Naturaleza humana

'Human Nature' will inevitably be reviewed in comparison to 'Being John Malkovich', and the comments will be along the lines of 'less coherent', 'not likely to be as commercially successful', etc. But should these be reasons to NOT see this movie? Only if you want to miss the most intelligent movie to come out since BJM. Forget 'A Beautiful Mind', which gives the appearance of intelligence by flaunting pseudo-guru math, but was just another sappy tale of 'the triumph of the human spirit'.

What makes 'Human Nature' and BJM a cut above the usual cinema drivel, is that they actually attempt to get into some serious philosophical issues. BJM delves into personal identity, while 'Human Nature' digs even deeper into the realm of our underlying... human nature. What makes human nature any better than animal nature? civilization? language? manners? And do these distinctly human features actually make us better, or just different, or different in a bad way... i.e. by making us lead dual lives, tearing our originally united being into inharmonious halves (subjective/objective)? And can we simply unite our duplicitousness by forgetting language, civilization, and manners... by returning to nature? Or, with a philosopher who gets an intensional nod in 'Human Nature', Wittgenstein, are we stuck in language, forever banished from the garden of eden?

This movie raised all of these questions, and more, for me... which is what I expect out of a good movie: not only does it entertain us, but it invites us to join in the entertaining. By posing these questions, it challenges us to answer them, and to ask our own questions of it... which means that we have to see it again in order for it to continue the dialogue. Now that's what I call interactive movie-going. Philosophy has started some great stuff in history: religion, government, science. So I think that's its not asking too much for movies to engage in philosophical debates and trying to include the audience, rather than thinking of the audience as fodder for the box office.

"Human Nature" is a comedy written by "Being John Malkovich's" Charlie Kaufman and it doesn't fail to carry the distinct aroma of his previous film. The film explores our so-called "primal urges" and our need to live naturally with deep consideration of those urges.

Patricia Arquette plays Lila Jute, a human naturist who has a little problem. She is suffering from a hormonal balance that causes her to be abnormally covered with body hair. While this does not pose much of a concern for her personally, it does for everyone else and more specifically, men. After getting fed up with the world, she decided to live in the forest amongst the animals and write best-selling nature books. However the animal in her begins to miss the precious company of men and so she returns to civilization. Lila shaves her body hair and begins a somewhat odd relationship with Nathan Bronfman (Tim Robbins). Nathan happens to be an etiquette scientist who tries to teach mice and Lila table manners. One day, Lila and Nathan come across an untamed man (Rhys Ifans) who was raise by a father who believed himself to be a monkey. That man is later nicknamed Puff. The Puff creature happens to be the perfect subject for Dr. Nathan Bronfman as he changes Puff's wild ways to more more cultivated conduct. Lila is left torn between lying about her "human nature" or embracing her urges and running wild.

Perhaps I'm as prude as Tim Robbins's character, however there is no appreciation of the refined gross-out humor in my sight. It appears as though the crude humor found its way into the movie for no reason other than the fact it could. Luckily the film makes up for that in very unique cinematography. The interesting camera angles and settings take away a bit from the numerous unnecessary masturbation jokes and bodily fluid gags. There were many other ways that such a creative team of filmmakers could have coped with them in a more substantial manner and prevented their detraction of the finer aspects of the movie.

The finer aspects of the film include the brilliant acting from some of the somewhat less familiar faces in Hollywood. Actress Patricia Arquette creates a character that is believable, originative and daring. She inhibits Lila with great ease and manages to push all the right buttons to make her tick just the right way. Rhys Ifans fills Puff's shoes with more content than expected. While he is able to add much to the film due to his comedic nature, there are a few points in the film where Rhys is able to show even greater depth. Both actors make great counterparts.

At times obscene and at others strange, the comedy manages to tackle some more thought-provoking issues, outside of humping. "Human Nature" discusses issues of evolution, the human desire to blend in and what it really is that makes us human. It walks through a somewhat slow and unstructured journey that imprints the difference between civilization, monkeys and mankind.

Despite its charms, "Human Nature" is not what it could have been. It does not live up to its potential because the filmmakers decided to make too many hollow & irrelevant stops and too few truly important ones. In the end, "Nature" is daring, well acted, unique, intelligent in spirit and very very crude.

Grade: C

I don't know what's happening with the votes on this movie. It IS really great. May be people just get offended by lots of nudity in this picture? Why to bother? It's VERY thought-provoking, extremely smart, funny and in a same way sad. I prefer it over Eternal Sunshine sometimes. Really great story about how hopeless we all are. A bit farce, a bit comedy, and great philosophical meaning. Why don't we live in forests? Why don't we try to be free? Why do we live in this world of steel and plastic? Just think about what questions do Kaufman movie rise.

Being John Malkovich .. is pretty shallow, not strong work. I still adore it, but it's worst Kaufmans work for me, though it's extremely original.

Adaptation brings out greatest thoughts about movie-making, about human relations, about creativity and Hollywood, about mainstream and real art. And the funny thing Adaptation even mocks about itself. Great script.

Eternal Sunshine is mainly about love, destiny and memories. Nothing else there. Though i have to admit it's a perfect script.

Human Nature is an anti-human, Greenpeace-pro movie... till the very end. It mocks humanity sometimes, but mostly talks about how self-important we are, how ungracious to the nature around us. But the end ... Well, wont write spoilers here.

This movie is a skeptical answer for all those hopeless romantics out there. And i think it's a great symbiotic relationship. Romance and skepticism.

This is further proof that writer Charlie Kaufman is probably the most unique writer in show business and he's developing into quite the cult figure. This odd story is about a woman named Lila (Patricia Arquette) who's body is covered with hair and at the age of 20 she retreats into the wilderness to hide and she writes nature books to make ends meet. But after some time she decides to leave and get electro-dialysis because she gets horny. Her friend hooks her up with a shy and repressed scientist named Nathan (Tim Robbins) and they hit it off. Then while on a nature walk they discover a man (Rhys Ifans) living in the wilderness who thinks he's an ape. They take him back to Nathan's lab where he is going to teach him to be human. Only Kaufman could come up with such a ridiculous story and make it redeemable. The film is directed by Michel Gondry who is known for directing several of Bjorks videos and he makes his feature film debut here. I think the film works because Kaufman makes sure the viewer is not to take this seriously but at the same time the humor is not presented in an over the top way like some cheap attempt at laughs. The humor is more dry witted and it reminded me a little of something Albert Brooks might have thought of. Another thing I enjoyed was the performance of Arquette. She's the core of this film and it should remind everyone that she is able to carry a film by herself and that she's a very underrated actress. I've always been a big fan of hers and she's just not used in films enough. She does appear nude but she seems fine with it and she should, she looks great. The film wants to ask the question about sex and the difference between humans and animals and the environment we are all brought up in. When the film was over I wasn't sure what to make of it but once I found out that Charlie Kaufman wrote the script an immediate smile came across my face. Knowing he was behind this odd comedy seems to make all the sense in the world!

After perusing the other viewers' comments on this site and noting the plethora of pertinent sociological questions that arise from the viewing of this obviously intellectual piece of cinematography, I can't help but notice that the most obvious question of all has not yet been touched upon, therefore, I will ask it now.

If you were locked in a room with Patricia Arquette and an electric grooming shear, would you shave her body before making love to her?

Maybe the reason this question has not yet been asked is because the answer is so obvious it pretty much goes without saying. That answer is, of course, no. If you were to buzz-cut Ms. Arquette's body with such a tool, you would, without any doubt, leave a stubble that would be rough and scratchy, causing you so much discomfort during the act of intercourse that the whole experience would inevitably become somewhat unpleasant, relatively speaking.

Leaving her hairy, on the other hand, would give you the sensation that you were rolling around with a large, fluffy dog...a feeling which could only add a new measure of pleasure to the whole coital experience. This should not be construed as bestiality, being that the "fluffy-dog" sense of pleasure would be separate from the "doing Patricia" feeling of prurient ecstasy, which means the whole scenario could be pulled off guilt-free.

That would be superb, especially for me, being that I have been totally hot for this particular actress ever since I saw her in True Romance. I would be happy to be in bed with her even if she was a toothless quadruple-amputee covered with hair from her head all the way down to her...uh, never mind.