"Cloud Atlas": Critics rate the new time travel film

Tom Hanks in a scene from "Cloud Atlas." / AP Photo/Warner Bros.

Critics are mixed on "Cloud Atlas," the new sci-fi time-travel drama, starring Tom Hanks and Halle Berry, along with Jim Sturgess, Hugo Weaving and Susan Sarandon.

The film, which clocks in at nearly three hours and cost an estimated $100 million to make, is based on the David Mitchell 2004 novel of the same name.

17 Photos

"Cloud Atlas" premiere

With three directors and six story lines, "Cloud Atlas" is an ambitious endeavor. Was it worth it? Critics praise its visuals but some say it overall comes up empty.

"Cloud Atlas" has a 59 percent rating on the film aggregator site, Rotten Tomatoes.

Here's a sampling of reviews:

Peter Travers of Rolling Stone: "For all the spectacular settings and visionary designs, 'Cloud Atlas' left me feeling disconnected."

Joe Neumaier of The New York Daily News gave it 2 out 5 stars: "For all its strengths, the film is cursed by an ADD-style structure and a flashy but inevitably ineffective casting stunt."

Rafer Guzman of Newsday: "Sumptuous visuals and audacious acting, but the quasi-profound message of cosmic connectedness isn't worth all the trouble."

Roger Ebert of The Chicago Sun-Times: "Surely this is one of the most ambitious films ever made. The little world of film criticism has been alive with interpretations of it, which propose to explain something that lies outside explanation. Any explanation of a work of art must be found in it, not taken to it."

Ty Burr of The Boston Globe: "'Cloud Atlas' offers more answers than it does questions, and by the end of its nearly three-hour running time - which flies by surprisingly fast, all things considered - it feels like the most feverishly expensive late-night college bull session ever."

Mick LaSalle of The San Francisco Chronicle: "Enormous in length and scope, a film whose purpose doesn't even begin to come into focus until two hours in."

[maximilliangreyhound]

These critics are clueless except for one. I will admit I skipped over many, though

This film is a work of art aznd a masterpiece in film making. One critic got it right

Roger Ebert of The Chicago Sun-Times: "Surely this is one of the most ambitious films ever made. The little world of film criticism has been alive with interpretations of it, which propose to explain something that lies outside explanation. Any explanation of a work of art must be found in it, not taken to it."

[maximilliangreyhound]

These critics are clueless except for one. I will admit I skipped over many, though

This film is a work of art aznd a masterpiece in film making. One critic got it right

Roger Ebert of The Chicago Sun-Times: "Surely this is one of the most ambitious films ever made. The little world of film criticism has been alive with interpretations of it, which propose to explain something that lies outside explanation. Any explanation of a work of art must be found in it, not taken to it."

[bbbbbbb40]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_rDRYHA0_8
Sonmi 451 explains the meaning of Cloud Atlas!
Hysterical Parody!!!!

[sunbeamcandy]

Thanks for this post. I've seen a lot of mixed reviews of this movie, but I'm still planning to see it. One of my DISH co-workers let me borrow her copy of the book, so I'm going to read that first before I see the movie. I'm a slow reader, though, so I think I'll probably have to skip seeing it in the theater. I've already got it sitting at the top of my Blockbuster @ Home queue, so as soon as it's out on DVD it'll show up in my mailbox. I'm already looking forward to it.

[TimFaust]

Who wrote this article?

Time-travel?

This movie has nothing to do with time travel. Maybe the author should try watching a movie before writing about it.

[maximilliangreyhound]

I am sure that the time travel deal is not anything to do with the author at all nor the directors, or the actors. You my sir are an idiot - this film is a work of art and is about reincarnation NOT TIME TRAVEL