just finished watching. why did this get savaged by so many people? i thought it was pretty good. in fact until the 1 hour 10 minute mark i thought it was really, really good. then it got stupid for a while, but the last 10 minutes were pretty good again. it is a genuinely quirky film, one that comes by its quirks honestly, through asking questions it sincerely means (even if the answers don’t end up being very interesting)–unlike, say, via formal whiz-bangery like so much charlie kaufman. (actually this film reminded me of my favorite kaufman written film, “human nature”.) and some really good performances too: jason schwartzmann (looking like someone shrank luke wilson) and mark wahlberg in particular.
anyone else seen it? i recommend it.
I think this is a great cosmic comedy. The film made me laugh but it also moved me on a variety of levels. Yes, I laughed and cried (not like a baby, more like a middle-age school teacher watching second graders struggle valiantly to read their first paragraph aloud in front of the class). I thought the script was smart and that scene at the suburban home of evangelicals was one of the greatest sequences of the year. I got this from netflix the other day but decided not to watch–think I’ll buy the two-disc DVD next time I’m at Target.
I had hoped for more scenes like the dinner-table exchange Jeff mentioned. As in “Flirting with Disaster” (a better film, I think), the dialogue sounded like Harold Pinter on laughing gas, remade by Howard Hawks, with some script doctoring by Groucho Marx. Okay, I stole that line from an alternate-universe Joel Siegel, the alternate universe where he came to film criticism after working on a ph.d with Daniel Tiffany. (Yet, ironically, in that universe Daniel Tiffany actually does park cars in that little jacket-vest of his.) And I’ll admit that the scene where Tomlin and Hoffman run through the sprinklers was an inspired bit of physical lunacy. That said, the film lacked the cumulative pop of “Disaster”…. Some of the physical bits–fucking Isabelle Huppert in the mud, e.g.–were more labored than loosey-goosey. I liked Huckabees, too, but I withhold the heart on this one.
Still…. yeah–why did this get bashed? I think critics were looking for one of those convenient “year-of” narratives, where in October one begins prepping the annual overview of trends. So “Huckabees” (and “The Incredibles”) get shoehorned into a “Year-of-Political-Divisions,” so that the strange comparator group of “Passion of the Christ” and “Fahrenheit 9/11” can be rehashed again. If you try to read Russell’s film as symptomatic of ‘liberal’ culture, whatever the hell that is, it seems a pallid wash of philosophical noodlings and knuckleheaded gags. Christ loses whole swathes of skin for sins in red-state America, Wahlberg and Schwartzman get balloons to the noggin for the salvation of blue-state America. Shit like that.
Has anyone seen Russell’s documentary about Iraq? The one that got quashed by the studio, after he’d made it? I was hoping it’d get released with “Three Kings”….
I think Huckabees is an intelligent, quintessentially post-9/11 film. It is a messy film but an honest one. Are there others American films out there that push beyond flag waving patriotism to dig deep into the post-industrial cultural malaise the way Huckabees does? That’s what moved me so much about this film–even though it doesn’t reach the dizzying comic highs of Flirting With Disaster or the stinging ironic critique that fueled Three Kings. Thoughts?
it isn’t as funny as “flirting with disaster” or as whole but i think that is because it is more ambitious. it is a “philosophical” film and it doesn’t cover its sincerity up with irony (like reynolds does). a more substantive critique of the film might point that the philosophical question gets framed and answered in a trite manner: “are we all connected or is there no meaning?”, “yes, we are but you have to make the connection yourself”. however, i am willing to forgive this because there are a lot of other pleasures along the way.
Yeah–I agree with your point about triteness: it isn’t the conclusions that seem disappointing. Heck, I wasn’t “disappointed”–I just didn’t laugh as much. Does that mean it’s more ambitious? Well…
I might argue that “Flirting” is sublime. Its comic antics may seem overwhelmingly about the “funny”, shtick and set-up more than structural ambition. But that’s just what it seems; I think “Flirting” is at heart, and I do mean at heart, about romance and connection as close to disastrous for our sense of self, of freedom, of purpose and meaning. For me, its ambitions are so astoundingly realized by the film’s seemingly innocent gameplaying quality. I think it’s better at accomplishing its ambitions, is what I’m getting at.
I think.
I also hate that crap about covering up sincerity with irony, or is it irony with sincerity? A false dichotomy. I feel the same way about Wes Anderson, Jane Campion, and Paul Thomas Anderson–ironic self-reflection IS sincere emotional reflection IS comic formal play IS deep heavy-duty big-league philosophizing. I reject your premise! Bully!
mike, the irony/sincerity thing was mostly to piss you off–you’re so predictable.
but let me now take my own provocation seriously:
i’m not setting up an irony/sincerity dichotomy. i’m noting that some films/directors/writers seem embarassed about their sincerity and seem to use irony much as a defense mechanism. (of course i can’t think of any examples–okay, the tarantino of “pulp fiction” rather than “jackie brown”.) elsewhere, sure, it works as you say.
by the way, from your list, i think paul thomas anderson doesn’t cloak his sincerity at all (i am not a big fan, but for other reasons: can’t take the endless parade of shrieking, hysterical women in his movies). i’ll start a new thread about wes anderson…