J'adore Huckabees

There is only one word I can use to describe this "existensial comedy" by David O. Russell: insane. Here is a comedy with no real rules. A sense of brilliant madness lurks within every scene. Emotions run wild, actions are poorly motivated, people have no idea just what the hell they are doing! This is to be said about certain characters played by Jason Schwartzman, Jude Law, Mark Wahlberg, and Naomi Watts. These are characters who are in deep need of answers to their existence, and who are playing with ideas that they are not quite ready to tackle. But then you have Dustin Hoffman, Lily Tomlin, and Isabelle Huppert just kind of watching by the sidelines as the more experienced characters. By the end of the movie I couldn't help but think of how many other clients of theirs went through similar conflicts. That's the ultimate punchline. What a delight I Heart Huckabees is!

This is in no way at all your average comedy. Many philosophical theories are brought up throughout the film, but it's all done in a "fun" way. The film doesn't follow and preach any of the theories, only its characters do. I thought that was important because, well, that's what makes it so funny. It does not take itself seriously.

The acting is very...interesting. You have the younger actors like Wahlberg and Schwartzman really, really trying hard in hilariously over-the-top performances. To the exact opposite of that, you have Hoffman and Tomlin who don't even really try that hard at all. They don't have to. They're pros- actor wise and character wise. This imbalance in mood just adds and adds to the overflowing madness of I Heart Huckabees.

There is a lot of things wrong with the movie that seem to make it funnier and all the more enjoyable to watch. I had a smile on my face through the whole thing. I Heart Huckabees is indeed an acquired taste. People will love it, people will hate it, people will be totally indifferent to it, but I have no doubt that it will find its following.

My rating: 8/10

I suppose the highest reach any artist can have is to create something so carefully placed and shaped that it grows into unknown, unseen corners of the word and absorbs things beyond the artist's reach. Such things — I would call this "real" art — must be a dream for many.

Film makes this harder in a way, because many of the conventions now demand that characters, if not situations, be "real" and that story arcs take predictable form.

So usually what screenwriters play with is the causal dynamics of the world. I only know well one other of Russell's films "Flirting," which seemed as though it was skirting too close to the edges of romantic comedy. That's the territory of Wes Anderson and not capable of doing more than amusing.

This is different, this. Sure, it has large character strokes that are comic, or seem so. But what it does is redefine the world in a way that clarifies and makes for that spongelike quality of real art.

The setup now is that most of the world is wrapped as a character, a large department store chain called Huckabees. The situation deals with folks who support and/or resist it in minor ways. The pretty "voice," the advertisements, the poems, a benefit show, these "folds" in the movie (each a small, similar movie) are played with in very clever ways.

Hoffman's character goes further to isolate the main character from the movie by putting him in a bad so he can get to his inner movie. Another character played by Markie Mark (amazingly well) has had his reality scrambled by 9-11. The two, later joined by the Huckabee's "voice," settle into a search for the form of movie for their lives.

Hoffman and Tomlin represent one cinematic philosophy. Isabelle Huppert — a sort of icon for new new wave European cinema — represents that notion of cinematic wrapping and competes with the "existential detectives," Hoffman and Tomlin for control over our three, four with Laws' character.

They represent that uniquely American notion of having a character in the story, usually a detective literally, that stands between the viewer and the story, in both, unraveling both. They "watch." The story itself isn't strong enough to sustain this fabricated notion, and resorts by the end more and more on simple comedy and strokes from romantic movies. It ends happily, it seems, which is a dangerous flaw.

This does well in its first half in giving us something that qualifies as worthwhile. I does, and I recommend it to you. Its more than mere quirky charm and you really might find your mind, even your soul being competed for.

The last part, all that business about Laws' character, was necessitated so that there would be a story, and actual story so we could justify continuing to watch. But the cost is too high because it negates the tone of the first part. Would Charlie Kaufmann have been clever enough to write his way out of the problem? You can spend the second half of this wondering how, and the first half getting yourself into this delicious dilemma.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

I have to agree with the reviewer who said this film will appeal to a very narrow audience.

If you are a philosophy major or just a major black-clad espresso drinker, you'll probably resent the movie for "dumbing down" existentialism. If you're a regular person looking for a regular comedy to enjoy, please, trust me, skip this film.

But if you're philosophically curious, acquainted with Camus, and like a little vertigo with your comedy, run, do not walk, and pick up this film. For that narrow group, and by no means are they an elite, this is the ultimate feel-good film.

One of the best messed up movies ever. Paradoxically uneven, lame , funny and poignant at various times throughout the entire movie, it is still worth seeing. Boasting an eclectic all star cast who at times make it hard to tell if they are playing it straight or parodying life, it raises existential questions about life that are common to us all.

A series of coincidences bring environmental campaigner Albert Markovski to the existential detective agency of Bernard and Vivian, who he contracts to delve into his life. Looking at his work situation they find him in contest with Huckabees' corporate marketing man Brad Stand, who has hijacked Albert's Open Spaces campaign to get free publicity for the store. Meanwhile Bernard and Vivian's other client Tommy Corn, is struggling to stick to their ideas and is swayed by the teachings of Caterine Vauban. With everyone having their lives broken down and examined, the investigation continues.

I wasn't sure what to make of this film before I saw it and I'll be honest and say I have just as little idea when I left it. The plot is all over the place and will totally frustrate those who attempt to find something in the narrative. The ending comes and I was none the wiser and would have struggled to really talk about the meaning in the film even right after it ended. Of course to me this wasn't that important because I think the film wasn't out to be a deep spiritual affair that would touch your soul in a deep way. I say this because the film seemed to mock the characters at the same time as allowing them to be interesting and involving. It is a strange effect and I don't think I'm doing it justice but it worked for me.

For many viewers the plot will be annoying because it is more about the people rather than a set story; however for many others (me included) it will work as a wonderfully witty little story that is enjoyable to watch – enjoyable to the point that I was able to forgive it so much. The comic tone is so well delivered and the script is so consistently original and clever that it is hard not to like it. I am finding it hard to put into words but then maybe that is part of the appeal – it is impossible to pigeon hole and many will find pleasure if the sheer force of its originality. The character focus here really works because the characters are very well written – a bit over the top perhaps but, having worked in both the corporate and charitable side of environmental groups, I recognised a lot of the people in the film and liked the way the script both mocked them and liked them too.

The cast really do well with the material and it must have been a certain leap of faith to entrust such a cult script to become a good film. Schwartzman is well cast and he really suits the weird comic tone of the film. Law is better because he seems to have a character that I found easier to identify with. Wahlberg is also pretty good and I liked the force of conviction he had behind his words. Tomlin and Hoffman are both kooky rather than characters but they made it work – they may have been the heart of the film but it was wise to make the other characters the focus. Watts is really good (I shudder to think what would have happened if the Brittany rumours were true) and there are host of good little cameos from all sorts of people.

Overall this is a very strange film and it is not one I could pretend to know all about or understand. The plot is messy and really needs you to be in the mood for it but to the right viewer it can be a wonderfully fun character piece. The direction is great, with clever, imaginative touches and a score that is obvious but does suit the quirky tone of the film. An acquired taste perhaps but one that really appealed to me and one I really enjoyed as I watched it, even if I was left a little bewildered by the whole thing.