--k. Mar 21, 10:10 pm #
Okay, so maybe it's unfair to just tease you with a link to the script, above. Especially since the script is from the start weirdly different than the movie, and I'm going to be mulling it over for the next couple of days. Here, then, is the best review I've read of it yet, though really, if you've not seen the flick yet you have no more business clicking through to read a review than you do reading the script. I mean, really!
Kevin Moore Mar 22, 09:20 am #
I have not seen the movie yet, but it's a George Kauffman script, so I already have faith in it. Kauffman doing Dick. It's a perfect pairing. And I agree: Adaptation is a triumph. And Being John Malkovitch—it's silly fun, so I pooh-pooh your reservations. Nyah. Anyway, I'm avoiding both script and review—I like as close to a virginal experience to movie-watching as I can get. Yes, that's right—I'm saving myself.
And don't be too hard on Carrey. He's got Robin Williams' problem of being a spastic, creative comedian who wants to express something more human, something a bit deeper. Man on the Moon is a good start, but I think you underrate The Truman Show for fear of overrating it. It's a good movie. Not a great movie, but Carrey makes it more fun and interesting than it would have been in another actor's hands. Blame Peter Weir, a great director who needs to deshmaltz.
Technical request: Any way you can rig your title balloons to stay up longer than a few seconds? Makes it tough to read.
No, it's a browser thing. I have no control over it. You might. Depends on your browser. But that was kinda the point here.
Ed Harris carries a lot of that weight on his shoulders, too, and I usually like him a helluvalot. And Carrey is good, and majestically human when he nails it, but anything longer than a sketch and he needs purpose and direction, or he'll overwhelm. He knows what he's doing here. He breaks your heart. Truman Show, not so much. --I'll readily allow as how it's a good enough movie, or at least not a bad movie; the world is not a worse place for its having been made. But it ain't what some people say it is, but the movie is hardly responsible for that, and so I will blame marketing people and hype. As per usual.
Dick? Not quite, no. Maybe. Squint sideways. More in the script, I'm thinking. Which might be why the movie's better. Hmm.
And I adore Being. Don't make like I don't. There's nothing reserved about my adoration, you ninny; it's just more of a True Romance or a Midnight Run kind of adoration than a Singin' in the Rain or a Rushmore kind of adoration.
So.
Kevin Moore Mar 22, 12:05 pm #
Woops. Charlie. Where did I get George and the extra "f"? That's what happens when I write too quickly from my desk at work. Sorry. My bad.
Anyway, the premise seems Dickish/-esque/-ian/-like. We'll Remember It for You Wholesale, only in reverse.
J.D. Roth Mar 23, 11:28 am #
Hey, Kevin -- no shame mixing George Kaufman with Charlie. Both are great, though from different centuries.
With his partner Moss Hart, George wrote "You Can't Take It With You" and many other justly-famous plays during the first half of the twentieth century. He was a great writer.
Except for the extra "f." Maybe I dropped the letter from someone else's name, like there's a poor Franz Kaka walking around looking for an "f." Wouldn't you?
J. Pinkham Mar 25, 10:19 pm #
Your Dickishness comment is apropos. Charlie Kaufman actually wrote a screenplay adaptation of Dick (which was not produced). You can read it on the Being Charlie Kaufman website.
Okay, so maybe it's unfair to just tease you with a link to the script, above. Especially since the script is from the start weirdly different than the movie, and I'm going to be mulling it over for the next couple of days. Here, then, is the best review I've read of it yet, though really, if you've not seen the flick yet you have no more business clicking through to read a review than you do reading the script. I mean, really!
I have not seen the movie yet, but it's a George Kauffman script, so I already have faith in it. Kauffman doing Dick. It's a perfect pairing. And I agree: Adaptation is a triumph. And Being John Malkovitch—it's silly fun, so I pooh-pooh your reservations. Nyah. Anyway, I'm avoiding both script and review—I like as close to a virginal experience to movie-watching as I can get. Yes, that's right—I'm saving myself.
And don't be too hard on Carrey. He's got Robin Williams' problem of being a spastic, creative comedian who wants to express something more human, something a bit deeper. Man on the Moon is a good start, but I think you underrate The Truman Show for fear of overrating it. It's a good movie. Not a great movie, but Carrey makes it more fun and interesting than it would have been in another actor's hands. Blame Peter Weir, a great director who needs to deshmaltz.
Technical request: Any way you can rig your title balloons to stay up longer than a few seconds? Makes it tough to read.
Charlie Kaufman.
No, it's a browser thing. I have no control over it. You might. Depends on your browser. But that was kinda the point here.
Ed Harris carries a lot of that weight on his shoulders, too, and I usually like him a helluvalot. And Carrey is good, and majestically human when he nails it, but anything longer than a sketch and he needs purpose and direction, or he'll overwhelm. He knows what he's doing here. He breaks your heart. Truman Show, not so much. --I'll readily allow as how it's a good enough movie, or at least not a bad movie; the world is not a worse place for its having been made. But it ain't what some people say it is, but the movie is hardly responsible for that, and so I will blame marketing people and hype. As per usual.
Dick? Not quite, no. Maybe. Squint sideways. More in the script, I'm thinking. Which might be why the movie's better. Hmm.
And I adore Being. Don't make like I don't. There's nothing reserved about my adoration, you ninny; it's just more of a True Romance or a Midnight Run kind of adoration than a Singin' in the Rain or a Rushmore kind of adoration.
So.
Woops. Charlie. Where did I get George and the extra "f"? That's what happens when I write too quickly from my desk at work. Sorry. My bad.
Anyway, the premise seems Dickish/-esque/-ian/-like. We'll Remember It for You Wholesale, only in reverse.
Hey, Kevin -- no shame mixing George Kaufman with Charlie. Both are great, though from different centuries.
With his partner Moss Hart, George wrote "You Can't Take It With You" and many other justly-famous plays during the first half of the twentieth century. He was a great writer.
So is Charlie.
Easy mistake.
Ah, all explained.
Except for the extra "f." Maybe I dropped the letter from someone else's name, like there's a poor Franz Kaka walking around looking for an "f." Wouldn't you?
Your Dickishness comment is apropos. Charlie Kaufman actually wrote a screenplay adaptation of Dick (which was not produced). You can read it on the Being Charlie Kaufman website.