Your tone reminds me of another poster on this message board whose 50-plus responses long thread got deleted somehow.
The poster claimed to be a screenwriter but didn't divulge his credentials but he was on this snarky rant about Charlie Kaufman's tiring style and how he was sick of his pretentiousness, even though he couldn't cite any specifics from "Adaptation" or "Eternal Sunshine".
You say he has egocentric desires, but what do you mean by this? Is it because he parsed a bit of his autobiography into the main character? Hello, that's an old trick utilized by writers, directors, painters, and actors for centuries.
(`
i
).)^

jharkey is the worst.
Anton Chigurh is dead and Spider-Man 3 is superior in every way to Funny Games.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

I think jrblues16 summed this up quite nicely (see the 3rd post)
Charlie Kauffman is just a really clever writer
I didn't even know where Bruges was
Its in Belgium

I wonder, would it be different for the OP if the lead character had not been named "Charlie Kaufman"?

This message has been deleted.

ooo come onif someone makes bad movies is fooland if someone makes good movies is egocentric and trying to look clever? ..just throw into a hole dude u.u at least he is not michael bay or uwe boll xDD

You're a tool, did you ever think that in bashng his ability to be 'clever,' that you are simply trying to do the same thing as him but with less merit? I mean, what you're complaining about his 'look at me be over-analytical isn't it odd and entertaining,' is what you are doing on this post as you sound elitist and believe your opinion trumps anyone's (as if it isn't a debate of preference). This big difference of course he is creating a work of art that stimulates the mind. Meanwhile, you are using his fame to deliver your debatable and ill-fitting 'critique,' via an internet webpage. Hey, you are free to your opinion. Just as everyone else is. But honestly, you pouring a pile of beep on a successful writer will probablly take you less farther than you think.111c At the very least it may bring you some twisted pleasure, but it doesn't change the fact that other people like himask his Oscar haha.

You're a tool, did you ever think that in bashng his ability to be 'clever,' that you are simply trying to do the same thing as him but with less merit? I mean, what you're complaining about his 'look at me be over-analytical isn't it odd and entertaining,' is what you are doing on this post as you sound elitist and believe your opinion trumps anyone's (as if it isn't a debate of preference). This big difference of course he is creating a work of art that stimulates the mind. Meanwhile, you are using his fame to deliver your debatable and ill-fitting 'critique,' via an internet webpage. Hey, you are free to your opinion. Just as everyone else is. But honestly, you pouring a pile of beep on a successful writer will probablly take you less farther than you think. At the very least it may bring you some twisted pleasure, but it doesn't change the fact that other people like himask his Oscar haha.

Actually I agree with the OP- specifically about Adaptation, as I'm not going to judge a guy for trying to be clever, and maybe falling short in his other films.
I'm specifically talking about the fact that the entire movie was about how interesting his "odd" behavior is. I'm not saying the guy isn't somewhat clever, but I AM saying that I was done being TOLD he was so interesting and special and clever about 20 minutes into the film.
The friend who recommended Adaptation to me is very similar to Kaufman, and has this same thing going on- he wants everyone5b4 to find him so strange and creative- and it's not as if he isn't. But why do they feel like they need to force the point?

This seems to be the complaint for anyone who feels substandard in the face of someone intelligent. The same I think can is said about Woody Allen, Richard Linklater, Ingmar Bergman, Stanley Kubricknot about educationbut about the amount of symbolism, imagery, and thought that is involved in their works. It couldn't be that someone is intelligent and they make works that mean something to them, it has to be that they're reaching for the Pretentious to show their ability and show their intielligence. I think this is more revealing about those feel that way, rather than those who write and create that way. If you watch an Eric Schaeffer film you see pretentiousness and egomania, you can feel it in all the dialogue and, like it's always said, "It's better to let someone think your stupid than to open your mouth and confirm it," he opens his mouth and confirms it.
5b4
People that criticize films for being smart, that are actually smart, seem to lack the knowledge, and for intimidated by it. It must be the writer and filmmaker, it can't be them. This is a cop out. And simply untrue. Kaufman's work are intelligent, funny, and entertaining, because that's just the way he writes.

What's wrong with art being an exploration of self? Certainly if a writer (and many do) wrote about personal experiences in a novel or stage play you wouldn't condemn them for trying to be 'clever'? Kaufman just happens to work in the realm of film writing, and by the nature of how films are seen, more people see them than read books. I agree with everyone else on here that his work in the past ten years or so has been some of the most strikingly original and heartfelt to come out of Hollywood. That he and his directors have been able to translate something unique and personal in a system that tends to fetter out individuality and life experience should be applauded, no matter how you feel about it.

I caught that snippet, too. So meta!

About 38 minutes into part four of Wired's 2.5 hours interview with Kaufman he specifically mentions THIS "One Man Self Promotion Machine" comment and how he feels about it.
Seriously. He went onto IMDB, read this thread, and gives his thoughts in the interview. Listen here: http://blog.wired.com/storyboard/2008/09/the-complete-in.html

This message has been deleted.

I strongly disagree. I appreciate Kaufman's desire to create something ORIGINAL. If you'd actually payed attention to Adaptation, you'd see that he's tired of the terrible predictable movie Hollywood's been making over and over again for decades, much like Donnie's screenplay in the movie, "The 3."
He's developed his own style, something inimitatable, impressive, and enjoyable. You could say the same about David Mamet, as he created his own style and has used it in novels, screenplays and theatre pieces.
He's not trying to be recognized as clever, he IS clever, and he's found a niche for showcasing his talent. You can't assume that everyone who's good at something is trying to show off. I admire Kaufman for finding what he likes and is good at, instead of keeping himself in a cubicle, 9-5 job that upper class snobs would deem a "real job."

No he just actually is clever.

that's cool, you have your opinion.
I found Being John Malkovich very entertaining and quite an interesting idea indeed.

I have to disagree on the idea that he makes good movies. I wouldn't care that he comes across as an egomaniac if his movies were good.

well whatever his reasons are for writing the way he does they still make good movies