaked with the Matrix. It was cool and genre defining - but that's it. Boom, one-shot. They had it, now they're constantly trying to recreate that moment, but they can't and they haven't learned how to move on.

Here's my advice to those filmmakers, "Just make another good movie." It doesn't have to be mind blowing or genre defining - it just has to be good. And if you really have talent, do it without gimmicks or block buster special effects. Do it with dialogue and acting which creates unforgettable characters, beautiful cinematography, and skillful invisible editing.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Actually the Wachowski's suffer from the same problem as M. Night Shyamalan. The fact that they made one great movie in comparison to the movies of its time doesn't translate to being able to create another great movie. They peaked with the Matrix. It was cool and genre defining - but that's it. Boom, one-shot. They had it, now they're constantly trying to recreate that moment, but they can't and they haven't learned how to move on.

Here's my advice to those filmmakers, "Just make another good movie." It doesn't have to be mind blowing or genre defining - it just has to be good. And if you really have talent, do it without gimmicks or block buster special effects. Do it with dialogue and acting which creates unforgettable characters, beautiful cinematography, and skillful invisible editing.

This.
Well said.

[wenshu]

Actually the Wachowski's suffer from the same problem as M. Night Shyamalan. The fact that they made one great movie in comparison to the movies of its time doesn't translate to being able to create another great movie. They peaked with the Matrix. It was cool and genre defining - but that's it. Boom, one-shot. They had it, now they're constantly trying to recreate that moment, but they can't and they haven't learned how to move on.

Here's my advice to those filmmakers, "Just make another good movie." It doesn't have to be mind blowing or genre defining - it just has to be good. And if you really have talent, do it without gimmicks or block buster special effects. Do it with dialogue and acting which creates unforgettable characters, beautiful cinematography, and skillful invisible editing.

You're argument works for Shyamalan, he keeps remaking The Sixth Sense, every movie has to have "ohhhhh, a twist". But it falls apart for the Wachowski's; the only other film besides The Matrix Trilogy and portions of Cloud Atlas that they actually directed is Speed Racer, which a lot of people actually feel is actually greatly underrated.

Also, I get the impression that you are implying am equivalence between box office receipts and good story telling, which, just, ha, no.

Anyways, the Wachowski's true genre defining work was Bound.