ewarn-1 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.

Roland E. Zwick "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.

D A 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.

CinemaHound 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.