Guy Berger Posted March 21, 2004 Report Posted March 21, 2004 Last night I saw this movie, written by Charlie Kaufman (same guy who wrote "Being John Malkovich" and "Adaptation") and starring Jim Carrey, Kate Winslet, and Kirsten Dunst. It was not quite as wild as BJM but more human, if that makes sense. Guy Quote
BruceH Posted March 21, 2004 Report Posted March 21, 2004 I saw it Friday and also really liked it. Your description is very accurate Guy, I had a similar reaction. This is the first Kaufman movie I've seen (missed Human Nature) that's consistant all the way through. Much as I enjoyed Malkovich and Adaptation, they both seemed to sort of run out of steam toward the end. This one (Eternal Sunshine) actually had a satisfying, even elegant, ending. It could be seen as a romance film, but modern dark romance, with all the warts, disappointments, headaches, and messiness of real-life romance (and with a generous dose of Philip K. Dick-on-acid thrown in). I found it ultimately rather sobering and touching. Good movie, should be seen by one and all----don't let Jim Carey scare you away. Quote
jazzbo Posted March 21, 2004 Report Posted March 21, 2004 Very good movie. I would say this is a Phil Dickian sort of story (the elements of memory manipulation, and I love the sort of oblique reference to Time Out of Joints paper slips. . .that may simply be my imagination) and a very realistic depiction of what makes relationships work or not work as far as I'm concerned. And genuinely funny, and decidedly well acted by all cast members. Very impressive; the best film from this write yet in my opinion. Quote
medjuck Posted March 22, 2004 Report Posted March 22, 2004 I saw it last night too. Afterwards I was arguing that I liked it but didn't love it. (Too long, didn't need as many out of focus shots etc) but I was discussing it today with my wife and I have to admit it sticks to your ribs. Certainly worth seeing. Quote
Alexander Posted March 23, 2004 Report Posted March 23, 2004 As much as I dislike Jim Carrey, I'm planning on seeing this. I'm a big Charlie Kaufman fan. I've loved everything he's written so far. Quote
Joe G Posted March 23, 2004 Report Posted March 23, 2004 As much as I dislike Jim Carrey, I'm planning on seeing this. What did you think of The Truman Show, Alex? I thought that was a good performance from Carrey. Quote
BruceH Posted March 23, 2004 Report Posted March 23, 2004 I agree. The Truman Show was alright. Have you seen it, Alex? Quote
ghost of miles Posted March 23, 2004 Report Posted March 23, 2004 Very good movie. I would say this is a Phil Dickian sort of story (the elements of memory manipulation, and I love the sort of oblique reference to Time Out of Joints paper slips. . .that may simply be my imagination) and a very realistic depiction of what makes relationships work or not work as far as I'm concerned. And genuinely funny, and decidedly well acted by all cast members. Very impressive; the best film from this write yet in my opinion. That's interesting, Lon. Somebody posted about this movie to the Proust list, and described it as being somewhat "Proustian"! I grow intrigued... will have to check this one out. Quote
Alexander Posted March 23, 2004 Report Posted March 23, 2004 As much as I dislike Jim Carrey, I'm planning on seeing this. What did you think of The Truman Show, Alex? I thought that was a good performance from Carrey. I actually avoid Jim Carrey movies (I've only seen "Earth Girls Are Easy," "The Mask," and "Man on the Moon"), so I haven't seen "The Truman Show." Quote
Joe G Posted March 23, 2004 Report Posted March 23, 2004 I would recommend that you do see it. I thought he played that role perfectly. Quote
Aggie87 Posted March 23, 2004 Report Posted March 23, 2004 I had hopes for "Man on the Moon", but it didn't turn out all that great. But Carrey's performance was excellent - he really captured Kaufman's spirit, in my opinion. In fact, I think that was part of the reason the movie didn't do well - Kaufman wasn't an immediately likable person. Quote
clifford_thornton Posted March 23, 2004 Report Posted March 23, 2004 Somebody posted about this movie to the Proust list, and described it as being somewhat "Proustian"! Quote
Guy Berger Posted March 23, 2004 Author Report Posted March 23, 2004 By the way, Slate has a fascinating article about the science behind this movie. Guy Quote
Alexander Posted March 23, 2004 Report Posted March 23, 2004 (edited) I had hopes for "Man on the Moon", but it didn't turn out all that great. But Carrey's performance was excellent - he really captured Kaufman's spirit, in my opinion. In fact, I think that was part of the reason the movie didn't do well - Kaufman wasn't an immediately likable person. See I'm a big Andy Kaufman fan. The reason I saw "Man on the Moon" was because I like Andy. I thought that Carrey, hard as he tried, didn't come NEAR doing justice to Andy and his humor. The thing you have to understand is that Andy perfected a brand of performance that was based on everything but HIM as a person. Andy's performance is PURE performance. He immerses himself in each character (and everything Andy did was in character). Jim Carrey, however hard he tries, always remains identifiably Jim Carrey. His face is extremely expressive. Andy's face, by contrast, was often completely expressionless (except for his eyes, which always conveyed a sense of innocence and fun). By widening his eyes and wearing fake eyebrows, Carrey tried to divert as much attention to the top half of his face as he could while playing Andy, but to no avail. Carrey's distinguishing feature is his mouth, and it's very hard to not notice it. I do think that Carrey did the best job he could, but I don't think he was the ideal choice to portray Kaufman (and no, I don't know who else could have done it). Another aspect of Andy's performances is his body language. Very often, Andy barely moved while on stage (there are notable exceptions, of course (the wrestling comes to mind), but Andy was not a physical comic. He was a cerebral comic). Carrey's physical performances are always broad. I will consider seeing "The Truman Show," however. Edited March 23, 2004 by Alexander Quote
BruceH Posted March 24, 2004 Report Posted March 24, 2004 I didn't much like Man On the Moon either. But The Truman Show only had one or two moments that didn't ring, um, true. I think you'd like it. Quote
sal Posted April 5, 2004 Report Posted April 5, 2004 I finally got to see this film on Saturday, and like most of you who have seen it, I am very impressed. I thought it was fantastic.....completely original, funny, and sad. The numerous themes and the strong impact of the film stay with you long after the film is over. Charlie Kaufman is a refreshing presence in American cinema for sure. And the ensemble performances were all quite good, especially Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet. I would highly recommend this film to anyone who appreciates originality. And if you have a special someone to watch it with, even better. Quote
J Larsen Posted April 5, 2004 Report Posted April 5, 2004 (edited) Anyone else NOT surprised that the only publication to give this movie a lukewarm review was the New Yorker? (I love the New Yorker, and after what Kaufman did to one of their staff in Adaptation I understand their not wanting to embrace the movie, but I still thought it was funny.) I liked Eternal Sunshine better than BJM, which was a good movie but didn't feel fully developed to me. I'd say this film is destined to be a classic. PS: Did anyone else think that Carrey looked like Nate Fisher from Six Feet Under in this film? Edited April 5, 2004 by J Larsen Quote
Brandon Burke Posted April 8, 2004 Report Posted April 8, 2004 Finally saw this film tonight for the first time and liked it very much indeed. Enough so that, frankly, I'd prefer not to pick it apart at the moment. Maybe later...... Quote
Dr. Rat Posted April 8, 2004 Report Posted April 8, 2004 What am I missing with BJM and Adaption? I wasn't really very impressed with either film. What am I supposed to be seeing? Antbody want to have a go at explpaining what's good about them? --eric Quote
BruceH Posted April 8, 2004 Report Posted April 8, 2004 Well, they're not the same old run-of-the-mill predictable Hollywood crap. That counts for a lot. Quote
jazzbo Posted April 8, 2004 Report Posted April 8, 2004 I've only seen Being John Malcovitch of the two, but thought it was genuinely funny and yes, not run of the mill; my wife and I really enjoyed it and I've been wanting to rent it lately to see it again. Quote
BruceH Posted April 8, 2004 Report Posted April 8, 2004 You might enjoy renting Adaptation---the first half is great! Quote
Brandon Burke Posted April 8, 2004 Report Posted April 8, 2004 (edited) You might enjoy renting Adaptation---the first half is great! Second half is just as great. People seem to lose sight of the fact that the plot takes a turn for the ridiculous the moment that Charlie decides to cave in and employ his brother's corny Hollywood shlock ideas. This is why so much stupid bullshit like the alligator sequence happens. It was by design. As Charlie begins to use Donald's ideas to rework the narrative for his screenplay so too goes Adaptation itself in what must be one of the most definitively "meta" metafilms of all time. I agree that Eternal Sunshine and Malcovitch are better but watch it Adaptation again. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Edited April 8, 2004 by Brandon Burke Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.