Just got back from a morning screening, and it's a lot of fun - at times, perhaps a little goofy for its themes to carry a whole lot of weight, but still a very enjoyable film. Right now, however, I'm still reeling from the performances. The entire cast is superb (this is probably the goofiest that Hoffman has been in a long time and Tomlin has her moments), but Mark Wahlberg is absolutely amazing. Hopefully, this will be the role that starts getting him a lot more notice.

I can't wait to see what others on here think of the film...

Can't wait to see this one. The trailer looks rather Wes Andersonian in its tone-- the presence of Jason Schwartzman certainly adds to that-- which is always a good thing in my book.

And Mark Wahlberg? Amazing? That's, um, generally not the adjective I use to describe him. Very curious indeed...

There's a definite Wes Anderson feel to it, but the script is very Kaufman-esque. And yeah, I can't believe I called Wahlberg's performance "amazing" either, but it really is.

I somehow didn't realize that Isabelle Huppert is in this movie until I saw the trailer recently. I've never seen her in an American movie, so it should be interesting.

We'll see if this film ever hits theatres in Lincoln.

Todd just posted his review on Twitch...

Bethany wrote:
: I somehow didn't realize that Isabelle Huppert is in this movie until I saw the
: trailer recently. I've never seen her in an American movie . . .

First film I ever saw her in was The Bedroom Window (1987), a Hitchcockian thriller in which she shares a nude bed scene with -- shiver -- Steve Guttenberg. (Like, we see his butt and everything!) (Oh, interesting, I just looked up that film's IMDB page, and apparently it was directed by Curtis Hanson, who went on to direct L.A. Confidential, 8 Mile and Wonder Boys. And before this, he had directed Losin' It, the film in which Tom Cruise, still boasting his baby fat, wanders around all night looking for sex but not getting any -- kind of like Eyes Wide Shut, but 16 years earlier -- before he finally hooks up with Shelley Long, I think.)

The next film I saw her in was Hal Hartley's Amateur (1994). I think the first non-American film I saw her in was The School of Flesh (1998).

It's very buddhist, I thought. Schwartzman and Jude Law are an obvious yin-yang setup as are the Hoffman/Tomlin combo with Huppert. It seems light because there's very little in the way of actual plot - I haven't seen a film as purely idea driven as this in AGES - but I'm pretty sure there's a good amount there to unpack. I need to see it again ...

The Kaufman influence is DEFINTELY there, as are the good Andersons (Wes and p.t.) along with a bit of Jonez, Gondry and I'd even say some Woody Allen.

I saw the trailer, and it looks like a lot of fun, although admittedly trailers are hardly a consistently reliable indicator.

Wahlberg sounds just like Elliot Gould. And Jude Law must be one of the few Englishmen who can do a really convincing American accent. (Gives me an idea for a thread, actually.)

I’m just going to post a chunk of the latest Rex Reed column here, not because I agree with it—well, not all of it—but because it’s so pointed, so strongly worded, that it’s fun to read.

I’m sure it will anger many of you.
--------------------------------------------------------

It’s Anarchy! Film’s New Hacks
by Rex Reed

Kneeling at the trough of psycho-gibberish that has come to symbolize contemporary movies, a piece of crap called I § Huckabees sinks to new depths of incoherent pretentiousness. But I will refrain from labeling it "The worst movie I’ve ever seen!" because, like the proverbial boy who cried wolf, I’ve blurted out that cry of despair so many times, who would believe me? Besides, they just get worse. The sheer volume of lousy movies made by arrogant kids with a lot of attitude and no talent has already reached such capacity level that any critical dismissal on Friday becomes redundant by the following Monday. With so many amateurs who run what’s left of the defunct studios making bad movies that pander to an easy-to-satisfy youth market, and with so many bogus producers who used to be grocery baggers at the A&P always miraculously raising the money to make more, one thing is certain: No matter how rotten the movie is that you just suffered through, there’s another one on its way that is 10 times worse.

And so I § Huckabees may not be the worst movie ever made, depending on how you feel about such hollow, juvenile and superficial trash as Brewster McCloud, Hudson Hawk, Punch-Drunk Love, Mulholland Drive, The Royal Tenenbaums, Lost Highway, Being John Malkovich, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Rob Zombie’s House of 1000 Corpses and … well, as they said in Hollywood during the McCarthy witch hunts, "the list goes on."

The egomaniacal young director-producer-writer David O. Russell is a member of the new group of anarchists that includes Wes Anderson, Paul Thomas Anderson, Spike Jonze, freaky Todd Solondz and the dismally overrated non-writer Charlie Kaufman, who wins critical praise for writing incoherent movies about why he can’t write coherent movies. (Some critics also include Alexander Payne, which is a true insult; in my opinion, he can do one thing none of these other jerks knows how to do—make narrative movies about real people that tell profound stories for a broader and more sophisticated audience. He is miles ahead of the others, and movies like Election, About Schmidt and his forthcoming masterpiece Sideways prove it.) Mr. Russell seems to worship the absurdity of the New Hacks (all style and no content) and especially the neo-Kafka burlesque of Charlie Kaufman. I § Huckabees is an algebraic extension of all of them put together—eccentric but brain-dead—and therefore offers no fresh equation of its own.

So... how does he really feel?

The Royal Tenenbaums and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind in the same sentence/category as Hudson Hawk and House of 1000 Corpses?!? Talk about your blanket statements.

His statements are entertaining, amusing even, but he's so vehement in decrying these "new hack" movies that I find it hard to take his arguments seriously.

So opus. . . how does the humor measure up to the existential humor of "Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead" ? ? ?

Opus: You have not lived. Go. Now.

Visigoth: very different in tone but just as good ...

My review of "I Heart Huckabees" ... written before my interview.

After the interview, I would have written a slightly different review. After all, I *did* miss the detail that the character of Tommy is supposed to be Catholic.

Jeffrey's article is up at CTMovies.

Yeah, it sounds like an interesting conversation. I'm looking forward to reading the entire transcript.

Since they didn't use the photo, I'll have to add it to my Web site tonight, so you can see the larger version of it.

Also, they haven't yet posted a SPECIFIC link to the full transcript of the interview that's up at my Web site. And there's no clue at Looking Closer how to get to it yet, so CLICK HERE and you'll get to it.

Great review Jeffrey, and great interview. Love the moment where you consider answering his question about the pejorative portrayal of Christians, then turn it back on him and get him to say "You're right." Great on-your-feet thinking.

Wow, that was quite the interview. Wonderful, engaging stuff Jeffrey.

Thanks Jeffery for the great interview.
I cannot wait to see this movie.

Great stuff, Jeffrey. Very illuminating.

Agreed. Fabulous interview, Jeffrey.

Agreed. Hats off to you - and I'm glad that the interview explains your new avatar... You had me guessing there for a while.

That interview is hysterical and absolutely priceless. I absolutely live for moments such as those.

Thanks. I'm really glad you all liked it. I walk into those things feeling like I'm going to miss the big question or step on somebody's toes, so when things go well, it's such a blessing. In this case, I don't feel like I had to do much but put on my seat belt and hang on for the ride.

The full transcript is a joy to read. Hats off to you, Jeffery, for your illuminating work.

Awesome -- and they seemed to enjoy it as much as you did!

impressive and fascinating interview, very thought provoking too. I don't know how you pulled that off. Makes me want to see Huckabees now.

Like everyone else has said, great interview. Can't wait to see the movie again (hopefully).

Here's a larger version of the photo from Baena's cell phone:

Well, apparently I remained (well, hopefully not ME) a topic of conversation in the David O. Russell room after I left.

Check out this interview:

http://www.thestranger.com/current/film3.html

(Sean Nelson was the next interviewer after me; I passed him on the way out.)

Man, what a letdown.

Grain of salt, SDG. Look at the source.

Yeah, I know. I'm grateful. I'm hoping what Nelson really meant was that they joked about priests rather than joked about the staff at CT. One joke would make sense, coming from recent headlines and the fact that Russell dressed me up like a priest. The alternative is a rather troubling tangent that sounds more like he turned around and mocked me after I left... something that seems odd, considering how generous he was with me in the interview.

Don't even give it thought, Jeffrey. Waste of time.

I demand a transcript.

I saw a bit of an interview with Mark Wahlberg on Regis and Kelly this morning (don't ask why I was watching), and they had an interesting exchange something along the lines of this:

Regis: So if people go to this movie they'll come out knowing the meaning of life?
Mark: Go to the movie, then go to church. Between that and Jesus, that's all you need.

I actually saw this on Saturday night and have been doing my damndest to keep this movie outta my head. No such luck.

This is, by far, the most complex film I've ever seen. Unlike Marky Mark, I could not find a connection to Jesus or His teachings during the film. I found the film to be quite the opposite.

For me, it's a portrait of a Godless life. A life where one is left to him/herself to find all the answers to the great questions of life. That's why all the characters were so friggin miserable. Heck, it reminds me of modern day society.

On the other hand, the portrayal of the Christian family was dead-on. We are often told by our patriarchs in the church that we should never question God. A very popular Christian slogan was birthed out of this (ignorant) mentality: "God Said It! I Believe It! That Settles It!" That mentality never allows people to grow into the fullness of His intent. You must ask those questions. Finding the answers cements your faith into something real and keeps you from veering into the TBN zone.

Then again, maybe that was the point of the film: to challenge us with the big questions. What does it all mean? Are we all connected? Does everything matter? Does nothing matter? How am I not myself?

Heck...this film ain't so bad after all!

Great interview, by the way! Now I'll get flamed by the holy rollers when I share the news that Marky Mark is a Believer! Let the fun begin!

Apparently, Tommy Corn has a blog.

I doubt it's connected to the film, probably just some fan's doing (much like the supposed Quentin Tarantino blog that popped up a few months ago).

I am late to this party --

Jeffrey. YES. Great comments, wonderful insight, good timing in backing off and letting the interviewee be interviewed.

It's 10:32 pm. I wonder if this film is playing anywhere RIGHT NOW.

-s.

From "Page Six":

DOUBLE-DISSED IN LONDON

THERE was embarrassment to spare for David O. Russell in London the other day. The maverick director hoped to score a few quick laughs at the closing of the London Film Festival by launching into an anti-George Bush tirade before screening his "I ò Huckabees." Russell said he was happy to have been in England on Election Day and said British people were much better informed about politics than Americans. He paused, expecting a huge cheer. Instead, his rabble-rousing was greeted with silence. Russell didn't have much luck later at the Piccadilly nightspot Just St. James, either. Copies of the London Times, the London Film Festival's media sponsor, were being given away complete with a review which gave "I ò Huckabees" just one star out of five, and described the movie as a "damp firework with no fuse."

Saw it last night. Definitely Top 10 material. I thought it flat-out hilarious, and that everybody pretty much gets satirized here. I particularly enjoyed the exchange at the conservative Christian's table--drawing the much-needed link between being a believer in Christ's teachings and being an enviromentalist. Plus, it's got Shania Twain.

Nick

I saw it a few weeks ago, too, and didn't comment because I am still trying to process it. It certainly wasn't a horrible film, and I did like the "seeker sensitive" mentality therein. But unlike Nick, I don't feel it's Top 10 material (noting that this may be more about me than the movie itself. Comedies don't make my Top 10 list unless it's a Comedy Top 10 list. I can't make a serious Top 10 list and pollute it with a comedy.)

[Sidebar: This year I only have about six films on my Top 10 List... I'm actually considering making a Top 5 list, unless things dramatically improve by the end of the year.]

Regardless, here, even if I broke my own rules, I just don't feel the film was strong enough to be on a Top 10 list. There's no real tension, nothing to propel its ideas forward. No driving force. It's much like pop philosophy, as if observing an academic conversation on cable. It makes for an interesting conversation, but not nearly as interesting a film.

I liked the acting, I liked the directing, and it's certainly an entertaining and thoughtful film. Yes, it's me. This is clearly my own problem.

-s.