First 1/3 of movie: **** Second 2/3: ** (possible spoilers)

Rating: 5/10 (13 March 2004)

"Being John Malkovich" is a very well done movie. So why didn't I like it? Let me start by saying that I do like the first third of the movie. The establishment of the hidden surreal environment tucked away right in the middle of Manhattan was particularly well done and appealing.

Why didn't I like it? I'm going to have to get extremely subjective here, so bear with me. I think the main reason that the movie as a whole didn't work for me is a lack of identification with the characters. If you've never had a desire to be someone else then you probably won't identify with the motivations of the Cameron Diaz character. Quite often you can become interested in a character even without such identification. That didn't happen either. As a painfully "normal" and content male I found it incredibly hard to be interested in the hysterical desires of an unattractive woman who is doubting her choice of partner, her sexuality and even her gender. Such musings don't offend me, they simply don't interest me.
As for the other characters, they are almost uniformly unattractive. They are purposely unattractive. If I can't sympathize with the characters and have no superficial interest in any of them then that makes for an unsatisfactory viewing experience. I can tell you objectively that this is a good movie. Subjectively, if you're a heterosexual guy who is comfortable in his own skin with no gender issues or doubts about your sexuality then you stand a good chance of being disappointed by this movie. (End note: Enjoyment of this movie in no way implies that you don't fit the personal profile mentioned.)