Has to be seen to be believed

Rating: 10/10 (6 April 2020)

'Being John Malkovich' had to be one of the hardest films to get made. I can't imagine how the sales pitch must have gone. I figure writer (and possible madman?!) Charlie Kaufman must have used words like 'portal, puppets, low ceilings' and 'multitude of over-s3xed old people piling into the mind of a Hollywood actor.' Yes, all those things happen.
You could simply describe the film as 'weird,' but that would probably do the film a great disservice. It's simply a masterpiece and possibly has to be seen to be believed. It's so bizarre and off-the-wall that you enter a world where anything can happen, but at the same time, seems somehow relatable and 'real.'
I won't go into the plot in too much detail. First of all I would never want to spoil such a classic. Once you get into it you'll soon realise that the story could literally go anywhere and you'll only get the one chance at watching it without knowing how it will all end up. Secondly, if I gave a detailed plot synopsis you probably would think I'm making it up. It sort of centres around Craig (John Cusack) and his desire to be a puppeteer which isn't really making him or his wife (Cameron Diaz) any money. So he takes a filming job where he meets a sultry co-worker, Maxine (Katherine Keener) who he immediately falls for. However, what starts off as what could just potentially could be yet another love triangle soon goes off the rails when the trio discover a small tunnel in Craig's office which leads directly into John Malkovich's head. From there, things really get weird.
All four of the central protagonists are brilliant and memorable in their own right (the fourth main cast member being of course - Malkovich - playing a warped version of himself as he struggles to figure out what's going on inside his head. There are a few peripheral characters too who also play their part and whose kookiness all help add to the surreal madness.
For all 'Being John Malkovich's' brilliance, it's probably not a film you can have on in the background and fully appreciate. It's something you have to invest a couple of hours into to get the most out of it. And, if you do, I think you'll find a film that is just as good (and a damn sight more novel) than 99% of what comes out of Hollywood these days. However, if you're looking for a 'negative take,' I was once discussing this film with my friend and he didn't like it. I couldn't believe anyone could hate this film and, when I asked him what he found so bad, he simply said that the whole premise was too 'unrealistic.' What does he know, eh?