Cloud Atlas question

I liked it much better than the book. That middle part of the book with the gibberish talk did me in. Which was weird because I loved the gibberish talk of A Clockwork Orange. But Anthony Burgess is a much better writer than Mitchell. Cloud Atlas will be my one and only Mitchell read. That said, I thought the movie was fabulous, especially Jim Broadbent.

I found the movie confusing and inadequate in comparison with the book. I saw it with my daughter, who had not read the book and she was completely lost.

I watched the movie first and loved it, so I read the book.
The movie is complex (not as complex as the book) so you need to really concentrate to understand it. It also has some changes in the storyline that make it more commercial, like Somni´s ending.
Also, the idea of using the same actors in the different storylines to highlight what Mitchell insinuates in the book is very original and keeps the audience interested.
Movies always simplify the books, trying to adapt it to a different, wider audience. I think is a good movie, and as good an adaptation to the book as it could be.

I enjoyed both the book and the film. From what I understood the author of the book also enjoyed what the Wachowskis did. This is a rare instance where I say the book and film compliment one another by offering a kind of completion to the vision of the author. Ultimately this vision brings to life a particular understanding of Nietzsche's Will to Power and Eternal Return. This partly is why you see the characters roles shift over time - it is also the reason for the comet birth-mark (so visually we can make the connection). This offers, along with other things, a direct visual component to help highlight the philosophical and religious tones - so, yes, I find both film and book to be complimentary.