Years ago I watched and didn't like Being John Malkovich.

I then watched it again years later and I thought it was okay.

Adaptation was sort of okay. It was better on second viewing, although still not anything great.

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind is perhaps one of the worst films I've ever seen with a truly hateful lead character/actor (or both?). I plan never to watch that "film" again. Unspeakably bad.

I bought the DVD of The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind on day of release and really didn't like it at all.

I dismissed Synecdoche, New York and had no interest in it.

Corinne Bailey Rae in this month's Word said she loved Synecdoche and that the critics were preoccupied with the wrong things and missed the point. Her argument was very persuasive and I decided to see the film.

I had a week or so to wait for it to arrive as I was bidding for it on eBay (£4 for a new sealed copy). Out of curiosity as I waited, I watched Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind again. What a borderline great film.

The problem with Charlie Kaufman's films on first viewing is that they are abstract, disjointed, seemingly random and lacking much of a plot. On the second viewing you already know the plot and can see the previously obscure structure (this seemingly random bit will tie in much later with this other bit over here) so the film makes much more sense. Fight Club (not written by Kaufman), for me, is the best example of this. Lots of random scenes and moments on first viewing. Second viewing, once you know the twist, and you find that all those random bits all serve a purpose.

So I watched Synecdoche, New York last night. The first half was a bit dull but okay. The second half was hard going as it ran out of plot and just became an endless parade of complications. I get the impression it would have made a better book than a film as it could truly penetrate the characters and let us know what they are really thinking. It's just a bit too surface level to involve us in their obscure problems.

Clearly the film is deliberately difficult and meant to be hard to take. I refuse to render a final verdict on it until I see it a second time, when all the pieces might fall into place. Since I don't yet have an opinion that I trust, I wonder what others here make of it?

I came across this yesterday before I watched the film:
"[Kubrick] always looked to achieve a type of perfection that is impossible. He took it to an OCD like degree, where he just couldn't let go of his films. By shooting gazillions of takes he was left with so many options that it made editing close to impossible. It's a common thing with artists, but Kubrick was an extreme case.

One reason I liked Synecdoche New York so much was because it was a satire on that type of artist (a theatre director here) who can never let go of his creation."

http://www.thedvdforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=589339