‘Being John Malkovich’ not so original after all

BEING JOHN MALKOVICH. Directed by Spike Jonze. Written by Charlie Kaufman. Running time: 112 minutes. Rated R.

Lately, it seems as if you can’t open a newspaper or a magazine without being hit with some sort of praise for Spike Jonze’s new movie, “Being John Malkovich.”

“A terrific, original screenplay!” raved the New York Times. “The most excitingly original movie of the year!” gushed Entertainment Weekly. “The year’s smartest, most stunningly original movie!” cheered the New York Post.

Oh, really?

Since the word “original” has apparently lost its meaning in today’s recycled culture, let’s turn to Webster for a definition: “Original: never having occurred or existed before; not copied; fresh; new; novel; thinking or acting in an independent, individual, fresh way.”

Those who read books — particularly the works of Franz Kafka, Lewis Carroll and Jonathan Swift — or those who know movies — particularly those directed by Terry Gilliam and Woody Allen — will know that Jonze, working from a script by Charlie Kaufman, has created nothing original here.

His movie, which stars John Cusack, Cameron Diaz, Catherine Keener and John Malkovich in a fun bit of self-parody, has an unwieldy plot as ridiculous as anything out of “Days of Our Lives.” The film is sometimes enjoyable, sometimes even very funny, but it certainly isn’t one of the year’s best films, as some are leading audiences to believe (unless, of course, you start your best movie list with number 172).

So, then, why is “Malkovich” being considered an original? Perhaps because the film isn’t as easy to define as, say, “Bambi” or “My Friend Flicka.” Our culture has become so used to movies that can be neatly summarized in one sentence, it’s startling when a movie such as this comes along that not only doesn’t follow formula, but which isn’t like everything else in the cineplex.

And that is where Jonze succeeds. He’s taking risks, drawing from established ideas to push against the boundaries of film while experimenting in a cinematic culture that increasingly wants only to play it safe.

To a point, it works; “Being John Malkovich” is certainly one of the year’s more bizarre films (its first 20 minutes are hilarious), but does anyone really want to spend the next 90 minutes roaming around John Malkovich’s head? Not without an antidepressant.

Grade: C+

ON VIDEO

INSPECTOR GADGET. Directed by David Kellogg. Written by Kerry Ehrin and Zak Penn. Running time: 80 minutes. Rated PG.

Disney’s high-tech film, “Inspector Gadget,” fulfills its mission in whipping up enough eye-popping eye candy to delight its intended audience of very young kids.

The film, which is based on the popular 1980s television cartoon, stars Matthew Broderick as Gadget, a half-human, half-robot crime fighter who divides his time between fighting the evil Dr. Claw (Rupert Everett) while blowing some steamy circuits over his beautiful creator, Brenda (Joely Fisher).

At 80 minutes, the film moves swiftly, but it sacrifices any trace of character development. Still, kids won’t care. The film’s chief interest is in entertaining children, who probably won’t mind the endless barrage of product endorsements, the dropped story lines or the gimmicky dialogue.

They’ll be too hooked on Gadget’s gadgets, which Disney wisely unleashes in a flashy, never-ending blitz of computer-generated effects.

Grade: B

Christopher Smith is the Bangor Daily News film critic. His reviews appear each Monday and Thursday in the NEWS, each Tuesday and Thursday on WLBZ’s “NEWS CENTER 5:30 Today” and “NEWS CENTER Tonight,” and each Saturday and Sunday on NEWS CENTER’s statewide “Morning Report.”