I loved, absolutely loved the movie and wondered why it had such little critical success (and not much box office appeal either).
Earlier in this thread, I asked,
but didn’t get a lot of responses. Any takers now?
Thanks!
Not sure, because that’s one part of the book that was completely changed for the movie. They found bodies up there all right but made no attempt to contact anyone off world. There was no off-world activity in the book, and the Tom Hanks character was narrating his story from the neighboring island of Maui.
Heh, I never thought of that. Could well be.
To be fair, the critics were divided - just like the people in this thread: some loved it (as I did), and some were confused and unengaged.
It is never explained, and doesn’t form part of the book.
If I had to guess, I’d say that part of the “fall” involved the use of biological weapons. The off-world colonies would have known about it all right, but would have stayed away out of self-preservation.
The significance of the signal was that there were some survivors - presumably part of the signal was 'it’s safe to pick us up, the plagues have burnt themselves out" or some such.
I’ve been thinking about all kinds of possible symbolism. Whether or not it’s all intended I can’t say, but isn’t art supposed to make you see things even the artist didn’t intend?
I’ve been thinking about the publisher who ended up confined in the asylum. He was an innocent who was “subjected to criminal abuse”, right?
Except… he certainly seemed happy enough to profit from the murder of the book critic. Was he a hapless dupe, or another cannibal, at least symbolically?
Then there were the innocent cannibals. The replicants had no idea what “soap” was made from, so they can hardly be blamed. In fact, who is more innocent and blameless of any wrongdoing than the replicants? But this moral purity was solely the result of their total lack of freedom.
So what’s the message? Freedom has a price, it corrupts us all to some extent, but it’s still worth it?
Is it perhaps relevant to contemporary times? How much freedom should we relinquish in response to the threat of terrorism? Is a perfectly safe, blissful life even worth living if it means a lack of freedom?
And I believe in the movie the 1970s section had the big showdown in a warehouse or something? While in the book, it was aboard Ewing’s whaling ship, which was docked there in California as a floating museum.
Sounded to me like the skeletal remains in the mountain facility probably perished as a result of a nuclear attack, because Meronym was talking to one of her colleagues much earlier who warned her about radiation exposure.
Just saw it a few weeks ago, and really, really enjoyed it.
I’d heard about the book here on the Dope several times in the “Whatcha reading?” and sf threads and was intrigued, as it sounded right up my alley, but I just never got around to reading it. The movie really worked for me. I could understand how the stories and characters fit together pretty well. Awesome cinematography. The makeup was better for some characters than others, but it was still fun to see the multiple roles revealed at the end (“That nurse was Hugo Weaving? The elderly composer’s wife was Halle Berry? And the cannibal leader was… Hugh Grant? Whoa!”). Tom Hanks was good in every role, I thought, but as the British thug writer he was particularly a hoot.
I really appreciated the film’s underlying humanist message of hope, love, personal connection, the three-steps-forward-and-two-steps-back cycle of human civilization, and our enduring yearning for freedom. I’ve already recommended the movie to lots of family and friends. I understand it didn’t do too well at the box office but hope, over time, that it gains a new and broader audience.
And yes, I do intend to read the book someday.
Glad you enjoyed it. 
This is still just about the most polarizing movie I know of. Those that liked it (and I did) tend to really, really like it; those that do not, tend to really, really dislike it.
I encourage you to read the book. I’m one of those people who don’t like reading a book once I’ve seen the film version of it, but I can assure you this case would be an exception.
Thanks. I intend to, but my really-wanna-read-that stack is already pretty damn high.
A film where much of the enjoyment is in catching the significance of the details. I think Ebert said something to the effect that he needed to watch it twice to begin to appreciate it, and intended, or should, watch it again.
the strong and greedy will generally win in the short term, but in the longer view, their excesses will cause their downfall and/or destruction. Every time, time after time.
Was there a sense that not only were the deeds of past people instructive and inspirational to those in the future…but also, somehow, the anticipation of what people in the future might do was of inspiration to those (of us) in the past?
I dislike having to figure out printed dialect, pain in the ass to me and it takes me out of the book. I do not mind it in movies though - it is simply the way that person talks.
I have not yet read the book, nor seen the movie but the descriptions did not sound interesting to me [there is only so much you can manage in a single sentence in the directory on TV] but I think I will make an attempt to watch it next time it comes on and I get a chance.
But this was an invented dialect-- something no one could have heard before. It was difficult to understand in some instances, and made watching the movie difficult. I wouldn’t want a “translation” in the subtitles, just the words as spoken. They’d be easier to figure out written than spoken.
At the theater where I saw it, they accidentally showed the closed captioned version. They stopped the film five minutes in and scrambled around for the “regular” version, but didn’t find it. So it was announced that would could get a refund if we didn’t want to watch with the captions. I know I enjoyed the film all the more because of it.
I love that kind of stuff: A Clockwork Orange, Riddley Walker, Space War Blues. Far from taking me out of the book, it effectively draws me into an alternative culture.
In a book, you can take your time to tease out the meaning. In a movie, it just goes by in a big whoooooosh!
Well, I really liked Cloud Atlas. It isn’t my normal cup of tea and I haven’t read the book, but something about really drew me in. It actually made me quite emotional, I loved the scenes at the old folks home and when Cavendish and the others are trying to figure out the SUV, I cracked up.
The real thing that drew me was the music, especially the end song. There was such an incredible sense of peace and joy and unbearable sadness. I cry at the end.
Did anyone else cry?!
I just saw this last night, I felt it dragged on and on without getting anywhere and I really did not enjoy the movie. It wasn’t terrible but it wasn’t great. I really like Hanks and Broadbent and they were the best part of the movie. The whiteface and yellowface acting was annoying to me. Much of it seemed a little silly. The plots just didn’t make a lot of sense as plans seemed to be poor.
On the boat, the Tom Hanks Doc could have killed the rich guy for his belongings far quicker. If he was conflicted about his actions, they failed to ever portray that in the movie.
Neo Soul plot was really dumb. Here is the replicant girl talking very slowly while people are dying in a poorly organize defense of the broadcast lobby. It was bad writing.
The post-apocalypse world led me to wonder how such a stupid group of people lived as long as they did.
- Neighbors are psycho-cannibals on horseback
- Don’t post guards
- don’t build a defensive wall
I’m not sure what the book explained that the movie glossed over, but the movie had some really large plot holes. The pacing was pretty slow.
Ditto … I found a number of the lesser characters much more interesting than the main plotline characters. The only way I could really follow it was to have the wiki up and see that the various plotlines were.