eternal sunshine de l'mind spotless..

[grand theft sparrow]

That's what I mean.  That's why Kaufman and Winslet got it right.

[modage]

saw it and loved it.  BUT.
I found Kate Winslett's character to be a bit corny.  It seems like guy screenwriters everywhere constantly struggle with how to write complex female characters so they always just settle for a lot of quirks.  Charlie Kaufman's guys can be quirky for very emotionally complex/ neurotic reasons, but his girls are always very single-minded: penis envy, boundless fascination with one man, or in this case, insecurity.
I think Woody Allen's like the only guy who knows how to write quirky ladies.
But that corniness didn't matter in the grand scheme of things, because the movie is way more about falling in love than about the girl anyways.

also, its all through joels perspective anyways.  so perhaps, the 'real' clementine is a more 3 dimensional person.  this is just how joel sees her.

[grand theft sparrow]

saw it and loved it.  BUT.
I found Kate Winslett's character to be a bit corny.  It seems like guy screenwriters everywhere constantly struggle with how to write complex female characters so they always just settle for a lot of quirks.  Charlie Kaufman's guys can be quirky for very emotionally complex/ neurotic reasons, but his girls are always very single-minded: penis envy, boundless fascination with one man, or in this case, insecurity.
I think Woody Allen's like the only guy who knows how to write quirky ladies.
But that corniness didn't matter in the grand scheme of things, because the movie is way more about falling in love than about the girl anyways.

also, its all through joels perspective anyways.  so perhaps, the 'real' clementine is a more 3 dimensional person.  this is just how joel sees her.

I agree with that.  But it could be argued that that's a cop-out excuse, like how some people think the ending of Adaptation was a cop-out, instead of irony.

[cowboykurtis]

s.

also, its all through joels perspective anyways.  so perhaps, the 'real' clementine is a more 3 dimensional person.  this is just how joel sees her.

this a comment can not apply in this context -- perception is truth -- the viewer percieves through joel's eyes -- you cant refer to a hypothetically "real" celmentine -- this real clementine doesnt exist -- the only existence is joels perception -- thats all were given, thats all that counts, thats all that exists.

[SmellyBoobFungus]

anyone wanna bone clementine when she played joel's house-sitter in that sexy black dress. that was probably one of my favorite scenes in the movie.

[Henry Hill]

just as i thought...i LOVED this film. its been critiqued enough, so i will just give my two     most likely will be in my top 10 of the year as i suspected. the trailer was fucking cool and the movie was fucking cool. i dont care what anyone says jim carrey can act. comedy, drama, what the fuck...he can do it. and yes, i enjoyed The Majestic.

[SHAFTR]

First, storytime.

I wanted to see this movie opening night but because I was with my NCAA Basketball watching friends that night, I went to see Dawn of the Dead.  I had promised my g/f much earlier that I'd see the movie with her.  Now some have been angry about money going to Dawn of the Dead, I simply ask that you see it before you say much more.  I went into not wanting to see it and loved it.

But this isn't about Dawn of the Dead, it's about Eternal Sunshine.  I did go see it with my g/f and I'm glad.  I fell in love, or realized all the reasons I loved her, all over again during this movie.  I kept thinking about what a race through our memories would be like.

As you can probably tell by the emotional impact the film had on me, I thought it was great.  The writing was top notch.  The beauty of Kauffman is to make the most crazy shit happen in his scripts, but the moments between and during the craziness feel so real and genuine.  Gondry's style was funnelled very effectively into the film.  I was a little afraid it was going to be too over the top, with multiple Kylies showing up.  The film felt like a stylized dogme picture.  The documentary style mixed with incredible visuals.  

I'm a huge Jim Carrey fan and that would have been enough for me to see this film no matter who directed it.  I believe he is one of the, if not the best, actor working today.  Looking back at everyones posts and thoughts, Joel is mentioned...not Jim Carrey.  Although his star power is undeniable, he still sinks into his roles and make you forget that this is Jim Carrey.  I agree with all of the Winslett comments on here, she was great.  She fleshed out a character and by the end of the movie, through the disjuncture we could still see her arc.  The supporting roles did what they should do, they supported beautifully but didn't steal the show (which they shouldn't).

Music was great.  Jon Brion scores again.  Question, did Mr Blue Sky play during the movie?  I was disappointed that it didn't.

After seeing the public go nuts over The Passion of the Jesus, and the critics go nuts over Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.  I am reminded of who I trust more.  I hope this movie will build up with word of mouth.  It still won't make that much, and that's fine.  I'm sure everyone involved knew this.   The truth is the public just isn't smart enough to appreciate films like this, or atleast be interested and seeing it.

I have a feeling that this movie will end up being placed in the Punch-Drunk Love category for me.  A film that I am always in the mood and want to watch.  A film that hits me as being more and more powerful with every viewing.  A film who I want to have like a million of it's babies.

PS> One of the worst things about not seeing a movie on opening weekend, having to read through multiple pages about it on here afterwards.

EDIT:
Believe it or not I have more to say.  A couple of lingering questions.
Did Joel have a job?  He did, but what was it?  Call me dumb, but was the film shot in DV?  I forgot to pay attention to that aspect.  

SPOILERS
I realized the beginning was after the procedure very early and I wish that I wouldn't have.

My heart broke each and everytime he lost a memory.

About the end, do you think "ok" meant"
"I don't care that it didn't work.  Maybe it will work this time?"
or
"I know it won't work, but lets atleast enjoy the ride"

Also, the last shot.  Someone proposed that it means their memories get wiped multiple times.  Do you really think that is it?  I had the feeling that Lacuna would fold.  Would they get their memories wiped again if they knew that they had them wiped before?  Which brings up bigger questions, is it really love if it doesn't work out and continues to not work out?
End of Spoilers

[cine]

SPOILERS
About the end, do you think "ok" meant"
"I don't care that it didn't work.  Maybe it will work this time?"
or
"I know it won't work, but lets atleast enjoy the ride"

Answer in white:

I think it could be a mix of both. "Okay, I don't mind that it didn't work out before because maybe it'll work out this time. But hey, if it doesn't work out, at least we can enjoy the ride and cherish our memories together."

[matt35mm]

SPOILERS (highlight):
Joel had a job, which he skipped (called in sick for) at the beginning.  I'm pretty sure that we never learn what it is that he does.  The "Okay" part, to me, just meant "I want to be with you."  Because they were still buzzed for having "just met (again)."

The way I see it, Lacuna does go out of business.  The last shot works in a metaphorical way.  Through the repeating, it simply suggests the idea of going through it again and again and that love always finds its way back to your heart (well, it never leaves) and if one WERE to do it many times, they would still come back to that same spot over and over again.  I didn't take it literally.  Although it could mean that this (what we saw) was the 10th time that it happened (before Lacuna finally went down), but I personally just take it in a larger, metaphorical sense.

[modage]

to SHAFTR: joel was a cartoonist and mr. blue sky did not play during the film.  it was not shot on DV.

[Gold Trumpet]

I understand the praise of this film in regards to those who like this film and had problems with Kaufman's earlier work and am surprised by some people who have come to really like this film (mutinyco, mainly) but even with the improvements I do see in Kaufman's writing here, this film is still as superficial as his other original stories. The biggest plus of this film i that even though it takes longer to explain the gimmick here than it did with Adaptation and Being John Malkovich, the gimmick doesn't intrude as much. I really did feel the story taking over and the gimmick being reduced to interludes of a story that honestly was feeling something for the characters. Pretensious drama still wasn't marked out though. Through out the film Kirsten Dunst obviously had little value to the overall story so I kept thinking her a hot young actress who just wanted to find some way into the new Charlie Kaufman movie. When she was given a *spoiler* dramatic revelation at the end, Kaufman was hitting his usual sour note of desperation to go dramatic beyond what was required. Ruffalo went the entire way of playing a character with almost nothing to do. Wood had importance I guess, but he seemed to be playing a tool character there just to interfere in the main romance. Wilkonson had the chops to play the doctor, but his character outline was too limited to give him his end dramatic moments. The film should have stuck to a portrait on the main two characters.

Then there is the problem with their story. Yes, the film had an achievement of getting lost in the emotions of their relationship and causing us to spin with them through every fight and wild idea, but the film was only looking to the relationship on superficial depths. The film felt like it was handing us the drama on silver platter. It was obvious the characters were niched and carved out to appeal to a certain demographic, to specifically outline pains and traumas through symbolism and flashbacks that couldn't be more obvious. The thought process of this film identifying what these characters stood for and who'd they appeal to took center stage over the creative process of the film losing itself in their ambiguilty, to actually follow the characters in them trying to search for themselves. All we have to wonder about is if we identify ourselves as the misunderstood, brimming with wild ideas, loner. We understand the journey of the characters from point A to B in the first half hour because their profiles are so blatant. The film just has to get to the plot to show us how we're right. The problem with these movies for me is that they seem to feel half of their battle is just in appealing to the right audience. By the way a lot of people responded to the film on this thread, there is a feeling of being rewarded because the film is recognizing their personalities. I saw a lot of my friends and myself in this film, but the reminders were all too blatant to really ring true.

Then there is Kate Winslet and Jim Carrey. Winslet is a fine actress and Carrey couldn't be more overrated. Both seem shackles for the stereotypes they are forced to play. Winslet's definition of character in this film seems to come from confessional scenes while the rest of her scenes are explosions to act against the quiet shyness in Carrey's character so the film can move on with its easy drama. The character profile never becomes focused or tonally whole to create a portrait. Carrey finds himself hidden beneath a chuck most of the time, going unshaven to just fit the personality. His outbursts of emotion show when he wants to act, he is a very general actor who is replaceable by anyone. Too many moments in the film recall the weirdness that is his Hollywood persona, weirdness that beckons to something closer to his own hollywood image instead of playing a character that would be entirely foreign to him.

[cine]

Carrey finds himself hidden beneath a chuck most of the time, going unshaven to just fit the personality. His outbursts of emotion show when he wants to act, he is a very general actor who is replaceable by anyone. Too many moments in the film recall the weirdness that is his Hollywood persona, weirdness that beckons to something closer to his own hollywood image instead of playing a character that would be entirely foreign to him.

Carrey dug deep for 'Spotless'

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Jim Carrey says he couldn't have played the lead role in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" if he hadn't been through some painful relationships.

In the movie, Carrey's character tries to have memories of his girlfriend (Kate Winslet) erased after she's had him wiped from her mind.

The 42-year-old actor, twice divorced, says he dug into his own experiences to star in the film.

"I couldn't really have done it if I hadn't been through a lot. One way or the other. Either you're the one erasing or you're the one being erased, so it's not a pleasant feeling," he said.

When asked if there's a relationship he'd erase from his memory, Carrey said, "I would never tell you. Oh, that would entail me opening up the most crucial intimacy of my life and I can't do that."

[modage]

what i like about GT is that he can write and write without really ever saying anything.

[Ghostboy]

I thought he did a good job this time of explaining what he didn't like about the movie, actually...

[Gold Trumpet]

what i like about GT is that he can write and write without really ever saying anything.

What I hate about this board is exactly that. It is of your opinion I ramble endlessly without making many points that are conclusive, fine, but you don't explain it to give me a fair shake. your comment there is basically a prick comment. People expected me to dislike this film and were ready to dismiss it and move on that I didn't even want to review it. There are no real debates here anymore, just stupid arguments over stupid shit that ends up with people thinking they caused a fight by bringing something up. Its dumb and juvenile and has become the ID of this board.