Recently in John Malkovich Category

Starring Salma Hayek, Rhys Ifan, Lucy Liu, Burt Reynolds, George DiCenzo, Saffon Burrows, Danny Huston, David Schwimmer, John Malkovich, Max Beesley, Lucy Liu. Drama. Synopsis: A group of actors and crew gather in a hotel in Venice to shoot a movie based on a well known play in an unconventional manner. However, there is cannibalism going on at the hotel. Directed by Mike Figgis.

Wow. Where to start with this one. You look at the DVD cover and that ensemble cast and you think it should be pretty good. Its not. Not even close. Its hard to even talk about this film because there is no plot, no real story line, and, as we find out in the Special Features, no script.

I'm serious. This film was total ad lib and it fails miserably. Since there is no coherent plot and the actors had no story line under which to create, the film meanders all over the place made worse by the fact that they tried to put it all together to make some form of a movie. It might have been better if they had made it a collection of skits or something, I don't know. I can appreciate trying to give the actors freedom to create, but how can that be done with no framework?

In the Special Features, we see a bewildered Saffon Burrows (The Bank Job) and a disbelieving Burt Reynolds (Boogie Nights, Deliverance) in a meeting of the actors, when it becomes clear that their characters have no names, no backgrounds, no motivation, and no guidelines. In fact, an increasingly irritated Reynolds seems to be almost stunned when Figgis tells him that the actors can create that on their own, but its totally up to them whether they want to share it with the director or not.

I'm not sure what the thinking was that this would turn out to be a good film. There are some funny scenes, and it is a tribute to the actors that this movie turned out as good as it did when you realize how little they had to work with. And its bad. As far as I could determine, there was an implication of cannibalism somewhere in there, described on the DVD cover as a major plot point. The rest of the film was primarily the actors reacting to each other in different situations, a good bit of steamy but meaningless sex scenes, and a whole lot of use of the F word. That is pretty much it.

A big mess and, honestly, an embarrassment for those involved. Anyone who has seen this and has a different take or can make some sense out of it, please let me know. I'm stumped.

This one is really, really funny. Not the slapstick or over the top humor, but the tongue in cheek kind of humor where you will find yourself chuckling thoughout the movie, only stopping to laugh out loud.

The plot is fairly intricate for a comedy, but when you have an ensemble cast this talented, it flows very nicely and is easy to follow. The story focuses on a group of middle and near middle age folks living in the D.C. area, who are-to some degree-dissatisfied with their current lot in life.

We first meet an arrogant CIA analyst (John Malkovich The Libertine) who hits the bottle too much and is in a marriage to a doctor (Tilda Swinton) that is short on love and long on irritation.Things immediately go downhill when he quits instead of taking a demotion, then somehow loses a computer disc containing information he was going to use to write a memoir.   

Into that breach come two employees (Frances McDormand Fargo, Brad Pitt Seven)  at an upper scale fitness center who happen upon the disc and decide, by golly, they are going to cash this ticket since McDormand's character has a serious hankering to pay for some cosmetic surgery.

And, of course, no comedy would be complete without the cad and, in this flick, its played by George Clooney (From Dusk 'Til Dawn) who loves the ladies, in addition to his wife, and two of his gal pals are, you guessed it, Tilda Swinton and Frances McDormand.

Suffice it to say, when the blackmail plan goes awry and cheating hubbys and wives are exposed, the plot thickens and its hilarious. What makes Burn After Reading work so well, as you would think, is the acting. Clooney, Malkovich, McDormand, and Swinton are all fantastic, all very funny in their understated way, though you will probably expect what you see from McDormand, an actor more associated with comedic roles than the others. Pitt deserves special mention, however. He is side splitting playing a less-than-astute geek, I challenge you to not laugh at any scene he's in when you see the flick. 

I also liked the fact that the film was not afraid to portray these characters, including two of the bigger hearthrobs of the past decade or so, as vulnerable, not so tough, not so smart, and therefore, easy to laugh at and with. I also need to say how refreshing it was to see 40 something leading men paired with 40 something leading ladies, something you don't see as often as you'd think as big Hollywood films look for the hot 23 year old to pair opposite 70 something Sean Connery or 60 something Michael Douglas. 

So, those of you who might go into this one thinking your primary reward might be some Clooney/Pitt beefcake, you'll be disappointed, though Pitt does look like someone who works in a fitness center. Just understand that this movie is not about eye candy.

The heavyweight big name stars are not the only ones who deliver, either. Richard Jenkins (Stepbrothers) is good as the manager of the fitness center who just can't seem to get McDormand's attention and J.K. Simmons (New In Town) is hilarious as the mysterious CIA big wig who simply reacts to the circus of events that unfold with the missing disc.

This film is hard to briefly describe, but trust me, if you like any of these excellent actors and you don't need over the top slapstick or bodily function humor to make you laugh, I can pretty much guarantee you'll like Burn After Reading.    

Directed by  Laurence Dunmore. Starring Johnny  Depp, John Malkovich, Susan Morton, Rosamund Pike. Drama/Historical Synopsis: A frank look at the last few years of the Earl of Rochester, John Wilmot, a 17th century poet who was both a friend of King Charles and one of the more influential authors of the Restoration.

This film starts with Johnny Depp as John Wilmot doing a monologue that is shocking in its sexual suggestiveness (considering our modern view of the 1600's) and includes John Wilmot telling us that we will not like him.  

Well, I have to beg to differ. I liked the character and the film quite a bit. I got this one solely because of Johnny Depp (Secret Window, From Hell), who will become a legend if he keeps reinventing himself from role to role. Though I'm a history buff, I had never even heard of John Wilmot and, as usual, I did my background research after seeing this flick. I'm happy to report that, so far as I can tell, the movie stays pretty close to the written history of this talented writer and social agitator who, almost literally, drank and fornicated himself (in a manner of speaking) to death by the age of 33.

The story does not waste much time with a lot of historical background or explanation. Whether this was calculated with an eye to a primarily British audience or not, I don't know but I think that it is a good thing, as the social and political affairs of the time in Britain are going to be outside the knowledge of most viewers. Plus, the story stands fine on its own. John Wilmot is a privileged man in search of nothing other than self pleasure. His taste for the excess is, in no way, dimmed by his station in life or his friendship with the King (John Malkovich Burn After Reading, Mary Reilly). We see from the first moments of the movie that Wilmot is not one to deny himself and, I must say, the sexual innuendo and suggestion might surprise some of you. 

Wilmot is a writer, obviously talented but maybe viewed as underachieving at a time and in a place where literary people wielded much more influence than is comprehensible for us today. He also has a love of the theater, where he sets out to mold a struggling young actress (Susan Morton), with whom he, of course, has an affair. It should be mentioned that Wilmot is married at this time and, in fact, was married until his death, notwithstanding his sexual excesses (including a strong implication of bisexuality).

Wilmot has success in helping his protege become the toast of London, but he is soon in the middle of controversy as he takes a request from the King to pen a play and turns it into a suggestive and lewd satire of the King and his court. Needless to say, this does not go over, as they say, real big and Wilmot is soon on the lam, his relationship with his girlfriend in the tank and estranged from his, for whatever reason, loyal wife.

During this time, Wilmot's physical condition starts to completely deteriorate and the film is quite graphic in depicting the effects of his alcoholism and "social disease" (probably syphilis). Believe it or not, you will see Johnny Depp literally rot before your eyes. Not pretty, but effective cinema that is necessary for the story and also accurate history. To me, you can't help but like Wilmot even as you despise his lifestyle. Maybe he was just a couple of hundred years ahead of his time in attitude, but understand that the film makes no attempt to romanticize or glamorize his sexual conquests or hedonistic lifestyle. Wilmot paid a huge price for this, believe me.

On the other hand, I think the real success of this flick is showing us a little known historical figure whose ideas would not be so far out of step with those of the late nineteenth or twentieth century. An unforgettable scene is a horribly disfigured Wilmot addressing the King's Court and supporting the future succession of the throne from the King (now an enemy of Wilmot's) to his brother who is, hold your breath now, a Catholic.

Johhny Depp is fantastic in this role, disturbingly likeable and completely believable in this role. For those of you who have seen this movie, how many actors of his stature would play a role that is so visually unappealing? Susan Morton is wonderful as well, playing a liberated woman who, like Wilmot, is centuries ahead of her time. And, it will be no surprise that I tell you John Malkovich is great, though almost unrecognizable as the King.