Charlie Kaufman: The only idea more overused than serial killers is multiple personality. On top of that, you explore the notion that cop and criminal are really two aspects of the same person. See every cop movie ever made for other examples of this.

It's easy for directors to spoof themselves and their own movies, and it could easily come off as vain, and truly self-indulgent, but director Spike Johnze take the feat and somehow makes it seem refreshing and truly bold. I was intrigued from the beginning as Jonze dares to be cliché and predictable from beginning to end. Charlie Kaufman is an odd character. He's insecure, self-loathing, balding, and never knows the right thing to say to people despite the fact that many people actually like him but he manages to instantly repel them with his knack for talking too much and saying the wrong or inappropriate thing as he does with an attractive friendly waitress (Judy Greer) at a restaurant. Charlie is constantly running his head with thoughts of insecurity despite the fact that he's thought of as a genius in Hollywood.

Nicolas Cage plays two characters; Donald Kaufman as well, who is the exact twin of Charlie except more confident, easy-going, and friendlier. What Cage does is give such a stellar performance with two characters who look exactly alike but somehow are easily noticeable as separate people. Nicolas Cage is so skilled performing as these two characters its almost scary. The characters Donald and Charlie are twin brothers but somehow they represent opposite people; as where Charlie is insecure, uneasy, and awkward, Donald is somehow symbolic as Charlie's exact opposite, an entity he wishes he could be. Donald is easy going, friendly, and a good people person and is also Charlie's exact creative opposite.

As where Donald is cliché, predictable, and artificial when it comes to movie ideas including one cookie cutter murder mystery, Charlie strives to be different and off-beat in his attempts as a screenwriter. There are many great scenes in which Jonze points out many clichés in the film genre and frowns upon phrases like "pitch a script". They tend to interact throughout the film presenting vastly different personalities and personas Cage handles with much flair gaining him an Academy award nomination, Oscar contender Meryl Streep who gives a great performance is yet another symbol in the story who plays novelist Susan Orlean who is disgusted with Laroche at first but gains a fascination with John Laroche a botanist obsessed with Wild Orchids. Orlean gains an instant fascination with Laroche who manages to become a paradox within her character as well.

Laroche played by Chris Cooper who supplies a great performance as the eccentric Laroche (which gained him an Oscar win), ends up symbolizing Orleans lack of passion in life as she leads a basically mundane life with her husband as a reporter for the "New Yorker", then Laroche instantly reacts to Orlean's character who he sees as the missing element to his life, the one person who understands his passion for life. Every element in the story becomes a character from the waitress in the restaurant who represents Kaufman's lack of confidence, right down to the book and screenplay which become symbols of Charlie's goals in life almost impossible to reach, an obstacle he must conquer to get to the next pinnacle of success in his life; the orchids become symbolic of women to Charlie; odd and fascinating specimen's he's only beginning to understand but may in fact never will. Jonze takes clever jabs at himself with many story elements.

The film is full of voice-overs from Charlie and Susan despite the fact that a screenplay teacher (played by the always versatile but underrated Brian Cox) says during the film that voice-over's are for terrible writers who can't tell a story. It's little tidbits of self-farcing story elements that Jonze bombard the screen with creating a truly wry product that becomes an entity onto itself, and at the climax of the story, it becomes purposely cliché and cleverly predictable with a murder mystery motif which is something the character Charlie is strictly striving against. By the last minutes of the film he's written himself into a screenplay about someone else which causes the audience to wonder, is the movie a fabrication of the writer, or is the writer a fabrication of the movie?

The story at times tends to become disorientating and confusing to the point where I couldn't tell what was happening. The events seem to jump back and forth between characters and their situations and it never truly states which is which except for a statement below stating "Three years Later.." or "Two years earlier...". The film also has intentions and twists in stories that most crowds probably won't understand unless it's watched more than once. It took me a while to truly understand where director Spike Jonze was going with this film, but after a while once it all came together, it was brilliant.

This is a truly fascinating peek into the minds of creative writers and in the end becomes its own product which the character Charlie despises. Spike Jonzes creates a paradox-laden piece of storytelling that's not only original, but truly innovative.

Have something to say about this review? Pop on over to Cinema-Lunatics
and speak your mind in our Answer Back! Forums >>

[   Link to Us   |   FAQ   |   Top^   ]
All written reviews material and content are a copyright of Felix Vasquez Jr. and Cinema Crazed.
Content borrowed without written permission will not be permitted.

¤ ¤ ¤