Watch Colour Me Kubrick For Free
Colour Me Kubrick
The true story of a man who posed as director Stanley Kubrick during the production of Kubrick's last film, Eyes Wide Shut, despite knowing very little about his work and looking nothing like him.
Release : | 2005 |
Rating : | 6.1 |
Studio : | |
Crew : | Production Design, Director of Photography, |
Cast : | John Malkovich Sam Redford Tom Allen Lynda Baron Linda Bassett |
Genre : | Drama Comedy |
Watch Trailer
Cast List
Reviews
Fresh and Exciting
A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.
The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful
One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.
Outrageous, delightful, astonishing one man show by the phenomenal John Malkovich. They tell us the story is a true-ish tale and they could have fooled me because it feels, the story and the character, like escapees from a Monty Python project. John Malkovich goes further that most people who ventures into a trueish story. Leonardo Di Caprio in "Catch Me If You Can" plays a true life con who gets away with the most incredible things but we buy that people buy it because there is something so believable in Di Caprio's persona. John Malkovich goes the opposite way. He doesn't care whether you believe it or not because he believes it. It is a spectacular performance and that alone makes Color Me Kubrick a must.
This film was strangely intriguing and had my full attention all the time. The dialogue is at times extraordinarily witty and it's a mix of sadness (emphasized by the music scores from both Clockwork Orange and 2001, as well as melancholy tones from Bryan Adams "I'm not the man I seem to be, but I'm the man for you..") and comedy depicting the double nature of the conman Conway. Malkowich slippery and at times very painful acting is one of a kind. It's amazing how his character bounces up again and again, he can't stop himself. Of course, as a social commentary this film is a hard judgment on the willingness for people to believe and get benefits from anybody who appears to be in a position of power. bengt alvång http://www.fokus.nu
This is an interesting film, if for no other reason for the talent of Malkovich. His performance is a study of excellent acting: He is so good as a reckless alcoholic pulling off acts of incredible chutzpah that the viewer literally cringes and winches in fear of his becoming exposed. Its not long into the movie that I was completely accepting of the lead character's complete asocial pathology. I accepted such for what it was - without any hope of redemption, rehabilitation or remorse! The problem with the film is that since the character soon becomes so one dimensional, the scenes just flow as episode after episode in a manner, way, etc., that makes one long for some personal epiphany, crisis, etc. This flick would have played well as tongue-in-cheek biography with a heavy dose of comedy, much like the films about; e.g., Ed Wood, Larry Flynt, etc. The movie might have been bettor with some modest introduction to the lead character, allowing some empathy.
Malkovich gives a performance that carries the picture. But the picture goes nowhere! I wasn't offended by all the gay stuff in it. but I might have been were I gay. It's a bit much.While there are a lot of references to Kubrick movies, there are few, if any, attempts to include any of his cinematic signatures; i.e. the tracking shot, the bathroom scene, the sullen stare into the camera. There are repetitive inclusions of music associated with this movies, Zarathustra, Thieving Magpie, Sarabande, snippets from Wendy Carlos' Clockwork Orange score. These become tiresome.The movies fails, because the Alan Conway character is never explored in any way. This is Brian Cook's fault, not Malkovich's. Here's and example: The high point of this long-running con occurs in a restaurant, where Conway takes in super sharp Frank Rich of the New York Times. Now, regardless of Conway's background or motivation, this should have been a great moment for him. Was he scared? Was he challenged? Was he so into the con that it was inconsequential to him? He did go to the trouble of verifying Rich with the maitre'd. The script thought it was important. But the scene tells us nothing.It's worth seeing, I suppose, for Kubrick fans like myself. But it adds nothing to the canon. The screenplay is fine, probably hits the right notes, but the direction is fatal.