alcantaraj-16594 This movie was, for me, doomed by one thing and on thing only: the editing. I HATED HOW THIS MOVIE WAS EDITED. At first, you'd get introductions for each story. Those intros are merely glimpses of each stories. After the glimpses, we'd jump back and forth from the 1800s to the 1930s, 70s, present day, the "high-tech" future and the apocalyptic future. This choice of editing bothered me throughout the entire film. I was unable to identify and connect with the characters. Also, because of the editing, I didn't spot the connections between the stories. I only noticed them after reading the film's plot on Wikipedia.NOTE: After reading "Cloud Atlas'" Wikipedia article, I actually thought the movie had a strong plot (hence, I gave it half a star). If I reviewed this film and not read the Wikipedia article, I'd give the movie 0 stars if I could. P.S. I'm not really sure if the 3 "past sequences" take place in the 1800s, 1930s or 1970s. I can't remember. ALSO, I'm new here. I don't know if I could actually give 0 stars.

Evan Wessman (CinematicInceptions) This is a movie that I hope gets re-made someday. It's a really cool premise, and it wasn't exactly executed badly here, but I definitely felt like there was something lacking in it. I turned Mr. Nobody off in the first 20 minutes because I got the sense that it, like Cloud Atlas was going to get a little too caught up in the novelty of its premise and not actually do something interesting with it. This movie is trying to make a pretty interesting, deep, existential point about life. The premise I think is a bit more appealing as a movie premise to Western cultures because we, for the most part, do not believe in reincarnation. It seemed like the whole point of the movie was that our actions can have an impact on people that live long after us, which I definitely believe in and I don't think a lot of people could argue against it that strongly. However, I didn't see that any of the storylines actually connected in a meaningful way. It just seemed like all the characters got re-incarnated as someone else in each situation and you had to just play a "match the face" game with each story line. Also, they all seemed to be reincarnated as the same type of character each time. Now, I don't know much about what some Eastern religions believe about reincarnation, but the way I understand it, your starting point in one life is based on what you did in your previous life and you're supposed to try to do better each time around. I'd like to think that we change enough over one lifetime that we'd be unrecognizable from one life to the next; in other words, I'm saying the casting choices of this movie are not true to life even if they are cinematic and interesting.I think there was also not really enough attention given to each storyline and they were a little too complicated to keep track of all of them. Say you have 30 minutes for each different story, you can't expect the audience to know where each one is at. That works for TV shows sometimes, but even then it's can get confusing. I didn't really care enough about each story to be invested in any of them, which I think indicates that they bit off a little more than they could chew. Also, the two futuristic stories felt kind of ridiculous, especially the language of the people in the future Hawaii. That was nothing short of annoying. It also seemed that those two were the only ones that were connected in any kind of meaningful way, which is another weak point for the story. So I'm just going to suggest two ideas for how this could be re-made or at least tweaked in concept. One is a version where it follows one person over several different lifetimes, even though something tells me that's been done before. The other is a version that connects a few people from different times that are more directly connected, sort of like Interstellar or X-Men Days of Future Past. I think it would be possible and really cool to show two connected stories in parallel where the actions of the past person were directly influencing the events of the future person's life. The only person I would trust to turn this exact concept into a story that would fulfill its potential is Christopher Nolan because he has mastered using non-linear storytelling and has proven that he can blend concepts of time and human emotion/connection really well.I would recommend this lightly. It's not bad, but its not as good as its premise sounds. I wouldn't try to keep track of everything because it won't really make it a better experience for you or anything like that. Basically, it's a cool enough premise that is well-paced enough to keep your attention and make you think a little, but it's not nearly as good as it could be. Overall Rating: 7.4/10.

darthfusion While the movie is certainly worth a watch, don't be surprised if you're wondering what just happened by the time the credits roll. It's a very interesting concept, but I felt like it needed 1 more scene to wrap everything up.

enderchips There's times in your life, when you start losing hope, and feeling quite lost, but then Cloud Atlas comes at the right moment, just to remind you what life is all about.While confusing at first, drifting from one story to another, it might seem like a total mess, thus the low ratings from many people, but as you dig deeper and deeper into the movie, you quickly realize that there's not one, but six different timelines, that is six different movies to watch in just three hours, without a single second being rushed. Did I mention there's six characters played by the one and only, Tom Hanks? So, should you watch it?If only there was a time machine that would allow me to travel three hours back, and relive the whole experience again and again.Short answer: yes! Long answer: why are you still reading? Go watch it already!(Also I apologize for any typo's, I'm 17 and English is not my native language).