Color Me Kubrick (2005) User Reviews (39)

tour de force for Malkovich

[Buddy-51 · 7/10 · 1 April 2007]

"Color Me Kubrick" will remind you a bit of Steven Spielberg's "Catch Me if You Can," in which Leonardo Di Caprio played a world-class con artist who duped people into believing he was a myriad of Very Important People whom he was really not. In "Colour Me Kubrick," the imposter is a man named Alan Conway who goes about London telling people he is the famed (and famously reclusive) director, Stanley Kubrick, in order to bum rides, free drinks and even sexual favors off of them. I guess it's appropriate that I just happened to catch this film on April 1st of all days.

Written by Andrew Frewin and directed by Brian W. Cook, "Color Me Kubrick" is clearly a godsend for its star, John Malkovich, who seems to be having the time of his movie-acting life doing this role. Malkovich tailors his demeanor and accent to fit the audience to whom he is playing, running the gamut from Capote-esquire fey for his gay "clients" (Conway is himself gay) to regular-guy macho for his straight targets. Yet, Malkovich never resorts to mere playacting to create his effect; by fully inhabiting the character, he keeps Conway from descending into a merely clownish figure and allows him to register as a fully fleshed-out human being.

Unfortunately, although the screenplay is frequently witty and even downright hilarious at times, the movie itself is never quite as good as Malkovich is in it. Despite its overall originality, there's an innate one-note quality to the setup that the movie cannot completely shake, so that, even at a mere eighty-six minutes, the conceit tends to wear a bit thin after awhile. The filmmakers somewhat make up for that weakness by also showing us the means by which Conway is eventually unmasked for all the world to see. There are also a number of surprisingly poignant moments in the film in which we are shown just how sad, lonely and pathetic an individual Conway really is. The most touching sequence comes when a movie-savvy young man in a bar uncovers Conway's ruse by trapping him with a trick Stanley Kramer question. As Conway slinks away from the scene humiliated and crestfallen, we can clearly see why Malkovich is one of the finest actors of his generation.

Beyond the Conway character, the film provides a gently satirical jab at our culture's overwhelming obsession with celebrity and our willingness to suspend critical judgment on a person or a scheme if we can discern a benefit for ourselves by doing so. For, indeed, virtually everyone who allows himself to be duped by this impersonator has starry-eyed dreams of one day making it big in either the entertainment business or the world of corporate financing. Conway has merely come up with a clever way of exploiting that obsession for his own personal benefit.

There's also something wryly humorous in the fact that, although Kubrick is universally recognized as being one of the greatest directors in the history of cinema, his face was so unfamiliar to both the general populace and even people in the movie industry that Conway was able to pull this ruse off for so long without getting caught. Can anyone imagine an individual trying that same stunt with Spielberg, Tarantino, Scorsese, etc.?

This is a slight but endearing comedy that is a must-see for John Malkovich fans.

Congrats to Tony Frewin

[susan_glen28 · 7/10 · 6 February 2006]

Congrats to Tony Frewin who scripted this movie. Am I right in thinking the characterisation of Conway is based partially on a guy called Gary Ness who Malkovitch resembles? Presumably Tony didn't get the opportunity to interview Conway and wasn't able to write a precise portrayal of his character. It doesn't matter. Malkovitch is totally convincing in the role. The fact that Malkovitch and Kubrick look nothing like each other just adds to the deliciousness of the surreal situation. The manner in which the audience sees how Conway conned his victims was effective and convincing and often very funny. The special London vibe from that period came through strongly. The story is perfect for film adaptation and adds to the discussion of the power of celebrity in modern life. Its a great story for a scriptwriter to take on.

It's definitely a Kubrick-ish movie and that's hardly surprising as many of the Kubrick film family were involved. There's a particularly good scene where Conways Kubrick trick fails which is very satisfying and will please many a fan.

It's rare that I laugh out loud in the cinema but I was giggling away like a hyena. I also loved seeing well known and loved British character actors in cameo roles. Lets hope the team do more.Kubrick fans will be pleased.

Malkovich' s One Man Show

[excalibur107 · 7/10 · 11 May 2017]

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.

A masterful performance from Malcovich

[elspethkrichardson · 7/10 · 13 June 2007]

Having just seen this movie, the most striking thing for me was how impressive Malcovich's performance was... that man can act. his accents were hilarious, his comic timing was impeccable, his blatant homosexuality was wonderful. it's really of this which carries the movie through, as the plot itself doesn't really have much substance to it. the entire film revolves around one character, and it is only really malcovich's character which gains any development at all, so it's just as well he does it well.

personally, i enjoyed the film immensely, but came away with a great appreciation of malkovich, rather than for the film itself.

Malkovitch camps it up for Kubrick Fans.

[johnmbale · 7/10 · 4 July 2006]

John Malkovitch steps right out of character to sashay round London as a gay sloshed and somewhat sleazy con man Alan Conway impersonating the great film director Stanley Kubrick. Smooth talking Conway certainly manages to take people in and pocket their money. Malkovitch seems to thoroughly enjoy the role, and gets the most out of it. The fact that he doesn't resemble Kubrick in a fit, makes the impersonation even more audacious. The picture will appeal to film buffs, with its in jokes, and many references to Kubrick's films. There are some amusing situations and Conway finally gets something of a comeuppance being unceremoniously chucked off the end of a pier. A good cast of English stock players (including Richard E. Grant heavily wigged up) support Malkovitch, thoroughly camping it up, he is in most scenes and carries the movie on his performance. The music is always appropriate, has references to films like Space Odyssey, Clockwork Orange, etc and helps keep the pace brisk. I suspect the joke runs a little on the long side, but it should make Kubrick fans happy.

Good But Misconceived

[samkan · 6/10 · 10 March 2008]

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.

COLOUR ME KUBRICK - short and to the point.

[rhettrospective · 7/10 · 17 June 2006]

John Malkovich plays Alan Conway who pretends he is reclusive director Stanley Kubrick. Despite not resembling Kubrick in any way whatsoever, Conway succeeds in siphoning money from innocent gawkers, as well as never ever paying for bills, dinner or even writing cheques. Malkovich's performance is so over the top and flamboyant that it is fascinating and annoying at the same time. He changes not only his appearance each time (obviously Conway assumes Kubrick wears flamboyant clothes and hats) but also his accents, ranging from British to a mixture of other dialects. And all this, in just 86 minutes- which goes to prove what I always believe, that films should ideally run no more than 90 minutes. Some lovely in joke references to Kubrick's film, but ultimately where this films falls down is that after one or two con-jobs by Conway, we basically get more of the same throughout the film. It would have been better to expand on the subplot of those trying to track him down, to give this film more strength. http://rhettrospective.blogspot.com

Colourful, but very in your face

[Chris_Docker · 4/10 · 24 August 2006]

Something of a labour of love, Colour Me Kubrick is a short biopic of con-man Alan Conway who successfully posed as Stanley Kubrick during the director's lifetime. Played by John Malkovich at his most enduringly camp, Conway charms the socks, money and underpants from a string of wealthy suckers and gay young men. A master of his game, he gets people to write large cheques to cover fictitious donations to charity dinners as readily as conning twenty quid off a rock band to buy them (and him) fags and alcohol.

Wildly exuberant and certainly colourful, the film is well directed and acted. Its main shortcoming are two fold. The plot, such as it is, comprises a series of extended sketches until Conway's eventual apprehension, which lends an air of repetitiveness. Secondly, although Malkovich's intensely colourful campness is a remarkable achievement, he stage centres in practically every scene and if you cannot fall completely in love with it, the effeminate preening eventually can look dated and rather irritating.

Colour Me Kubrick is a traditional camp comedy with lots of cross-references for film fans. If you enjoy the first five minutes you will love it, otherwise it may have you climbing the walls.

everyone likes to be an impostor

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 1 April 2007]

Before I saw "Colour Me Kubrick: A True...ish Story", I had never heard of this guy who pretended to be Stanley Kubrick. I thought that it was a pretty interesting movie. They set it up so that many scenes look like scenes from Kubrick's films. For example, the opening scene gives the impression of "A Clockwork Orange".

John Malkovich plays the impostor (and at one point, he even talks about trying to hire John Malkovich!). I gotta wonder how this guy got so many people to believe his lies, as he neither resembled the director nor knew too much about him. But he clearly convinced some people.

Anyway, I found it a fairly eye-opening story about the obsession with fame, if nothing else. Worth seeing.

This must be only movie besides "The Shining" to feature the song "Midnight, the Stars and You".

Can't recommend

[manhimself · 2/10 · 16 October 2006]

I saw this film recently at the Vancouver Film Fest and left thoroughly disappointed.

As other reviewers have pointed out, this film is rather one-dimensional. Easily 75% of the movie is Alan Conway (Malkovich) hanging out in bars trying to convince guys that he's Stanley Kubrick so they'll: a) give him free drinks and stuff AND/OR b) sleep with him. Which gets old pretty quick... Virtually no insight is given as to what drives Conway's need to escape the insignificance of his life.

Also, the repeated allusions to Kubrick's films are so heavy-handed that they some off feeling uninspired. A little more subtlety would have gone a long way, and prevented from reminding me of how superior Kubrick's films are in comparison to the one on-screen.

All in all, it's not a completely terrible movie. However, given the subject matter and the lead actor I definitely felt really let down by this film.

Very "kubrickish"

[imcrazy · 9/10 · 18 January 2006]

A very smart movie, which deals with several very interesting subjects. John Malkovitch is really incredible in his role.

The movie points out the craziness of A. Conway. It especially points out the vanity of the "victims", so much so that sometimes, you feel rather sympathetic towards the con himself. Each of his victims finds in his/her meeting with "Stanley Kubrick" something that makes him/her feel good about themselves or something that will profit him/her. Very often, the only thing he gets out of all this is a lot of drink and money.

The different references to actual Kubrick films are rather intelligent.

Honestly, the first scene is really a kick.

A film that is to be seen by any Kubrick fan.

Solid

[Cosmoeticadotcom · 6/10 · 21 June 2012]

I watched my first pure Netflix fiction film, as opposed to documentary, and it was not good. I was going to watch In The Mood For Love, by Wong Kar-wai, but the picture could not include all of the subtitles at the bottom. The same was true with Masaki Kobayashi's Samurai Rebellion, but that, too, had issues with the framing out of subtitles. Reported both problems, so that dampened the mood for foreign films. Then I came across a 2006 comedy and drama called Color Me Kubrick: A True...ish Story, which is about the noted 1990s impersonator of Stanley Kubrick- a gay man who used Kubrick's own hermitry to his advantage, since few knew what the real Kubrick looked like. People may recall when New York Times drama critic, Frank Rich, wrote of his encounter with the imposter, Alan Conway, at a restaurant. This chance meeting led to Conway's eventual downfall and exposure, and was one of the seminal events in what might be termed the 'Modern Celebrity Crazy Fan Age' which includes stalkers and impersonators. As mild as my renown is, restricted to online arts and film venues, even I've had stalkers and impersonators. But, whereas some celebrities ended up being killed by their pursuers, Conway never sought Kubrick, only to use his name to his own advantage; an idea which fascinated Kubrick, according to reports. It was even rumored that Kubrick considered a screenplay on his own impersonator, but both Conway and Kubrick died before anything could come of it.

Not as entertaining as the real story

[one_salient_oversight · 5/10 · 14 February 2007]

Much of this story is fictionalized and over-stated. Alan Conway was a real person who did impersonate Stanley Kubrick during the 1990s. However, the real Conway ran a travel agency and had a son, who lived with him for a while.

Conway definitely left his wife and pursued gay relationships, but the way this film portrayed him was as a continually lying and compulsive character, who lived off the gullibility of others. The real Conway seemed to have paid at least some of his own way.

Conway did attend a rehab clinic run by the Priory group, but he attended one of 200 centres in Britain, not a boutique clinic for up and outers, as portrayed in the film. According to an article on him by The Guardian, the treatment was successful and he joined AA afterwards.

The film contains much that Kubrick lovers can enjoy - the music, a signature of all of Kubrick's films, appears during ironic and amusing episodes. Around the corner of Conway's house is a sex shop called "The Blue Danube" - a reference to the music played during the spaceship / space station dance in 2001; When Conway is assaulted by friends who discover his true identity, the tunes from "Clockwork Orange" play; The music at the clinic evokes memories of the Overlook Hotel, as does the interior design of the clinic.

John Malkovich is the star of the film. His Conway/Kubrick changes accents and mannerisms all the time according to who he is with. He is American in one scene, Cockney in another, even South African at one stage (the real Conway lived in South Africa for a while).

There's also a "Malkovich" moment in the film when Conway (played by John Malkovich and impersonating Stanley Kubrick) tells friends at his dinner table that he is casting "John Malkovich" for a role in his new film. "Who's he?" asks one of his guests.

But for me the film fell flat. It ended too abruptly for my taste. I wanted to see how Conway lived the rest of his life. I wanted to see a scene in which the "real" Stanley Kubrick is informed of the imposter (Peter Jackson would have been great playing Stanley Kubrick). I wanted to see him on television (the real Conway did appear on TV).

I also wanted to see bit actors from Kubrick films make an appearance. Warren Clark, Dalziel from "Dalziel & Pascoe", played Dim in "Clockwork Orange". Couldn't the producers have invited him in for a scene? What about letting Lia Beldam appear briefly nude as she did in "The Shining"? The film yearned for in-jokes like these to be played for Kubrick fans, but they avoided them.

One last thing - for some reason I had believed that Conway actually made it onto the set of "Eyes Wide Shut" and had confused some of those involved in it. This was definitely not the case either in real life or in the film.

And spare a thought for Joe Longthorne, the real British singer who fell for Conway's tricks and who was given another name in the film. Poor bloke. Must be terribly embarrassed.

Colour Me Kubrick: A True...ish Story (2005)

[SnakesOnAnAfricanPlain · 6/10 · 26 December 2011]

Con-man stories always hold some interest for me, even if they fail to truly go into detail about the protagonist or their victims. Color Me Kubrick is more of an interesting idea than a complete story. Alan Conway pretended to be Stanley Kubrick, despite knowing little about his work, or looking anything like him. He deceived people in order to receive free meals/gifts and the popularity. The film shows a number of these cons, which aren't plotted out, he just says he is Stanley Kubrick and people believe him. The film does a good job at showing the naivety of those tricked. Only one man even attempts to catch Conway out. The film may hold some fascination for UK viewers, just to see Jim Davidson in a rather well played role. It does manage to be funny, but often puts the emotional focus where it shouldn't be.

Artful and Amusing

[skepticskeptical · 7/10 · 7 March 2020]

I happened upon Colour Me Kubrick in my public library´s online video collection, and was naturally intrigued, given that I love Stanley Kubrick´s films. This turned out to be quite the romp, full of amusing episodes fashioned loosely after the exploits of a real man, Alan Conway, who in fact pretended to be Kubrick in the 1990s. This was possible to do because Kubrick was himself so reclusive at that time. Being so star-obsessed, Conway´s marks naturally treated their new friend ¨Stanley¨ to drinks and meals and even expensive trips in the hopes of endearing themselves to such a famous and distinguished person.

The story is engaging on its own, and certainly humorous, but this production achieves a higher level of art by referencing so many of Kubrick´s works. Allusions to many scenes and scores are interwoven throughout, which is bound to delight any seasoned film buff. John Malkovich does an excellent job portraying Alan Conway, who was a gay middle-aged con artist who hit upon a creative idea for living the life to which he wanted to grow accustomed. None of Conway´s marks appear ever to have seen Kubrick´s photo anywhere and had no idea that he was in fact happily married with children, not gay at all.

Funny, but nothing more.

[joshi_3592 · 6/10 · 2 June 2010]

I really don't know what to say about this film, it's about a con-man that pretends to be Stanley Kubrick, and that's it. Kubrick being in real life quite a recluse (in a sense of the word) gave him a great chance to take his name. No one had seen a Kubrick film in over 10 years, and Kubrick had stayed out of the spotlight since the 60's, so you can at least appreciate the fact that this story is quite plausible. Well it says, based on a true-ish story, not sure what that means.

The bad sides however, is it's lack of direction. he basically just goes around scamming people with his various "Kubricks", until he's revealed to be a fraud. And that's about it. Also it uses the soundtracks from various Kubrick films, it's funny at times, but almost feels like a bad attempt to copy the genius of Kubrick films. They even attempt to copy one of his quick edits from A Clockwork Orange, which frankly was just silly.

So if you're a Kubrick fan, you might find this an amusing 1 hour 20 minutes film to kill some time one day when you're bored. If you haven't seen a single Kubrick film, this is huge waste of time.

So I give this film a 6/10.

Disjointed, underwhelming and largely unnecessary tale still has plenty of guilty pleasure moments for film addicts

[oneloveall · 5/10 · 26 March 2007]

Lovingly created by two of master director Stanley Kubrick's former assistants, this fractured homage to his psychopathic imitator serves only as a mild distraction against the more frivolous and unnecessary repetition that robs the film of it's potential charm and inherent cult status. Director Brian W. Cook and writer Anthony Frewin's obvious affinity to the iconic British filmmaker, assisting on a few of the legend's more successful shoots, presents this unique, but ultimately irrelevant comedy that in it's warped way pays homage to Kubrick by tracing some of the insane steps one Alan Conway underwent in order to continue his diluted assumption that he was in fact, the genius movie titan.

While certainly a fun enough premise that should seem increasingly apparent to film buffs, Color Me Kubrick is simply too shallow of an affair to remain anything more then an absorbed and indulgent piece of acting by our lead, the hammy John Malkovich. It is in the excess artsy-ness of Malkovich's repeated ranting and chanting that any focus the slightly disturbing concept holds falls hopelessly by the wayside of egotistical posturing with little to no redeeming psychological qualities. Instead of a fascinating, colorful character study that could have simultaneously addressed issues of alienation and identity while entertaining insider crowds with the delightful scenarios, all too quickly becomes a cheap exercise in Malkovich's continually cheapened theatrics, changing his character's persona and accent as many times as he must have thought viewers would find it clever. It is not. Instead the empty scenes often wallow in a shameless, vacant sort of charisma, masking behind this character's apparent intelligence and wit.

There are a few memorable moments, but primarily the pacing, script and performances all point in a direction that will help dismantle anything good that the movie has going for it with a heavy promotion of style over substance. Malkovich will always remain an assured performer, though as the years go by the arrogance in defining his line deliveries have become increasingly apparent, culminating in this shoddy character study.

did anyone else think this was an awful movie?

[whatever_isaac · 1/10 · 21 June 2007]

i went into this expecting a documentary, or a biopic, or at least a drama that examined the events that occurred around this guy. what i got was a crappy comedy that played like a rip-off of catch me if you can. it seemed to me like they filmed several separate "incidents" that they found funny, then remembered that films are supposed to have plots, so they threw in one scene introducing his roommate as some guy smoking pot on his couch, and then we were expected to have an emotional reaction later on in the hospital scene when he's there and malkovich is pretending not to recognize him? the subplot with the escort service went nowhere and neither did the newspaper one. this director needs some practice.

An Exercise in Allusion

[otaku777 · 8/10 · 23 March 2007]

Allow me to preface this whole review by saying that the more familiar you are with the works of Stanley Kubrick, the more enjoyable this film will be for you.

If you are only slightly familiar with Kubrick, and are not interested in seeing a John Malkevich playing an impressively nuanced, yet unprogressing character (after seeing, one has to admit it was quite the feat), then your $10 is probably better spent elsewhere. However, if you are like me and get a kick out any work that can thread in a Kubrick allusion without making any excuses, this film might be right up your alley.

Within this film there is no great commentary, no grand message, and no prevailing plot. What it does contain is one compelling character, one twisted journey, and whole host of inside jokes which, if you are in on the bit, make this film worth every penny of the ticket price. A confidence man, Alan (Malkevich), grifts his way through every episode of this linear yet non-Aristelean film by pretending to be the reclusive film director, Stanley Kubrick. Every episode is structured around an allusion (which Alan never seems to get because it appears as though he has never actually seen a Kubrick movie) to one of Kubrick's greatest scenes.

I believe giving too much more else will ruin the ride for those that care to take it. And, oh my, what a weirdly wonderful ride it is.

Like watching paint dry.

[froeper · 1/10 · 1 September 2007]

I rented this movie tonight and after twenty minutes, my wife began washing dishes. Fifty minutes in and I was playing games on my cell. This movie has nothing to do with Stanley Kubrick so if you're intrigued because you are a Kubrick fan, don't waste your time. Looking at Brian Cook's resume, it seems like he was Kubrick's long time assistant director. Obviously he wasn't paying attention. Some of the compositions look very ameteurish, straight out of film school (characters placed in the middle of the frame, staring directly at the camera). Worst of all, the film gave no insight into Alan Conway and why he was doing the things he was doing. The dialogue is painfully self-conscious. Everybody in this film is completely aware there are in a film. Nobody acts like a real person. Even John Malkovich's performance (which others are praising) is very over the top, with an ounce of subtlety. Stay away...

I can't be more interested in this story than the people who made a movie about it

[MBunge · 4/10 · 20 July 2012]

Based on the true story of a guy who passed himself off as famed directed Stanley Kubrick in London in the late 1990s, taking full advantage of everyone's generous hospitality to the cinema legend, Color Me Kubrick demonstrates two things. One is the difference between a comedian and a comic actor. The other is the subtler the humor, the more it needs to be grounded in realistic observations of human existence. Those two things prevent this film from rising about the merely okay.

Alan Conway (John Malkovich) is the aforementioned impostor. He's middle aged, beardless, dresses like a homeless man who fell into the donation bin outside a Goodwill store and knows very little about Kubrick. None of which stops person after person from believing his claims. I'm not sure how it worked in real life, but here Alan persists in the deception until he gets what he wants or has to flee from being found out. With people unwilling to testify in court to being such willing dupes, Alan may have been able to carry out his scam for as long as Kubrick was alive. Unfortunately for him, he tried to pretend in front of the New York Times' Frank Rich and that led to him being publicly revealed. But losing the con that was his life turns out to be just another opportunity for Mr. Conway.

I was never bored watching this movie and it's not badly made to any degree. I also didn't laugh once during the whole thing, though smiles were frequent, and it didn't leave me with any sense of who Alan Conway was, why he did what he did or any desire to find out those answers for myself. That's because Color Me Kubrick is one of those comedies that's more wry than funny and I don't think the people who made it were more than superficially interested in those answers.

John Malkovich has done enough comedy by now that it's no surprise to see how good he can be at it. I would say this film shows him to be more a great actor who can comedy or drama, rather than a great comedian. His performance here, with the different accents and personalities he gives Alan's pretense, is excellent but limited by the somewhat shallow nature of the material. Malkovich can't make something funnier here than it was on the page, where here it clearly wasn't that funny in the first place. The vast majority of this motion picture is the same blunted punch lines over and over again.

1. Look how silly Malkovich is acting!

2. Look how gullible these people are to believe this guy is Kubrick!

Which gets at the fundamental deficiency in this production. Neither writer Anthony Frewin nor director Brian W. Cook appear to care a whit why Alan does what he does or why he's able to get away with it. I don't get the sense from this movie that either of them spent even 30 seconds talking to any of the people conned by the real Alan or any of the people who knew Alan as Alan in real life. These filmmakers were certainly amused by how Alan fooled so many or else they never would have bothered with this story. However, I don't think they were interested in it as anything more than dull-witted mockery of people the filmmakers think aren't as clever or sophisticated as they are. Every single victim of Alan's, except one, is dumbly entranced by the lure of celebrity in the same way. The one exception is a psychiatrist who's even more addlebrained than that.

If you like Malkovich, especially when he's funny, you might find Color Me Kubrick passable. There's nothing here for anyone else.

Who knew 82 minutes could last this long

[theericconrad · 3/10 · 26 March 2007]

I went to this picture with the hope that -- if nothing else -- watching John Malkovich play a highly troubled delusional queen with a genius for manipulation and an obscene fashion sense would be enough to keep me entertained for an hour and change. It wasn't.

The flick's barely worth analyzing; it's simply a mess, handled so poorly that Malkovich's moments of comic mastery are lost in a sea of poorly executed photography, tepid writing and haphazard form. While director/prod Brian Cook was one of Kubrick's assistant directors we see that little to no talent ever rubbed off - things get so bad that one clings to the often forced and clumsy musical/visual homage's to the genius' work to at least quell that nagging voice that won't stop whispering "you spent eleven dollars on this...you spend eleven dollars on this..."

To say nothing about the quality of acting, photography, writing, form, pace, etc., one can credit Color Me Kubrick as a charming premise, but one gone sodden and awry with mediocre film-making.

Brilliant work by Malkovich

[kmziebart · 8/10 · 26 March 2007]

I have to say, after years of seeing Malkovich receive critical acclaim for acting roles in which he seemed to do little more than portray himself, I had pretty much written him off as another one of those American actors whose sole talent lay in having a charismatic persona. I gained renewed respect for him when I saw the priceless, "Being John Malkovich" - which, although not a film to challenge the former accusation, certainly showed that he had a sense of humour about himself and his established "persona". But with "Colour me Kubrick", he deserves full credit - both for allowing himself to appear absolutely ridiculous on film, and for a performance in which he truly transforms himself (multiple times) to portray the grotesque, yet strangely endearing character of Alan Conway. It's a fantastic performance that renews my belief in his skill as an actor. The film itself is cleverly written and well-executed, with excellent performances by all supporting characters. If it weren't for the many, hilarious sub-plots, involving Conway/Kubrick's hapless victims (all of whom, in some way, deserve what they get), the main plot - which is indeed a rather thin premise on which to base an entire film - would have grown tiresome quickly. As it is, the film probably couldn't have stood to be five minutes longer, and ended rather weakly. However, for what it was, it was very entertaining. As a small footnote: very surprising is the - totally uncharacteristic, and as a consequence, quite enjoyable - soundtrack work by Bryan Adams, usually known for his cheezy, lighter-waving, nausea-inducing rock-ballads. Since when does he make music like this?

What's The Point

[ewarn-1 · 1/10 · 3 May 2007]

Either DVDs have created too many niche markets, or big time filmmakers have become so disengaged from public tastes that they're willing to come up with anything and shove it in our faces, thinking we will find interest in things that are just not interesting.

In recent times, Sean Penn filmed a story about a psychopath who tried to hijack a plane and crash it into Washington D.C. It was based on a true story about a nasty creep who only caused a lot of people trouble and killed some men. Did he rate a motion picture being filmed about his life? No. What was the point, except arrogance on the part of the filmmakers.

Colour Me Kubrick is the same type of story, about a nasty little loser who pretends to be someone else because A.) He wants free drinks B.) he's a nasty little loser, or C.) he wants free drinks. That's it. That's the whole story. Funny? No. Interesting? No. Sad? Only in that so much money was wasted on this project.

If you're interested in Stanley Kubrick, there is no reason to watch this film, it really has nothing to do with him. The thief who uses his name has no interest in Kubrick or even watches his movies. Generally, the whole thing is a waste of time.

Could have been, Should have been ...much better.

[CinemaHound · 3/10 · 13 December 2006]

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.