Now Playing

Here's a look at the new movies I saw this week.

Cloud Atlas

Starring: Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugh Grant, and Hugo Weaving

Synopsis: In 1999, movies changed forever with the release of “The Matrix.” Sure, that might seem like an overly bold statement, but “The Matrix” was an incredible phenomenon that has been copied, ripped off, and remains a part of our cultural lexicon. The Wachowskis — the creators behind “The Matrix” — haven’t been able to capture lightening in a bottle since then. The subsequent “Matrix” sequels failed to live up to the original, and the only raving over 2008’s “Speed Racer” was due to the fact people paid to see it. With “Cloud Atlas” the Wachowskis and partner Tom Tywker (“Run Lola Run”) again wade into philosophically dense but visually stunning material. Whether they’ve again succeeded in capturing the attention of the nation remains to be seen, but the early reviews on the film are mixed. While there has been almost universal praise of the visual storytelling, it’s the narrative portion of the film that has audiences torn. The film is based on the novel by David Mitchell that has often been dubbed unfilmable. There is a good reason for that. The sprawling story features multiple characters reappearing and connecting to each other’s lives over a 500-year period. It’s philosophical, pseudo-religious, and dense. As a film, it can be hard to follow and confusing. And yet, there’s something about “Cloud Atlas” that is incredibly appealing. There is a central idea that runs through the core of the story in the film, or rather stories. It is a philosophy about the nature of our lives and how we connect. “Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb, we are bound to others — past and present. And by each crime and every kindness, we birth our future.” That idea permeates the narrative sections. It is nearly impossible to describe the plot to “Cloud Atlas,” it really has to be seen to be experienced. That being said, the film takes place in six distinct moments in time — 1849, 1936, 1973, 2012, 2144, and a period described as 106 years after the collapse of society. In each of these time periods the same souls play pivotal roles, and all inter-connect. Going through time, you see how each of them touches the lives of the others in shaping the future. And all of it traces back to that simple philosophy governing how all our lives touch, and how the places where we touch shapes the future. There are a lot of big ideas in “Cloud Atlas,” but not all of them are finished or refined. A common criticism/observation about “The Matrix” was its use of a myriad of religious and social constructs. It blended a lot of ideas and thoughts together into a sort of post-modern soup. The same is somewhat true here, but it feels like there is more of a central theme in “Cloud Atlas.” Though the stories, characters, and worlds depicted are vast and varied, the idea of love and inter-connectedness remains the central through line. Also as important is the idea conveyed that our lives are in a constant loop through time and space. But the way those souls intersect can change. There are three types of characters featured in “Cloud Atlas,” regardless of the time period or setting. Some of the characters remain negative forces that live to inflict pain and misery in shaping the world. Some are positive, optimistic, tortured souls who yearn to make the world a better place no matter what obstacles and dangers they face. Then there are others that seem to vacillate depending on the time period. That, I believe, is meant to mark the ability to change, adapt, and grow through this process of birth, life, death, and re-birth. Though how and why that change occurs is never really functionally addressed in the film. There are some films that connect with you on a certain level and take hold of you despite their flaws. You can’t rationally explain it, but the film just resonates with you. For me, “Cloud Atlas” is one of those films. It’s a brilliant visual film. It captures so many different time periods and feels beautifully. It’s a gorgeous film to behold, and it really captures ones attention and hooks the audience. The performances are also great, with an incredible cast — led by Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, and Hugh Grant. There is something moving, captivating, and gripping about the film and the way it weaves all its stories and characters together that helps you over look the flaws. And there are flaws. The way the story is laid out could be called inaccessible and a bit confusing. The entire sequence set after the fall of humanity — from the way the story is told to the confusing language created for that sequence — is a bit distracting and odd. The way that the same actors are used over and over — often changing race and gender along the way — is a bit odd as well. There are a number of reasons why it shouldn’t work, and a number of things that could be sited as flaws. And yet, it’s a film that’s hard to let go of. Even days after the screening, I am still thinking about and working through the film. That is what great art does — it challenges, confounds, moves, inspires, frustrates, and excites us. My sense is that this film will have a different impact on everyone who sees it. Despite all the rational reasons I can think of that this film was flawed, the connection it created in me over three hours that literally flew by is impossible to over look.

Rating: R for or violence, language, sexuality/nudity and some drug use. Enter with caution.

Verdict: Four stars out of four.

The Girl

Starring: Toby Jones, Sienna Miller, and Imelda Staunton

Synopsis: This is the first of two movies about Alfred Hitchcock and the behind the scenes stories of his most famous films. This one, which debuted on HBO, follows Hitchcock during the making of "The Birds" and "Marne," and focuses on his relationship with star Tippi Hedren. The bulk of the narrative of the film is based on Hedren's account of their relationship — which isn't great and was given mostly after Hitchcock's death in 1980. The film portrays Hitchcock as a weird, crude, sex-obsessed old man who's willing to do anything to torture his young star after she rebuffs his advances. It's possibly true, but that's hardly the point. The film is little more than a depressing 90-minute journey through the rumored rough times that took place behind the scenes. Neither character comes off as likeable, and the whole production feels very slow and very tough to watch. This isn't the best example of an HBO film, and it kind of wrong since Hitchcock isn't here to defend himself...

Verdict: One star out of four.

Upcoming Releases:

Friday, Nov. 2 — "The Man With The Iron Fists," "Wreck It Ralph," "Flight"

Friday, Nov. 9 — "Lincoln," "Skyfall"

Friday, Nov. 16 — "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 2," "Anna Karenina"

Wednesday, Nov. 21 — "The Silver Linings Playbook,""Life of Pi," "The Guardians," "Hitchcock," "Red Dawn"