I Heart Huckabees

[Ghostboy]

While I take a glass half full approach and wasn't disappointed by the movie, I think I sort of can agree with themodernage on his opinion, without necessarily sharing it. Except on these points:

a. the movie is not at all amateurish
b. that there should ever have been any comparisons to PTA at all, save for the score

Anyway, here's my full review.

[modage]

the more i've thought about this movie today, the more i think it was probably just plain bad and i was in denial last night.  my shock at the initial letdown was so great that i was being nice and trying to make excuses for the movie.  but i really think i dislike it despite its best efforts.  i guess i meant amateurish in the fact in how badly i thought he mishandled the movies ideas.

[RegularKarate]

Well, I'm torn in my reaction to this film.

I certainly wasn't disapointed because I didn't expect greatness (I knew people would want to much from this movie, considering the reaction to Three Kings... which is good, but slightly overrated).  

Now... I think this movie was GOOD.  Which makes it surprising that so many people have reacted the way they have.  I think you kids were expecting too much and were disapointed.  

This movie only tried a little too hard (my MISprediction was that it would try WAY too hard and therefore end up sucking)... it had some great laughs... see, because it's a pretty light-hearted comedy... I don't think it was really going for much more than that.  Just because it involves existentialism doesn't mean it's a heavy drama or even a "thinker".  If you look at it from the right point of view (the one I think it was going for) it's just a light hearted comedy that works pretty well.

No oscars here... no three disk dvds... probably not even a second viewing, but a good film.

[Pozer]

Now... I think this movie was GOOD.  Which makes it surprising that so many people have reacted the way they have.  I think you kids were expecting too much and were disapointed.  

exactly.
I really enjoyed it. I love having my mind toyed and boggled with, playing on my nerves and all that (just like when I dream). I love that I don't know what it was exactly. I was attracted to the characters and was entertained by all.
And may I add that this is Marky's best work next to Boogie Nights. He was highlarious.

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

So I go to pick up an application at the local theater, and they have these I Heart Huckabees stickers in the window and they have this huge stack os I Heart Huckabees posters and I'm extremely excited to see it, so I grab a poster (or 4, but who's counting) and they tell me they might NOT get it.  They don't know when they should get it, and there's a possibility that they won't.

Bastards.

[cine]

I will be seeing this on friday.

[Weak2ndAct]

Just saw it.  To my surprise, I actually enjoyed it quite a bit, but-- and this is a huge BUT-- I was a little disheartened by the sloppiness of the direction.  I can't count the number of times I noticed an awkward cut, continuity error, or bad ADR (sometimes bridging scenes or to make up for the fact that someone wasn't even filmed delivering dialogue!).  I'm all for improv and freewheeling, but not when it hampers the movie's aesthetics.  But still, I can't deny the joy and laughter I had during many of the scenes (the African guy, any scene with Wahlberg-- especially the Richard Jenkins dinner scene, Law's breakdown).  And how can you not take some sick delight in SPOILER a film that shows Max Fischer slamming Isabelle Huppert's face in the mud, then fucking her from behind?  Well... I did at least.

[Mesh]

its just so awkward and amateurish.... there seemed to be a lot of halfbaked ideas that made a weird as hell incoherent movie.....he just didnt have a handle on the thing...... its really not even that entertaining.  i dont think it will have a very good rewatchability, like i dont know that i want to see it again.

Disagree strongly with all of this.  Every single shot had something entertaining or quirky in it, totally fun to watch, will become moreso on repeat viewings.  Nothing is halfbaked either, every scene fits the "existential dilemma" profile, there's not a shred of incoherence (plot/script-wise, on the direction/cinema art side, yeah, see below) but go ahead and point out what you felt did not "cohere."

a. the movie is not at all amateurish
b. that there should ever have been any comparisons to PTA at all, save for the score

a.  Agreed.
b.  Dude, did you even see the early scene where Schwartman's lost in the office building-white-halls-and-doors maze?  How could you not see Punch-Drunk Love in that?  Barry was searching for the girl that'd give his fucked life meaning; Albert was searching for people to search for his existential meaning for him.  Brilliant.

Other PTA touchpoints:

- Ensemble cast
- Wahlberg as Alpha Male (one of them anyway) who descends into existential sorrow (totally uses Boogie Nights as background)...

Maybe I'll come up with more.

I was a little disheartened by the sloppiness of the direction.  I can't count the number of times I noticed an awkward cut, continuity error, or bad ADR (sometimes bridging scenes or to make up for the fact that someone wasn't even filmed delivering dialogue!).  I'm all for improv and freewheeling, but not when it hampers the movie's aesthetics.  

This I have to regretfully agree with 100%.

[modage]

i wasnt talking about the way it was shot that made it amateurish, i was talking about what a mess of storytelling the movie was.  the characters were all cartoons, and yet the movie wasnt that funny.  it didnt have much of a point and wasnt all that entertaining.  dustin hoffman and lily tomlin were totally wasted with only had a handful of lines or anything to actually do, most of which was in the trailers.  the movie seemed like a waste of time.  it didnt go anywhere, it didnt mean anything and it didnt do anything for me but make me disappointed.  i agree with most of this...

I went to see "I Heart Huckabees" at the Toronto Film Festival. It was on the screen, and I was in my chair, and nothing was happening between us. There was clearly a movie being shown, but what was its purpose and why were the characters so inexplicable? Individual moments and lines and events in "I Heart Huckabees" are funny in and of themselves. Viewers may be mystified but will occasionally be amused. It took boundless optimism and energy for Russell to make the film, but it reminds me of the Buster Keaton short where he builds a boat but doesn't know how to get it out of the basement. The actors soldier away like the professionals they are, saying the words as if they mean something. Only Wahlberg is canny enough to play his role completely straight, as if he has no idea the movie might be funny. The others all seem trying to get in on the joke, which is a neat trick. I will award a shiny new dime to anyone who can figure out what the joke is.

Movie disasters (not to be confused with disaster movies) come in many styles. There are the leaden, twelve-footed monsters ("Pearl Harbor," "King Arthur"), the relentless whirligigs ("Men in Black II," the remake of "Planet of the Apes"), the attempts to wash the audience's brains out with pedagogic soap (the collected work of Lars von Trier). And then there's the special case of the film that goes so far into obsession that moviegoers are left staring at the screen in veneration or disbelief. David O. Russell's "I ♥ Huckabees" is definitely one of the latter. It's a comedy of the manic school, in which the characters, skittering along the edges of the frame, speak only about Big Ideas, say everything four times, quarrel at the drop of a non sequitur, and have sex in uncomfortable places. There are diatribes, freak-outs, instant revelations, and much talk about "your perception of reality." In the sixties, "Huckabees" might have arrived on the wings of hash, but Russell, in his jabbering, everything-going-on-at-once way, is not searching for the ineffable. Nor is he trying to be hip. He seems, on the contrary, to be searching for answers. He throws in visual divertissements in which people's eyes leave their faces and float in the air—digital surrealism by way of Man Ray and Manfred Kriegelstein—but, in the end, he wants to put those faces back together. Russell and the screenwriter Jeff Baena garble their philosophical themes, goosing them for comic effect, yet in some daft way the movie is serious, which may be the most curious thing about it. "Huckabees" is the real thing—an authentic disaster—but the picture is so odd that it should inspire, in at least a part of the audience, feelings of fervent loyalty.

"I ♥ Huckabees" is Hurricane David O., and there's nothing to do but enjoy the flashes of lightning and wait for the rest of it to blow over.

keep in mind, the first post in this thread was this...

this will rule in 2004.  i cant wait.

[Pozer]

Dude, did you even see the early scene where Schwartman's lost in the office building-white-halls-and-doors maze?  How could you not see Punch-Drunk Love in that?  Barry was searching for the girl that'd give his fucked life meaning; Albert was searching for people to search for his existential meaning for him.  Brilliant.

The scene also reminded me of Tom Cruise walking down the hallway in magnolia cause Shwartsy looks a little like Tommy did in that movie.

[Ghostboy]

Dude, did you even see the early scene where Schwartman's lost in the office building-white-halls-and-doors maze?  How could you not see Punch-Drunk Love in that?

I honestly didn't think of PDL during that scene, but sure, I see the point of comparison. What I meant was that I got vibe of 'this is the next bext thing to PTA until PTA makes a new movie.'

The more I think about the movie, the more I like it -- it exists so purely in its own ideals, it's wonderful. Everything Ebert wrote about in his review -- which were the same things I had trouble with it -- are what I'm growing to appreciate more and more.

[Mesh]

Dude, did you even see the early scene where Schwartman's lost in the office building-white-halls-and-doors maze?  How could you not see Punch-Drunk Love in that?

I honestly didn't think of PDL during that scene, but sure, I see the point of comparison. What I meant was that I got vibe of 'this is the next bext thing to PTA until PTA makes a new movie.'

The more I think about the movie, the more I like it -- it exists so purely in its own ideals, it's wonderful. Everything Ebert wrote about in his review -- which were the same things I had trouble with it -- are what I'm growing to appreciate more and more.

Ebert's review is a lazy, unthoughtful piece of bad-synopsis crap.  I honestly think a lot of it went over his head; he thinks there's some hidden, secret "joke" about it and there's not....not at all.  It's just sophisticated and subtly on-topic at all times.  This is especially dumb of him:

There was clearly a movie being shown, but what was its purpose and why were the characters so inexplicable?

None of the characters or their actions were "inexplicable."  I'd like an example of how they were.

BTW, this is good stuff, gb:

I suspect that filmgoers across the country, in talking about I © Huckabees, will bandy about that horrid word referred to by people when talking about odd things they don't understand: quirky. This movie is most definitely not quirky; it is unusual, but not for the sake of being so. It is very funny, but it also takes its subject matter very seriously.

But I have to wonder why you concern yourself in your review (Ebert's guilty of same) with the film's broader "success"?  I mean, really, who cares? If it works, it works, right? Originality and humor are their own rewards, to my mind.  Cassavetes invented independent filmmaking, but have you ever met an non-film dork who's seen one of his films?  Still, you do good synopsis and make some good points, though I have a core disagreement with you re: the Tommy/Dawn scene.  That's where the film transcends: they fall in love in that moment, find each other, give each other new meaning, if only for a moment.  That moment shows how, yeah, "everything is the same", two people can have the same needs in the same moment, and that's OK.  For a little while, existence (the topic of the film) is good.

[Ghostboy]

But I have to wonder why you concern yourself in your review (Ebert's guilty of same) with the film's broader "success"?  I mean, really, who cares? If it works, it works, right?

At the time I wrote that, I still hadn't decided if it worked. I wasn't sure if Russell was reaching for something different then what I ultimately decided he was trying to accomplish. If it works, it does indeed work, and I'm very quick to hand out positive reviews to movies that display a bold sense of originality -- but I also always try to make sure I seriously question whether or not it could work better. Just a good way to keep one's head sharp, you know.

[Pozer]

keep in mind, the first post in this thread was this...

this will rule in 2004.  i cant wait.

'twas a good post.

[tpfkabi]

i bought the soundtrack today for love of the Brion's song in the trailer.
i have yet to see the film.
DOR thanks Brion for a long time and at the end he thanks PTA for helping him find Brion by using him for his films.