Cameron-Diaz Movie Reviews

This movie is one of the best I have seen in a long time. Julia Roberts does an amazing job with portraying her character and she handles all the emptions that go along with her character beautifully. You must see this movie.

This movie was excellent. It had comedy, love, and sad moments. And it when totally against what I expected to happen!! I am ashamed to say that I wanted the main guy to dump Cameron!!

All in all, a great film. I don't own it, but I just might buy it.

Ewan McGregor is fab, whatever he does. (Except maybe Phantom Menace.) He's a wonderful actor. Just had to get that out of the way. ^_^

I've heard this movie compared to Dogma, in the way that it's appeal varies dramaticlly, depending on what kind of person you are. It can either be very funny and witty, or too weird for certain tastes. The best way to tell if you like it, would be to watch it, and find out ^_^

This movie has some of my favorite quotes ever, (besides Romy and Michelle's Highschool Reunion...^_~) "If you don't pay up, I'm going to send your daughter home in... in boxes! Little boxes!" And once again, our beloved Ewan tries his hand at singing... a little 50's diner number with Cameron Diaz, in which they dance on the bar top.

This movie is not at all realistic. In fact, that's most of it's appeal. At the end of the movie, there is a clay-animation in which Ewan and Cameron Diaz fly away to Scotland in a little car. Realistic? I think not. But seeing the clay version of Ewan McGregor, (as well as all of the central charachters,) generates enough of a laugh to let you walk away with that fuzzy warm feeling. And as a dark comedy, it's a great way to end the movie.

Don't listen to cynics - definatley give this movie a chance!! ^_^

This is one of my favorite movies, but it is definitely not for everyone. You must be extremely forgiving of the strange plot involving evil and violent angels. I think that the idea is that the angels don't understand human beings or love, and therefore rely on "jeopardy" to force Celine and Robert to fall in love, but I could well be wrong.

However, the chemistry between Ewan and Cameron makes the movie. From a great scene in which the inept kidnapper tries to make his ransom demand from a telephone booth while his victim offers him encouragement and tips on how to sound more menacing, to an unforgettable karaoke number, A Life Less Ordinary delivers a quirky romance for those who are tired of trite recycled plots. To quote Robert, "We agreed--no cliches."

As a side note to Ewan McGregor fans, you MUST see this movie. It is definitely one of Ewan's best performances, and a nice break from his darker films.

This film is for those of us who are hopeless romantics in hiding. Eccentric, imaginative, deadpan, quick-pulsed, and beautifully hopeful. This film is not ment to be torn apart and analyzed as though it were an extremely deep David Lynch film. It is what it is: lighthearted, and less ordinary. The characters are odd enough to be slightly unpredictable (Holly Hunter especially). There are enough turns in the story to keep a kenetic and lively pace. As the title suggests, the events in the film are not typical in day to day living, in fact the events in this film are not typical in any life. It's a splendid fantasy in every aspect. I've watched this film countless times and I'm as fond of it now as I was when I saw it for the first time a handfull of years ago. Do yourself a favor and indulge in a life less ordinary.

Here's something for Brandon DiSabatino (reviewer): I have read Joyce, Nietzsche, Sartre AND Burroughs.
I have never considered "Ulysses" to be a reason not to make exciting art just for the heck of it. Jim's whole story is just a ramble. A beautiful sprawling wonder of a ramble, but a ramble nonetheless. Do you accuse Joyce's work of being empty?
I have never considered "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" to be a bible for the supression of fast paced fiction (remembering here that Thompson has repeatedly hinted that this 'autobiographical' piece is far more a novel than anything else).
I did not find anything that denounced good cinema in "Existentialism"; exactly the opposite, to be frank.
And as for Burroughs (consider "The Naked Lunch"): Do you REALLY think that Old Bull Lee would be at odds with Hunter S.?...REALLY??? It was part of this old heroine addict's dream for the world to see people like Thompson running around a tarnished America without a leash.
I realise that in this instance, what I am about to say could be seen as something of a "pot-calling-the-kettle-black" statement, but did you honestly think that your review would be helpful to anyone that wasn't a so-called 'intellectual'?
I loved this film. I loved it BECAUSE it wasn't about anything; BECAUSE it was different, and although all the classic reading of past years is of course still applicable to modern living, it just isn't, in fact couldn't be, anything like "Fear and Loathing."
Bloom's exploits in "Ulysses" are indeed interesting and frequently bizarre, but to the general public today, it simply won't mean as much as it did when it was written. The vocabulary used by Dublin's bohemian residants of bygone days was indeed got down pat by Mr. Joyce, but when it comes to recounting hallucinatory experiances in a desert, surrounded by some of the world's most venal and destructive ideals, Leopold Bloom and his kidney breakfasts just do not--cannot--pass muster!
On more than one occasion, I have actually mentioned Ulysses as a valid latter day comparison to Fear and Loathing and other films of it's ilk, but I've never tried to set the two up as competitors. Kerouac's "On the Road" also strikes a similar chord.
This is a film that you need to relax into from the writer's point of view (this being, after all,the whole point of reading((and watching movies)). The writing flows, if only you let it. People who seek to debunk Thompson in the way that DiSabatino does in his review are invariably anal people without any sense of creative fun; the kind of creative fun that all the best writers of bygone eras expounded until their voices were horse with the shouting.
You need to chill. I mean, "Erasehead" for crying out loud! Get a grip.
If you're not stunted in all the ways that Thompson hates, then you have to see this film. Totally brilliant, and at times, totally misunderstood.
(Mr. DiSabatino has since replied in another review on this page and made clearer his original review's intent. We understand eachother better than I first thought. Well met, sir.)

This DVD finally gives one of Terry Gilliam's lesser-loved (but brilliant!) films the red carpet treatment. The commentary from Gilliam is crazed and passionate; Depp and Del Toro really show off their wit, charm, and intelligence along with producer Laila Nabulsi's back-stage insight, and the last commentary is a rather odd and screwball one from Thompson himself. I won't tell you a thing about the last commentary. You've got to buy this and check it out on your own. (Here's a hint: 'Screeee-ahhhh! Raaaaaaaagh!' *other assorted sounds*)

The second disc is crammed with some great goodies as well - Depp reads letters written to/from Thompson. There's a great BBC documentary showing HST and Ralph Steadman undertaking a trip from Las Vegas to Los Angeles. Another gem is a snippet from an audio-book recording of Fear & Loathing with Jim Jarmusch as Raoul Duke! All definitely worth it.

Fear and Loathing isn't just a drug movie (as all the extras on the DVD will reiterate over and over again) - it's a truthful, imaginative, twisted, and subversive take on the death of the most idealistic decade and generation. We get to see it all through the eyes of two renegade professionals, one a journalist and the other a lawyer, both fighting the good fight against scum and villainy.

We can't stop here! THIS IS BAT COUNTRY.

I believe the quote at the begining of the movie and a quote HST used quite a bit throughout his career pretty much sums up the crux of the movie and it goes something like..."He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man." I would also recommend that if you are going to watch the movie, that you also read the book as well. To me the movie is totally insane, funny and whether you like it or not will make you deal with certain issues that you may find disturbing to your sensibilities, don't panic, this is normal. If you are a true red blooded american who likes to follow the rules( at least when people are looking which incidentaly is the american way) then there is a possibility that you may find this movie offensive. But this should not stop you from watching the movie and finding a way to deal with it as did Mr. Duke and Dr Gonzo. Now it is also imperative for me to bring out at this time that what is also overlooked by the "critics" and casual observers as well is the tremendous work done by both Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro which in itself is worth watching this movie. Next, do not try to make sense of this movie, that would be a mistake, simply experience it as did the good Doctor and his Attourney and then decide for yourself how it effects you or affects you for that matter, but whatever you do, do not dismiss it, the decision must be made. Really there is no reason for judgement or maybe there is, but that is up to the viewer to deal with and deal with it you should. The bottom line is this, You should take two things away from this movie: 1. It is important, no matter what the circumstances are to always get the "story". And 2. If you buy the ticket then you must take the ride. If the viewer can keep these things in mind before, during and after this movie then I think you will be doing just fine and dare I say have a new found appreciation of what the good Dr. and the movie are trying to achieve.

Here's something for Brandon DiSabatino (reviewer): I have read Joyce, Nietzsche, Sartre AND Burroughs.
I have never considered "Ulysses" to be a reason not to make exciting art just for the heck of it. Jim's whole story is just a ramble. A beautiful sprawling wonder of a ramble, but a ramble nonetheless. Do you accuse Joyce's work of being empty?
I have never considered "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" to be a bible for the supression of fast paced fiction (remembering here that Thompson has repeatedly hinted that this 'autobiographical' piece is far more a novel than anything else).
I did not find anything that denounced good cinema in "Existentialism"; exactly the opposite, to be frank.
And as for Burroughs (consider "The Naked Lunch"): Do you REALLY think that Old Bull Lee would be at odds with Hunter S.?...REALLY??? It was part of this old heroine addict's dream for the world to see people like Thompson running around a tarnished America without a leash.
I realise that in this instance, what I am about to say could be seen as something of a "pot-calling-the-kettle-black" statement, but did you honestly think that your review would be helpful to anyone that wasn't a so-called 'intellectual'?
I loved this film. I loved it BECAUSE it wasn't about anything; BECAUSE it was different, and although all the classic reading of past years is of course still applicable to modern living, it just isn't, in fact couldn't be, anything like "Fear and Loathing."
Bloom's exploits in "Ulysses" are indeed interesting and frequently bizarre, but to the general public today, it simply won't mean as much as it did when it was written. The vocabulary used by Dublin's bohemian residants of bygone days was indeed got down pat by Mr. Joyce, but when it comes to recounting hallucinatory experiances in a desert, surrounded by some of the world's most venal and destructive ideals, Leopold Bloom and his kidney breakfasts just do not--cannot--pass muster!
On more than one occasion, I have actually mentioned Ulysses as a valid latter day comparison to Fear and Loathing and other films of it's ilk, but I've never tried to set the two up as competitors. Kerouac's "On the Road" also strikes a similar chord.
This is a film that you need to relax into from the writer's point of view (this being, after all,the whole point of reading((and watching movies)). The writing flows, if only you let it. People who seek to debunk Thompson in the way that DiSabatino does in his review are invariably anal people without any sense of creative fun; the kind of creative fun that all the best writers of bygone eras expounded until their voices were horse with the shouting.
You need to chill. I mean, "Erasehead" for crying out loud! Get a grip.
If you're not stunted in all the ways that Thompson hates, then you have to see this film. Totally brilliant, and at times, totally misunderstood.
(Mr. DiSabatino has since replied in another review on this page and made clearer his original review's intent. We understand eachother better than I first thought. Well met, sir.)

This DVD finally gives one of Terry Gilliam's lesser-loved (but brilliant!) films the red carpet treatment. The commentary from Gilliam is crazed and passionate; Depp and Del Toro really show off their wit, charm, and intelligence along with producer Laila Nabulsi's back-stage insight, and the last commentary is a rather odd and screwball one from Thompson himself. I won't tell you a thing about the last commentary. You've got to buy this and check it out on your own. (Here's a hint: 'Screeee-ahhhh! Raaaaaaaagh!' *other assorted sounds*)

The second disc is crammed with some great goodies as well - Depp reads letters written to/from Thompson. There's a great BBC documentary showing HST and Ralph Steadman undertaking a trip from Las Vegas to Los Angeles. Another gem is a snippet from an audio-book recording of Fear & Loathing with Jim Jarmusch as Raoul Duke! All definitely worth it.

Fear and Loathing isn't just a drug movie (as all the extras on the DVD will reiterate over and over again) - it's a truthful, imaginative, twisted, and subversive take on the death of the most idealistic decade and generation. We get to see it all through the eyes of two renegade professionals, one a journalist and the other a lawyer, both fighting the good fight against scum and villainy.

We can't stop here! THIS IS BAT COUNTRY.

I believe the quote at the begining of the movie and a quote HST used quite a bit throughout his career pretty much sums up the crux of the movie and it goes something like..."He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man." I would also recommend that if you are going to watch the movie, that you also read the book as well. To me the movie is totally insane, funny and whether you like it or not will make you deal with certain issues that you may find disturbing to your sensibilities, don't panic, this is normal. If you are a true red blooded american who likes to follow the rules( at least when people are looking which incidentaly is the american way) then there is a possibility that you may find this movie offensive. But this should not stop you from watching the movie and finding a way to deal with it as did Mr. Duke and Dr Gonzo. Now it is also imperative for me to bring out at this time that what is also overlooked by the "critics" and casual observers as well is the tremendous work done by both Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro which in itself is worth watching this movie. Next, do not try to make sense of this movie, that would be a mistake, simply experience it as did the good Doctor and his Attourney and then decide for yourself how it effects you or affects you for that matter, but whatever you do, do not dismiss it, the decision must be made. Really there is no reason for judgement or maybe there is, but that is up to the viewer to deal with and deal with it you should. The bottom line is this, You should take two things away from this movie: 1. It is important, no matter what the circumstances are to always get the "story". And 2. If you buy the ticket then you must take the ride. If the viewer can keep these things in mind before, during and after this movie then I think you will be doing just fine and dare I say have a new found appreciation of what the good Dr. and the movie are trying to achieve.

Here's something for Brandon DiSabatino (reviewer): I have read Joyce, Nietzsche, Sartre AND Burroughs.
I have never considered "Ulysses" to be a reason not to make exciting art just for the heck of it. Jim's whole story is just a ramble. A beautiful sprawling wonder of a ramble, but a ramble nonetheless. Do you accuse Joyce's work of being empty?
I have never considered "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" to be a bible for the supression of fast paced fiction (remembering here that Thompson has repeatedly hinted that this 'autobiographical' piece is far more a novel than anything else).
I did not find anything that denounced good cinema in "Existentialism"; exactly the opposite, to be frank.
And as for Burroughs (consider "The Naked Lunch"): Do you REALLY think that Old Bull Lee would be at odds with Hunter S.?...REALLY??? It was part of this old heroine addict's dream for the world to see people like Thompson running around a tarnished America without a leash.
I realise that in this instance, what I am about to say could be seen as something of a "pot-calling-the-kettle-black" statement, but did you honestly think that your review would be helpful to anyone that wasn't a so-called 'intellectual'?
I loved this film. I loved it BECAUSE it wasn't about anything; BECAUSE it was different, and although all the classic reading of past years is of course still applicable to modern living, it just isn't, in fact couldn't be, anything like "Fear and Loathing."
Bloom's exploits in "Ulysses" are indeed interesting and frequently bizarre, but to the general public today, it simply won't mean as much as it did when it was written. The vocabulary used by Dublin's bohemian residants of bygone days was indeed got down pat by Mr. Joyce, but when it comes to recounting hallucinatory experiances in a desert, surrounded by some of the world's most venal and destructive ideals, Leopold Bloom and his kidney breakfasts just do not--cannot--pass muster!
On more than one occasion, I have actually mentioned Ulysses as a valid latter day comparison to Fear and Loathing and other films of it's ilk, but I've never tried to set the two up as competitors. Kerouac's "On the Road" also strikes a similar chord.
This is a film that you need to relax into from the writer's point of view (this being, after all,the whole point of reading((and watching movies)). The writing flows, if only you let it. People who seek to debunk Thompson in the way that DiSabatino does in his review are invariably anal people without any sense of creative fun; the kind of creative fun that all the best writers of bygone eras expounded until their voices were horse with the shouting.
You need to chill. I mean, "Erasehead" for crying out loud! Get a grip.
If you're not stunted in all the ways that Thompson hates, then you have to see this film. Totally brilliant, and at times, totally misunderstood.
(Mr. DiSabatino has since replied in another review on this page and made clearer his original review's intent. We understand eachother better than I first thought. Well met, sir.)

This DVD finally gives one of Terry Gilliam's lesser-loved (but brilliant!) films the red carpet treatment. The commentary from Gilliam is crazed and passionate; Depp and Del Toro really show off their wit, charm, and intelligence along with producer Laila Nabulsi's back-stage insight, and the last commentary is a rather odd and screwball one from Thompson himself. I won't tell you a thing about the last commentary. You've got to buy this and check it out on your own. (Here's a hint: 'Screeee-ahhhh! Raaaaaaaagh!' *other assorted sounds*)

The second disc is crammed with some great goodies as well - Depp reads letters written to/from Thompson. There's a great BBC documentary showing HST and Ralph Steadman undertaking a trip from Las Vegas to Los Angeles. Another gem is a snippet from an audio-book recording of Fear & Loathing with Jim Jarmusch as Raoul Duke! All definitely worth it.

Fear and Loathing isn't just a drug movie (as all the extras on the DVD will reiterate over and over again) - it's a truthful, imaginative, twisted, and subversive take on the death of the most idealistic decade and generation. We get to see it all through the eyes of two renegade professionals, one a journalist and the other a lawyer, both fighting the good fight against scum and villainy.

We can't stop here! THIS IS BAT COUNTRY.

I believe the quote at the begining of the movie and a quote HST used quite a bit throughout his career pretty much sums up the crux of the movie and it goes something like..."He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man." I would also recommend that if you are going to watch the movie, that you also read the book as well. To me the movie is totally insane, funny and whether you like it or not will make you deal with certain issues that you may find disturbing to your sensibilities, don't panic, this is normal. If you are a true red blooded american who likes to follow the rules( at least when people are looking which incidentaly is the american way) then there is a possibility that you may find this movie offensive. But this should not stop you from watching the movie and finding a way to deal with it as did Mr. Duke and Dr Gonzo. Now it is also imperative for me to bring out at this time that what is also overlooked by the "critics" and casual observers as well is the tremendous work done by both Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro which in itself is worth watching this movie. Next, do not try to make sense of this movie, that would be a mistake, simply experience it as did the good Doctor and his Attourney and then decide for yourself how it effects you or affects you for that matter, but whatever you do, do not dismiss it, the decision must be made. Really there is no reason for judgement or maybe there is, but that is up to the viewer to deal with and deal with it you should. The bottom line is this, You should take two things away from this movie: 1. It is important, no matter what the circumstances are to always get the "story". And 2. If you buy the ticket then you must take the ride. If the viewer can keep these things in mind before, during and after this movie then I think you will be doing just fine and dare I say have a new found appreciation of what the good Dr. and the movie are trying to achieve.

Julia Roberts is an acerbic restaurant critic with just a few days to sabotage a boyfriend's wedding so she can grab the guy for herself. Flying to Chicago for the wedding, and keeping her agenda secret from all but her real best friend, Rupert Everett, she meets Kim (Cameron Diaz), her apparent rival. Impeccably sweet, pretty and noble, Kim latches onto Roberts' character clueless as to every plot thrown her way. Without an ounce of guile, and completely by accident, Kim manages to unwittingly outwit each scheme Roberts throws her way, forcing the critic to resort to ever crueler (and actually uninventive) plans. Dermot Mulroney plays the guy they fight over, though he seems too cold a guy to have ever fallen for Diaz's seemingly bottomless sunniness. Rupert Everett practically steals the movie as the only person Roberts is honest to...about anything. The humor doesn't depend so much on jokes as it does on Roberts' charachter confronting, if not at war with, the sweetness being bombarded on her from everybody in the wedding party. Still worth an evening of fun.

Actually, I give this movie 4 1/2 stars. Along with "The Titanic," "Everafter," and "Sleeping With the Enemy," this is one of my favorite girly movies. Roberts is a very convincing lead character. Although we may argue that her actions are reprehensible, we will probably realize that often our emotions can override our sense of morality. It is very well done how she is first presented as an admirable self sufficient woman. However, her frustrations soon lead to the gradual degeneration of her character. (Dishonesty, getting drunk, etc). Without ruining the ending, her return to humanity is beautifully done and touching. It allows us to forgive her reprehensible actions, and feel sorry for her. Kim is fine as a picture of untainted youth and innocence who must eventually face a harsh reality. Michael is fine as a man who convincingly shows us the joys and anxieties of entering into the sacrament of marriage. George is EXCELLENT revenge on homophobia. He is Julia's most loyal friend; he offers his support through her pain and sorrow and anxieties; he tries to be always compassionate and honest; and he is perhaps the only real constant voice of reason in the whole movie. I will conclude by saying that sorrow, beauty, and comedy march along side by side in this wonderfully constructed movie. We are offered a familiar story with some original twists. If you like this movie, be sure to get Julia Roberts' "Sleeping With the Enemy," Rupert Everett's "Midsummer Night's Dream," and Rupert Everett's "Shakespeare In Love."

I wish Julia would do more movies like this--easy, funny, laugh out loud.

Julia Roberts is an acerbic restaurant critic with just a few days to sabotage a boyfriend's wedding so she can grab the guy for herself. Flying to Chicago for the wedding, and keeping her agenda secret from all but her real best friend, Rupert Everett, she meets Kim (Cameron Diaz), her apparent rival. Impeccably sweet, pretty and noble, Kim latches onto Roberts' character clueless as to every plot thrown her way. Without an ounce of guile, and completely by accident, Kim manages to unwittingly outwit each scheme Roberts throws her way, forcing the critic to resort to ever crueler (and actually uninventive) plans. Dermot Mulroney plays the guy they fight over, though he seems too cold a guy to have ever fallen for Diaz's seemingly bottomless sunniness. Rupert Everett practically steals the movie as the only person Roberts is honest to...about anything. The humor doesn't depend so much on jokes as it does on Roberts' charachter confronting, if not at war with, the sweetness being bombarded on her from everybody in the wedding party. Still worth an evening of fun.

Actually, I give this movie 4 1/2 stars. Along with "The Titanic," "Everafter," and "Sleeping With the Enemy," this is one of my favorite girly movies. Roberts is a very convincing lead character. Although we may argue that her actions are reprehensible, we will probably realize that often our emotions can override our sense of morality. It is very well done how she is first presented as an admirable self sufficient woman. However, her frustrations soon lead to the gradual degeneration of her character. (Dishonesty, getting drunk, etc). Without ruining the ending, her return to humanity is beautifully done and touching. It allows us to forgive her reprehensible actions, and feel sorry for her. Kim is fine as a picture of untainted youth and innocence who must eventually face a harsh reality. Michael is fine as a man who convincingly shows us the joys and anxieties of entering into the sacrament of marriage. George is EXCELLENT revenge on homophobia. He is Julia's most loyal friend; he offers his support through her pain and sorrow and anxieties; he tries to be always compassionate and honest; and he is perhaps the only real constant voice of reason in the whole movie. I will conclude by saying that sorrow, beauty, and comedy march along side by side in this wonderfully constructed movie. We are offered a familiar story with some original twists. If you like this movie, be sure to get Julia Roberts' "Sleeping With the Enemy," Rupert Everett's "Midsummer Night's Dream," and Rupert Everett's "Shakespeare In Love."

I wish Julia would do more movies like this--easy, funny, laugh out loud.

Let's get the praise over with first.

This unconventional movie starts with a very intriguing notion, brilliantly surreal and off-centre, basically something very different from mainstream cinema but still playful and fun. It rakes up some thoughtful issues --

(1) The real sexual desires buried deep in human minds;
(2) The need of ordinary folk to want to be someone else, someone more *seemingly* glamorous than themselves;
(3) The expressiveness of the puppeting medium; some of the puppeteer sequences are simply breathtaking;
(4) The swiftness with which people would pounce on the weakness of other humans to start making money;
(5) In parts, the jerk-a-tear statement about animal bondage;
(6) And tying in all these loose sub-ends, the ultimate notion of freedom and love of self, etc etc.

All that is well and dandy, and this is easily one of the most creative movies out of Hollywood in recent times.

However, having just watched it a second time I must say it's a bit of an empty shell once you get beyond the surprise factor. I didn't laugh, I smirked the odd time, and certainly my heart wasn't warmed - it's a very cold movie really, nothing wrong with that, but it's hardly one that will merit lasting affection.

It's a strange mixture really, because there is some sort of pretension to art at times, yet at others the characters and the emotions are paper-thin. Yet we're supposed somehow to be affected by these characters despite the fact that the film mocks and satirises them at every opportunity - the difference between this and the Coens is that they love even their most repellent characters and it rubs off on you!

In the end my reaction to this is the same as to the Naked Gun or one of those broad hit-and-miss comedies - it's the same schtick. Towards the fourth quarter of the movie, I was just hoping it could all be put to an end soon.

The director's interview on the DVD is funnier in two minutes than the rest of the film put together.

Through the entire movie I kept saying to myself, "What the?" An amazingly interesting plot, Being John Malkovich nearly shot itself in the foot with its odd ball advertising scheme, the trailers and t.v. spots were so confusing that noone I know wanted to see it. But I was strangely intrigued. So I waited until it was releaed on video and quickly grabbed it. I was immediately sucked into the movie within just a minute. The style of acting is so real from Cusack, I had never seen him so natural in a role. But then the movie takes off, twisting and turning itself into one of the most original scripts that I've ever seen outside of a film festival. I guess thats what happens when you give an original story financial backing, a movie that really takes off. This will change your take on what a movie/script is and can be. It moves itself very well towards its climax, and flows so easily that you don't even realize you were watching a movie until its over. Its definately worth viewing

This DVD includes a short little documentary about how John Malkovich has recently changed careers in favor of puppetry, in particular the art of marionettes. My partner and I started by watching this feature first, and suddenly we were looking at each other and thinking, "Wait a minute! This is some kind of JOKE, right?" Then we watched the featured film, "Being John Malkovich," and by the end of the film the whole concept had become clear.

WARNING: If you watch this film under the influence of psychotropic substances, you may find yourself twitching uncontrollably. This movie, particularly the first half, can mess with your mind in a major way. Some of the dialogue is simply TOO WEIRD, almost Firesign Theatre-like in its use of non-sequiturs. The concept of being able to slide down a physical portal to take up residence for 15 minutes behind the eyes of John Malkovich makes the viewer wonder if this movie is some kind of allegory ... but ultimately it boils down to a supernatural fantasy similar in some respects to "All of Me" (Steve Martin, Lily Tomlin).

You have to give John Malkovich credit for allowing the makers of this film to use his career as a real-life actor as a springboard for this very clever and imaginative exercise in metaphysical weirdness.

Let's get the praise over with first.

This unconventional movie starts with a very intriguing notion, brilliantly surreal and off-centre, basically something very different from mainstream cinema but still playful and fun. It rakes up some thoughtful issues --

(1) The real sexual desires buried deep in human minds;
(2) The need of ordinary folk to want to be someone else, someone more *seemingly* glamorous than themselves;
(3) The expressiveness of the puppeting medium; some of the puppeteer sequences are simply breathtaking;
(4) The swiftness with which people would pounce on the weakness of other humans to start making money;
(5) In parts, the jerk-a-tear statement about animal bondage;
(6) And tying in all these loose sub-ends, the ultimate notion of freedom and love of self, etc etc.

All that is well and dandy, and this is easily one of the most creative movies out of Hollywood in recent times.

However, having just watched it a second time I must say it's a bit of an empty shell once you get beyond the surprise factor. I didn't laugh, I smirked the odd time, and certainly my heart wasn't warmed - it's a very cold movie really, nothing wrong with that, but it's hardly one that will merit lasting affection.

It's a strange mixture really, because there is some sort of pretension to art at times, yet at others the characters and the emotions are paper-thin. Yet we're supposed somehow to be affected by these characters despite the fact that the film mocks and satirises them at every opportunity - the difference between this and the Coens is that they love even their most repellent characters and it rubs off on you!

In the end my reaction to this is the same as to the Naked Gun or one of those broad hit-and-miss comedies - it's the same schtick. Towards the fourth quarter of the movie, I was just hoping it could all be put to an end soon.

The director's interview on the DVD is funnier in two minutes than the rest of the film put together.

Through the entire movie I kept saying to myself, "What the?" An amazingly interesting plot, Being John Malkovich nearly shot itself in the foot with its odd ball advertising scheme, the trailers and t.v. spots were so confusing that noone I know wanted to see it. But I was strangely intrigued. So I waited until it was releaed on video and quickly grabbed it. I was immediately sucked into the movie within just a minute. The style of acting is so real from Cusack, I had never seen him so natural in a role. But then the movie takes off, twisting and turning itself into one of the most original scripts that I've ever seen outside of a film festival. I guess thats what happens when you give an original story financial backing, a movie that really takes off. This will change your take on what a movie/script is and can be. It moves itself very well towards its climax, and flows so easily that you don't even realize you were watching a movie until its over. Its definately worth viewing

This DVD includes a short little documentary about how John Malkovich has recently changed careers in favor of puppetry, in particular the art of marionettes. My partner and I started by watching this feature first, and suddenly we were looking at each other and thinking, "Wait a minute! This is some kind of JOKE, right?" Then we watched the featured film, "Being John Malkovich," and by the end of the film the whole concept had become clear.

WARNING: If you watch this film under the influence of psychotropic substances, you may find yourself twitching uncontrollably. This movie, particularly the first half, can mess with your mind in a major way. Some of the dialogue is simply TOO WEIRD, almost Firesign Theatre-like in its use of non-sequiturs. The concept of being able to slide down a physical portal to take up residence for 15 minutes behind the eyes of John Malkovich makes the viewer wonder if this movie is some kind of allegory ... but ultimately it boils down to a supernatural fantasy similar in some respects to "All of Me" (Steve Martin, Lily Tomlin).

You have to give John Malkovich credit for allowing the makers of this film to use his career as a real-life actor as a springboard for this very clever and imaginative exercise in metaphysical weirdness.

Being John Malka-who? This movie would have been better with Gallagher instead of John Malkavich. John Malkovitch as himself is just ok, not as good as Gallagher though. He doesn't even smash any melons unless you mean a sexual metaphor in which case he smashes thousands of them. Both Malcabich and Gallagher are pretty bald but Gallagher is funny and John Malqavich is boring and bland. Maybe as a sequel?

"Being John Malkovich" is one of the most daring, strangest, and original movies in years. We meet unemployed puppeteer Craig Schwartz (John Cusack), tepidly married to wife Lotte Schwartz (Cameron Diaz), who has filled their small apartment with psychologically damaged zoo animals. Craig is only engaged when practicing his artistic puppetry (the film opens with a puppet doing the "dance of despair").

Craig finds a want ad for a "fast-fingered" man and is hired as a filing clerk, on the 7 1/2th floor of an office building. The ceilings are less than 5 feet high, and everyone walks around stooped. His ancient boss wants to talk about his ancient sexual conquests, and the boss's secretary deliberately mistranslates everyone's speech. So, loser Craig now has oppressive home and work life, when he meets the devious Maxine (Catherine Keener). Craig falls for Maxine, Maxine couldn't care less about Craig, and lets him know in the nastiest way. Craig doesn't care.

One day he finds an opening behind a file cabinet and follows it into... John Malkovich's head. For 15 minutes Craig experiences Malkovich's ride in a taxicab. Then Craig is dumped by the side of the NJ Turnpike. He tells Maxine all about it, and she immediately sees the business possibilities. Craig goes along, wanting to please her. Lotte meets Maxine and also falls for her. Maxine decides she prefers Lotte, but only when Lotte goes through the portal and is "being John Malkovich." Craig, by now insanely jealous, locks Lotte in the chimp cage and becomes Malkovich himself, knowing Maxine has a "date" with "Lotte."

And things continue from there, plenty more plot I haven't told you about, such as what happens when Malkovich finds out about this business venture! Director Spike Jonze did a marvelous job with the lighting and sets; Craig's life on the bizarre 7 1/2th floor is just as cramped and closed-in as his apartment full of pets with childhood trauma. Only in Malkovich's world is there space and light.

A brilliant original.

Somewhere, somehow, sometime, someplace (possibly Providence, Rhode Island) Edgar Allan Poe and H.P. Lovecraft got together. Genes were spliced. The warped and twisted biological result was Spike Jonze, one of modern cinema's most insidious, surreptious, diabolically gifted and wickedly talented filmmakers and the most Terrible of the Enfants Terribles stalking the American academy of Arts and Letters today.

Having helmed the infamous Beastie Boys "Sabotage" video, Jonze and partner-in-crime Charlie Kaufman were ready to cobble together a Trojan Horse and aim it at the dark heart of Fortress Hollywood.

They succeeded massively with the darkly subversive "Being John Malkovich", the story of a disaffected puppeteer (played by John Cusack) who discovers a secret aperture into the mind of actor John Malkovich.

Some wrong-headedly think this is a surreal comedy. Poor, naive, childish innocents, I say! I'm here to contend that for all its comedic trappings, "Being John Malkovich" is a horror movie that H.P. Lovecraft himself would appreciate. Yes, I know, the title itself is risible, the notion of a portal into John Malkovich's consciousness makes one giddy, and you can't possibly have a proper cosmos-ripping horror movie with Cameron Diaz, John Cusack, John Malkovich, and Charlie Sheen. I know all the standard objections.

But first: if you haven't seen "Being John Malkovich", stop reading this silly review and go buy the thing. You'll be utterly delighted and glad you listened to my advice.

Alright, for those of you who have seen this wicked little gem of sheer cinematic subversion---listen up: "Being John Malkovich" is a horror movie, not a comedy, a long-toothed snarling wolf dolled up in comedic sheep's clothing. Think not? Fine: let's leave the idea of John Malkovich having his body snatched out of it. If the idea of a blameless, innocent, blithe little girl being invaded by a small platoon of slobbering geriatrics isn't horror, then nothing is horrible.

Still skeptical? That's fine, but be warned: everything in in Jonze and Kaufman's little tour de force here is expertly stage-managed and distilled to a single purpose, and that is fooling the innocent, naive viewer to the movie's singularly malign purpose: body-snatching is front and center here. If you think this is a comedy, dear friend, then you're being duped with fine food and good wine, just the tools the wicked immortal Dr. Lester (a fine turn by the great Orson Bean, with nods to Lovecraft's "Terrible Old Man") used, as the evil Captain Merten had used before him.

Think about it this way: what happened to Malkovich once Craig and Maxine's little entrepreneurial scheme took on a life of its own? Still feel like a good horse laugh? I'm thinking a stiff Scotch is more in order.

The direction and cinematography here are spot on, and every scene tells. The acting is also superb, from Cusack's dangerously desperate puppeteer, to veteran actors Bean and the late Byrne Piven (Captain Merten, who pities dwarves), to Catherine Keener, who plays the wicked, devious, Machiavellian shrew Maxine. I despised her every second she was on screen---good job, Miss Keener!

The real plaudits go to Cameron Diaz. I had never really considered Diaz an actress of substance, but her wildly schizophrenic romp as the crazed animal-lover Lotte showed the woman has some finely honed acting chops. Charlie Sheen sinks his fangs into his tiny but tasty role, and Malkovich purrs through the movie like a kitten.

Surreal, quirky, brilliantly paced, constantly resourceful, occasionally creepy, with a haunting, pining score by Carter Burwell and Bjork that calls to mind Philip Glass's composition for "Mishimia", "Being John Malkovich" is a clever, wicked, blackly funny work of genius, but it is very much a horror film. Having returned from a jaunt through his own tortured subconscious, Malkovich roars "I have seen things no man should have to see." Truer words couldn't have frothed from the lips of one of Lovecraft's demon-haunted heroes.

But instead of getting an exorcist, Malkovich goes looking for a lawyer, dooming himself to a mediocre career of performance art puppetry...