A good film made by, of all people, a video director!

Rating: Null/10 (17 June 2004)

OK, first of all, I should mention that I went to this movie not because I wanted to see it, but because I was with two friends and it was one of those situations where someone had seen every other film playing at the right time of day and basically it was the "compromise" film we could all agree on. I was happily prepared to blame my friends for making me waste my time and money on a film that I should by all rights hate. You see, I detest Jim Carrey. And even more than how much I dislike Jim Carrey, I abhor the untalented and overrated Charlie Kaufman. But there I was, at the $14 a ticket Arclight in Hollywood, watching a film written by a hack, starring a buffoon. Don't tell me you liked Adaptation. Susan Orlean wrote an article in the New Yorker which was inflated into a book despite the fact that there was barely enough story for a magazine article. (The book was a snooze.) Then Charlie Kaufman turns it into a movie about a guy who can't adapt a book--yeah, because the book sucked. So then he resorts to adding wildly unbelievable plot twists to get himself out of the corner he's painted himself into. Just like Being John Malkovich. Another movie that was watchable for about 20 minutes before it all fell apart. But I digress.
I'm a fan of Michel Gondry's video work--that Lucas with the Lid Off video was incredible at the time and so was the Rolling Stones one. But I've been disappointed many, many times when watching a video director's attempts at making a full-length feature (Mark Romanek's One Hour Photo and Jonas Akerlund's Spun are two that instantly come to mind) because the visual trickery that is interesting in a music video is never a substitute for plot or character or storytelling or soul in a film. So, I didn't really hold such high hopes in the directorial department either.
Man, was I surprised when Jim Carrey didn't completely annoy me as Joel. I mean, sure, he's got his moments, and maybe it was the editing of his performance, but he's not his usual over-the-top ungracious self. And I was blown away by Kate Winslet as Clementine of the ever-changing hair color who I'd formerly been known to call (in my head only) "Fatty, Fatty Kate Winslet" after seeing her in the drivelous Titanic and the tear jerkery Iris. In fact, I was so blown away that I actually like her now and would never dream of calling her anything but beautiful. Sure, the plot is unbelievable and hokey and Kirsten Dunst is completely without talent and pumpkinheaded in the role of Mary, but there's something about the coolness of the--dare I admit it--visual trickery that kept me entertained and buying the whole concept of the story. Kaufman's story doesn't unravel this time. (Or at least not as much as in the past).
This film is worth seeing just for the CGI effects alone. (Kate Winslet being the other reason to see it). I had to wonder many times just exactly how on earth Gondry pulled off some of those effects. And don't think I figured it out--I wouldn't have the first clue. But it did make for an interesting film and one well worth the ungodly $14 I shelled out to see it.