Nights of the comet

Cloud Atlas

Crit

Golly, is there a way to review this without using the word "narrative"? I suppose I could just say "Fuck, yeah!" over and over again; that's what I said (but just once--well, twice, 'cause he didn't hear me the first time) to my buddy at the theater with whom I exchange assessments. The novel on which this is based is probably my favorite of the millennium so far, and that's always a scary proposition, but I'd read enough of David Mitchell's own comments to quell any concern that directors Tom Tykwer and Lana and Andy Wachowski had failed to "get" the book. Moreover, I could see from the trailer that the film was spectacular, though there seemed to be room for it to be spectacularly bad.

Not to worry: imperfect, yes, much of the narrative (see: just not doable) complexity is sacrificed to the recognition that it's not a 30-hour HBO series. (Yes, it's still almost 3 hours; no, it doesn't seem remotely that long.) And a few lines of dialogue creak a bit--though frankly, I had guzzled so much of the Kool-Aid by then that even some of the hoariest lines got me teary. And yes, it's a gimmick to have the same actors appear in different roles across the centuries-long sweep of the six connected-but-distinct . . . uh . . . stories (and also across racial and gender lines), but it also makes perfect sense in thematic terms, and it provides some of the most exhilarating (and sometimes hilarious) moments of recognition (some of them not fully appreciated until the end credits).

One thing did worry me: I was afraid that viewers who haven't read the novel might be so lost in the scrambled . . . uh . . . you know . . . that they'd never go all in on the ride, but my theater buddy told me that the vast majority of thumbs up he's been seeing have been from those who haven't read it.

Impossible to compare with Ruby Sparks and Moonrise Kingdom, but vying with those two for top spot on my 2012 list so far.