Cloud Atlas 2012 123movies

Watch: Cloud Atlas 2012 123movies, Full Movie Online – Everything is connected: an 1849 diary of an ocean voyage across the Pacific, letters from a composer to his lover, a thriller about a conspiracy at a nuclear power plant, a farce about a publisher in a nursing home;, a rebellious clone in futuristic Korea, and the tale of a tribe living on post-apocalyptic Hawaii far in the future..
Plot: A set of six nested stories spanning time between the 19th century and a distant post-apocalyptic future. Cloud Atlas explores how the actions and consequences of individual lives impact one another throughout the past, the present and the future. Action, mystery and romance weave through the story as one soul is shaped from a killer into a hero and a single act of kindness ripples across centuries to inspire a revolution in the distant future. Based on the award winning novel by David Mitchell. Directed by Tom Tykwer and the Wachowskis.
Smart Tags: #future #reincarnation #clone #nonlinear_timeline #tribe #futuristic_city #dystopia #rebellion #karma #title_directed_by_female #eye_patch #composer #nursing_home #nuclear_power #escape #seoul #san_francisco_california #cult_hero #facial_makeup #sucking_someone’s_toes #facial_scar

Find Alternative – Cloud Atlas 2012, Streaming Links:

123movies | FMmovies | Putlocker | GoMovies | SolarMovie | Soap2day

Ratings:

	7.4/10 Votes: 362,751
	66% | RottenTomatoes
	55/100 | MetaCritic
	N/A Votes: 6327 Popularity: 27.978 | TMDB

Reviews:

Cloud Atlas was a very well made movie but unlike most of the “simultaneous stories that all come together at the end” type of movies, this one just didn’t. I’m still unclear as to the point of it all.

Another issue I had was a general feeling of goofiness. Sure, the Cavendish story was pure comedy but the rest of the stories just didn’t feel serious enough to me.

It carried my attention for the 172 minutes well enough and it was entertaining. I just expected more of a pay off at the end.

All in all, it’s definitely worth seeing but I still haven’t made up my mind if I truly liked it or not. What did you think?

Interesting film with an exceptional cast, fantastic performances and characterizations. The story, though, is a bit difficult to follow and, in the end, seems to not have a real point.

A Potentially Great Film Ruined By Poor Structure
I never read the book, but was intrigued by this movie because I had heard the book was very good. I don’t have as much time to read as I used to, so I watched it, sort of liked it but found it kind of tedious to get through due to all the jumping around from story to story. Seeing the different actors as different characters was more distracting than anything, and the film was paced too quickly allow the average viewer to pick up all the complexities and themes the author was likely trying to convey.

In the end, I found that it had a couple of good and original story- lines (particularly the Escape from the Nursing home plot, and the gay composer plot was good) but I found the other stories to be of the mostly bland and formulaic sort we’ve seen many times before (ie. guy finds out slavery is bad, investigative reporter uncovers a plot by an evil corporation, bladerunner/soilent green hybrid plot, and a fairly standard post-apocalyptic adventure story plot). While all of the story lines were entertaining, you never have enough time to become invested in each story or characters because the movie constantly jumped around between the six different plots. Yes, there are six different plots in this two and half hour movie, and therein lies there problem.

After having watched the movie, I looked up the plot of the book because I was curious to see how the author handled the story. According to Wikipedia, In the book:

“Each tale is revealed to be a story that is read (or observed) by the main character in the next. The first five stories are interrupted at a key moment. After the sixth story, the other five stories are returned to and closed, in reverse chronological order, and each ends with the main character reading or observing the chronologically previous work in the chain. Eventually, readers end where they started, with Adam Ewing in the nineteenth century South Pacific. Each story contains a document, movie or tradition that also appears in a previous story. It shows how history not only repeats itself, but also connects to people in all time periods and places.”

For the life of me, I can’t figure out why the directors didn’t structure the movie this way. It would have worked far better. The audience would have been able to become more immersed in each story- line, and the connections between each plot would have been more apparent. As it stands, upon one viewing, it seems more like a mess that tries too hard to be clever. So then you might say “you have to watch it more than once to ‘get it'”. I don’t want to have to watch a film more than once “get it”. I paid close attention the first time. I’d rather spend my time doing something other than watching an average movie more than once. It’s a sign of poor story telling if you make it so that you have to watch a film more than once in order to “get it”.

This film could have been so much better if it was structured like the book and took its time to actually tell the stories and develop the characters. Instead it was paced like an action movie. I felt like I was watching Inception at times (another annoying film that you “had to watch more than once in order to ‘get it'”). Perhaps it was structured this way due to a limited running time. But why even attempt to merge six completely different stories into a single movie in the first place? It would lend itself much better to a mini-series. Game of Thrones is the perfect example of a book adaptation that proved to be an immense success when told at a television show’s pace. I feel like this movie would have benefited greatly if it was separated episodically like that.

Before you respond to this with elitist statements like: “I got it first watch, you’re just too dumb to understand catch all the intricacies,” or “the average viewer is a moron, that’s why they need all the themes and messages spoon fed to them. This film treats the audience like it has intelligence and allows to viewer to draw their own conclusions.” I just want to pre-emptively say “no you’re wrong”. The reason I think this film was a disappointment was precisely because it treated the audience like morons who just wanted to see fast paced action with no deep exploration of the themes or characters. It didn’t give the audience a chance to think about any of the themes because it was too busy rapidly jumping between story-lines focusing more on action scenes rather than any sort character development. Supposedly the Tom Hanks soul goes through a whole redemption arc that I never caught because the film never actually focused on it. I haven’t even read the book, yet, on first viewing, it felt like none of the major themes of the book were explored with any sort of depth. It’s a shame because it seems like the book is a good one worth reading. I’m probably not going to read it now though since the movie spoiled the plots for me.

That being said, I would say this film is worth a redbox rental at least. It has some good acting and some nice cinematography and special effects. It looks very pretty. The action is also quite good, although I wish there was a little less focus on the action, and more of a focus on the philosophical themes and characters.

Three hours of beautiful crap.
I have seen the preview of this movie and was disappointed that Halle Berry was in this movie. She is a very boring actress who always plays a confident woman and in this movie she was not different than that. But Tom Hanks and Hugo Weaving made me watch this movie in the cinema. I did not know it would be a three hours hell.

The movie is very beautiful made. What more can you expect from the Wachowski brothers (or brother / sister, I got lost there). The movie switches from the one parallel universe tot the other. In the preview the only thing the actors and actresses said was that the story is very complex and everything will come together at the end. Like boring the preview was, so was the movie. We got to see three hours of scenes going from story to story and back. Only to tell a simple story what the whole movie was really about. Yes, you get to know what the movie is about at the end, but it is very disappointing.

Acting was bad. Make-up was awesome. The actors and actresses were pimped up very beautiful. Sometimes the actors and actresses had to speak words of the English language in a different way like we are used to. I could see they had a bit of trouble there and that really stole the magic of the movie.

Some people left the cinema before the movie was over. Most people, like me, stayed. Maybe because we hoped the movie would get better, or the urge to know what this movie was about, or maybe not letting our money we paid for the movie wash down the drain.

One big advice: don’t watch it in the cinema. It’s a waste of your money. It’s nothing like the matrix, what in my opinion was a great action movie.

Other Information:

Original Language en
Runtime 2 hr 52 min (172 min), 2 hr 14 min (134 min) (Mainland China Cut Version) (China)
Budget 102000000
Revenue 130482868
Status Released
Rated R
Genre Drama, Mystery, Sci-Fi
Director Tom Tykwer, Lana Wachowski, Lilly Wachowski
Writer David Mitchell, Lana Wachowski, Tom Tykwer
Actors Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugh Grant
Country United States, Germany, Hong Kong, Singapore, China
Awards 15 wins & 79 nominations
Production Company N/A
Website N/A

Technical Information:

Sound Mix Dolby Digital, DTS, SDDS, Dolby Surround 7.1, Dolby Atmos
Aspect Ratio 2.39:1
Camera Arricam LT, Zeiss Master Prime and Angenieux Optimo Lenses, Arricam ST, Zeiss Master Prime and Angenieux Optimo Lenses, Phantom HD Camera, Zeiss Master Prime Lenses (high-speed shots)
Laboratory ARRI Film & TV, München, Germany (digital intermediate) (color)
Film Length 4,712 m (9 reels)
Negative Format 35 mm (Kodak Vision3 50D 5203, Vision3 200T 5213, Vision3 500T 5219), Video (HDTV)
Cinematographic Process Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format), HDTV (source format) (high-speed shots), Super 35 (also 3-perf) (source format)
Printed Film Format 35 mm (anamorphic) (Kodak Vision 2383), D-Cinema