The de(con)st ruction of Charlie Kaufman?

Rating: 3/10 (1 February 2005)

Yikes. I had to struggle to make it through this ridiculously overpraised film - REALLY overpraised in IMDb-land - it seems like all of Andy Dufresne's ("Shawshank Redemption") lil' pals have found a new place to languish their misplaced emotions. After being knocked out by "Being John Malkovich", "Human Nature", and "Adaption", I expected more of the same here. Instead, I learned a lot about Charlie Kaufman.
What did I learn? Well, this is the first time I've seen Charlie work with a blank slate. In other words, the storyline that Charlie wrote is too weak to carry the movie (unlike the aforementioned Charlie masterpieces). And without a good story, it's a whole 'nother world out there for Charlie. What we're talking about is a peek-a-boo variation on the old "amnesia" plot line that really feels more like a turn on "Donovan's Brain". And so, unfortunately, there's almost immediately not much left to do except to send the characters into action. Running from here to there and back again in an ever changing universe is a favorite Kaufman underpinning that has really provided momentum to his hit movies, particularly "Being John Malkovich" (an absolute gem of a film). But without a substantive plot to grab onto, the panache of eye-grabbing images and set pieces that should really light up all of that running feels empty, strident, and worst of all, manipulative.
I also learned that when Charlie doesn't have much going in the way of the ideas, the quirky neuroses that propel most of his characters move from background to foreground. And that isn't good - unfortunately, it's downright overbearing, and ultimately numbing. And in this film, the characters, as thin as tissue paper, are also held at arm's length from the viewer. This isn't the Charlie that I've known and loved - I just didn't care about these characters! Charlie does make a misguided attempt to deconstruct Joel's life, but who the heck really knows anything about Joel?
The movie is competently handled by Michel Gondry, but he's at Charlie's mercy. The actors. Jim Carrey? He's surprisingly weak in a role that would seem to cater to his style. Unfortunately, Carrey underplays the role (!) early on and then has to get out of control later to catch up. Talk about episodic - he seems confused as he runs from here to there, with or without his ski cap. This may be the worst performance that I've seen from Tom Wilkinson, but he's working with cardboard. And Kirsten Dunst? She's still trying to prove that she can act..in ANY role.
Looking for bright spots? There's Kate Winslet. Her blistering performance deserves the Oscar nomination that she received. She really does her best to elevate this leaden film. Superb art direction, set direction, and editing are also Oscar-worthy.
But ultimately, I learned that Charlie has to have all cylinders firing or absolutely nothing works for me (as opposed to a LOT of other people). At its best, "Eternal Sunshine" is a mildly interesting mess, and no one has a lot with which to work. But if you've seen much of his other work, you know that he's failed here.
And despite all of the jawing about Montauk, the bulk of the story seems to be set in Rockville Centre on Long Island. Funny, I always thought of Rockville Centre as a bit upper-crust. How the mighty have fallen.
And the same can be said about Charlie. Hopefully, this is a low point for him, though I miss "Ned and Stacey". About a 3.5 out of 10.