MovieChat Forums > Alive (1993) Discussion > What's the reason for John Malkovich's i...

What's the reason for John Malkovich's inclusion?

posted 4 years ago by TheGutterMonkey (302)
2 replies | jump to latest

First off, I've loved this movie ever since I was a kid and have watched it numerous times over all these years. But I think even when I was little, the Malkovich parts always sorta made me cock my head and go "huh... weird".

I never really dwelled on it too much, as it's such a tiny part in the film, but it feels so out of place with everything else when I see it. The moody atmosphere of it, with that black background and the cigarette smoke, Malkovich's ominous delivery, not to mention how completely different he looks and behaves compared to Bruce Ramsay, who portrays his characters younger version. And who is he talking to? He comes off like an evil villain in an interrogation room. It just feels like it belongs in a completely different film than this.

If this part was done by an actual survivor from the real-life crash, or if it was narration only and we never saw him on screen, I could've been a bit more forgiving about the tone difference, I suppose. But as it is, it just seems like a bizarre addition.

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

As a kid I believed it was the actual survivor, when I rewatched it as an adult I was like ‘ooh.. Malkovich… what’s he doing here?’

He delivers it really well, and maybe this came out before In The Line Of Fire had made him a household name, but yeah, he’s the least South American looking guy ever and doesn’t resemble his younger counterpart at all.

It’s a strange choice but I don’t mind it, more Malkovich is always a good thing.

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 3 years ago

Malkovich was already a well-known character actor by that point, so his inclusion lends some gravitas to the film -- we know it's going to be a creepy, disturbing experience from the outset (as if the premise alone didn't make that point)