have you seen Three Kings? that's a David O. Russell flick and i remember liking that when it came out.
yeah, I remember thinking it was not as bad as I thought it would be...
he's also been in some bad movies. Rock Star was on VH-1 recently and that was laughably bad.
Oh lord, I actually saw this in the theater when it was out. You have to understand my mental state at the time though... I saw Boogie Nights about half a dozen times in the theater and I still believe it's one of the greatest movies ever... so I was all like "THIS IS GOING TO BE AWESOME!!!" (rock star). I think we actually walked out.
I've never understood why so many people say "nothing happened" in this movie, or "it isn't as deep as it pretends to be." There was a clear plot and serious of events. As for being deep, I didn't see it as trying to be some philosophical masterpiece. I think it's just supposed to be a humorous primer in existentialism.
I've never understood why so many people say "nothing happened" in this movie, or "it isn't as deep as it pretends to be." There was a clear plot and serious of events. As for being deep, I didn't see it as trying to be some philosophical masterpiece. I think it's just supposed to be a humorous primer in existentialism.
it's just supposed to be a humorous primer in existentialism.
and therein lies the problem. this is no doubt the grandiose vision that the director and writer had for the movie. but the truth is no one came out of it "knowing" anymore about anything than they did before watching it. I think that's what people are reacting to.
C'mon, you don't think an attempt to make a "humorous primer in existentialism" is sort of a lofty goal for a movie maker? you act like this was supposed to be some brainless romantic comedy. obviously the dudes behind it wanted it to be a lot more.
it's just supposed to be a humorous primer in existentialism.
and therein lies the problem. this is no doubt the grandiose vision that the director and writer had for the movie. but the truth is no one came out of it "knowing" anymore about anything than they did before watching it. I think that's what people are reacting to.
C'mon, you don't think an attempt to make a "humorous primer in existentialism" is sort of a lofty goal for a movie maker? you act like this was supposed to be some brainless romantic comedy. obviously the dudes behind it wanted it to be a lot more.
but it wasn't.
I think you're putting too much thought into this. It's like a textbook introduction, not a dissertation. It's OK that you didn't like it, but making assumptions on the filmmakers' intentions or saying no one got anything from it seems a little extreme.
I'm pissed and can't be arsed to back up my points but I seem to recall the reason why Clooney lost it with Russell on the set of Three Kings was due to the fact that he Russell refused to let Cloonet do his whole eye contact avoidance that was his trademark in ER.
Seems to be that from these clips he's once again been goading the actors into going outside their comfort zones which is alright by me.
In general the last year of quirky indie movies has made me sick to the stomach but I did enjoy Huckabees.
I think it's just supposed to be a humorous primer in existentialism.
david o. russell really took this one seriously and it's why he flipped out all control freak like in that first clip. "I spent the last 3 fucking years of my life on this movie!!!" or whatever he said.
when i say faux-deep, i mean these characters seemed so contrived and superficial. the poet/activist with the moppy hair & the ambitiously dense dialogue. i was kind of insulted because a lot of these details seemed cheap and shallow to me, but they're supposed to be the opposite. i didn't find any of them slightly amusing because i found their quirks so distracting. after i rented the movie awhile ago, i was trying to figure out why so many people liked this movie and stumbled upon this salon review that was so spot on and articulated perfectly my big problem with the movie:
"I Heart Huckabees" is obviously a very personal film for Russell. He admits he has long been interested in Zen Buddhist teachings, and he spent a great deal of time and effort to get "Huckabees" made. But "Huckabees" feels weirdly impersonal; very little love, or even true thought, shows up on the screen. The characters are mouthpieces for concepts and nothing more -- we never understand them as people, which is probably not supposed to matter. What matters, I guess, is Albert's quest, which Russell clearly identifies with. (He co-wrote the script with Jeff Baena.) To paraphrase Jerry Lewis in "Hollywood or Bust," Russell is soiching -- soiching! He dunno what he's soiching for, which is why he's soiching.
Even though Russell thinks he's giving us depth, his depth is all surface: He's written a slapstick philosophy textbook packed with so many gimmicks that we forget what the ideas are in the first place. I hesitate to speak so harshly of a gifted filmmaker whose work I've loved so much: Although I couldn't sit through "Spanking the Monkey," Russell's "Three Kings," one of the great films of the '90s, really is about the urge to extract meaning from absurdity.
But "Huckabees" feels like the work of a man who's sorting out his problems at the expense of the audience. The gags wobble and weave before plooping over sideways, exhausted. The actors (all save Wahlberg, who turns the suffering of his character into something palpable instead of just a jittery haiku) fumble their way along, unclear about who their characters are and what their lines really mean: Tomlin, an actress we don't see on-screen often enough, is wasted here -- her timing is genuinely Zen in a movie that's only conceptually Zen, and the disjunction between the two feels like a cruel joke. Hoffman waddles and mutters through his scenes like a confused ghost. Schwartzman pours nothing but hipster blandness into his character, Law puts visible effort into pulling off a semi-believable American accent, and Huppert stalks around in a couture trench coat, looking dry and pinched. These actors are woiking -- woiking! -- and yet nothing they do works.
it's ironic that Russell has been "long interested in Zen Buddhism teachings" after watching the violent egomaniac melt-down in that clip. Maybe all this discord and tension on the set amongst the cast was the reason why their performances couldn't convince me or suck me into the story
hukabees was corny, and i don't understand the 'marky mark is the new brando' talk.
Well, I don't think anyone's saying that. It's just surprising that dude turned out to be a very solid actor after being Marky Mark. Who knew he survive without the Funky Bunch?
But, I must admit, he's a local. I'll ride for Matt Damon, too.
these characters seemed so contrived and superficial. the poet/activist with the moppy hair & the ambitiously dense dialogue. i was kind of insulted because a lot of these details seemed cheap and shallow to me, but they're supposed to be the opposite.
I guess I understand that. It's for the same reasons I don't really like the Coen brother's films.
I think with Huckabees I thought the shallowness was at least somewhat appropriate, as the whole thing felt like an after-school special, or some sort of film they'd show in a high school health class. If the director went through that much trouble and had such lofty ambitions, I can certainly see why people were disappointed. This is probably a case of me going in expecting something awful and being pleasantly surprised by a lighthearted film.
I guess I understand that. It's for the same reasons I don't really like the Coen brother's films.
I have a similar beef with their films. No heart. However, they more than redeem themselves by making films which are unique, well scripted and beautifully filmed. At least up until Big Lebowski. Every subsequent film seems like someone else trying to make a Coen-esque like film.
I don't really see how Huckabees relates to the Coen Bros. films at all. To me they are apples and oranges. Huckabees was the biggest turd EVAR. Although I must admit I think I made it about 10 minutes into it... I thought it was super corny, and not in any type of good way. But I can't stand Jason Schwartzman (except for Rushmore where he is brilliant), to me he is the new Keanu Reeves. So it's not surprising that I couldn't make it past his performance and get to the rest of the movie.
I don't really see how Huckabees relates to the Coen Bros. films at all.
Then maybe you should re-read the original statement.
Re-read it and still don't get it (your take on it that is). I feel like the characters in the Coen Bros. films are more realistic and fleshed out. But that's just me.
"Why don't you fuck your whole movie because that's what you're doing."
Whoa, they both go buckwild. This is the kind of behind-the-scenes meltdown that gets rumored about, but until now, rarely seen. Insightful (or is the word inciteful?)
As for Huckabees as a movie, I liked it pretty well. Marky Mark was great, the Naomi Watts plotline was kind of eh, and I love Isabelle Huppert in almost everything. It freaked me out though a little because Dustin Hoffman was almost the spitting image of my dad in this movie. Looked just like him, just shorter.
Thanks for sharing these clips. I never would have seen them otherwise.
excellent. i have mixed feelings about jason schwartzman but it's quite amazing that he doesn't flinch when Russell starts getting violent like inches away. he's just lounging in that chair like nothing is wrong
C'mon, you don't think an attempt to make a "humorous primer in existentialism" is sort of a lofty goal for a movie maker? you act like this was supposed to be some brainless romantic comedy. obviously the dudes behind it wanted it to be a lot more. but it wasn't.
It's tough because someone's always got something to say. If it's not, "Eh. It's not the best movie i ever saw." As if a movie can't be good[/b] unless it's the best of something, then it's "they are shooting to high for a movie". It's a movie that's got a lot of similarities and trappings as a lot of other movies that came out under the same umbrella. It had its moments, it had some laughs, i think the scene at the dinner table with all of the questions and double/cross talking was a great scene, so ok. A movie is allowed to just entertain without fart jokes or explosions. Yes this was supposed to be a lot more than that, but to argue whether or not it was or wasn't is pretty impossible. For some it is, for others it isn't.
If you don't watch a movie until the end, you don't have a real opinion about it.
when i say faux-deep, i mean these characters seemed so contrived and superficial. the poet/activist with the moppy hair & the ambitiously dense dialogue. i was kind of insulted because a lot of these details seemed cheap and shallow to me, but they're supposed to be the opposite. i didn't find any of them slightly amusing because i found their quirks so distracting. after i rented the movie awhile ago, i was trying to figure out why so many people liked this movie and stumbled upon this salon review that was so spot on and articulated perfectly my big problem with the movie:
In movies characters go through a change. If you don't watch it until the end, you can't possibly understand everything about the characters. Would that have helped you if you watched the whole thing? I don't know, but in the future it might.
Comments
*saves to personal lexicon *
If only they had hammed it up just a little bit more, it could've been the RAWK!!! version of Showgirls.
Huckabees was OK, I guess, but way too cutesy for its own good.
yeah, I remember thinking it was not as bad as I thought it would be...
Oh lord, I actually saw this in the theater when it was out. You have to understand my mental state at the time though... I saw Boogie Nights about half a dozen times in the theater and I still believe it's one of the greatest movies ever... so I was all like "THIS IS GOING TO BE AWESOME!!!" (rock star). I think we actually walked out.
From reading this board the past few days, I noticed edith doesn't like the "cutesy" stuff.
hi elise. i knew you were pretend gone.
hiding behind an ALBERT CULLUM screenname is pretty
except, of course, for the tour de force performance from Dom West aka Detective McNulty.
that was fast!
these 2 made this movie very enjoyable
along with that french lady
exactly.
and therein lies the problem. this is no doubt the grandiose vision that the director and writer had for the movie. but the truth is no one came out of it "knowing" anymore about anything than they did before watching it. I think that's what people are reacting to.
C'mon, you don't think an attempt to make a "humorous primer in existentialism" is sort of a lofty goal for a movie maker? you act like this was supposed to be some brainless romantic comedy. obviously the dudes behind it wanted it to be a lot more.
but it wasn't.
I think you're putting too much thought into this. It's like a textbook introduction, not a dissertation. It's OK that you didn't like it, but making assumptions on the filmmakers' intentions or saying no one got anything from it seems a little extreme.
Seems to be that from these clips he's once again been goading the actors into going outside their comfort zones which is alright by me.
In general the last year of quirky indie movies has made me sick to the stomach but I did enjoy Huckabees.
david o. russell really took this one seriously and it's why he flipped out all control freak like in that first clip. "I spent the last 3 fucking years of my life on this movie!!!" or whatever he said.
when i say faux-deep, i mean these characters seemed so contrived and superficial. the poet/activist with the moppy hair & the ambitiously dense dialogue. i was kind of insulted because a lot of these details seemed cheap and shallow to me, but they're supposed to be the opposite. i didn't find any of them slightly amusing because i found their quirks so distracting. after i rented the movie awhile ago, i was trying to figure out why so many people liked this movie and stumbled upon this salon review that was so spot on and articulated perfectly my big problem with the movie:
http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/movies/review/2004/10/01/huckabees/index.html
"I Heart Huckabees" is obviously a very personal film for Russell. He admits he has long been interested in Zen Buddhist teachings, and he spent a great deal of time and effort to get "Huckabees" made. But "Huckabees" feels weirdly impersonal; very little love, or even true thought, shows up on the screen. The characters are mouthpieces for concepts and nothing more -- we never understand them as people, which is probably not supposed to matter. What matters, I guess, is Albert's quest, which Russell clearly identifies with. (He co-wrote the script with Jeff Baena.) To paraphrase Jerry Lewis in "Hollywood or Bust," Russell is soiching -- soiching! He dunno what he's soiching for, which is why he's soiching.
Even though Russell thinks he's giving us depth, his depth is all surface: He's written a slapstick philosophy textbook packed with so many gimmicks that we forget what the ideas are in the first place. I hesitate to speak so harshly of a gifted filmmaker whose work I've loved so much: Although I couldn't sit through "Spanking the Monkey," Russell's "Three Kings," one of the great films of the '90s, really is about the urge to extract meaning from absurdity.
But "Huckabees" feels like the work of a man who's sorting out his problems at the expense of the audience. The gags wobble and weave before plooping over sideways, exhausted. The actors (all save Wahlberg, who turns the suffering of his character into something palpable instead of just a jittery haiku) fumble their way along, unclear about who their characters are and what their lines really mean: Tomlin, an actress we don't see on-screen often enough, is wasted here -- her timing is genuinely Zen in a movie that's only conceptually Zen, and the disjunction between the two feels like a cruel joke. Hoffman waddles and mutters through his scenes like a confused ghost. Schwartzman pours nothing but hipster blandness into his character, Law puts visible effort into pulling off a semi-believable American accent, and Huppert stalks around in a couture trench coat, looking dry and pinched. These actors are woiking -- woiking! -- and yet nothing they do works.
it's ironic that Russell has been "long interested in Zen Buddhism teachings" after watching the violent egomaniac melt-down in that clip. Maybe all this discord and tension on the set amongst the cast was the reason why their performances couldn't convince me or suck me into the story
Well, I don't think anyone's saying that. It's just surprising that dude turned out to be a very solid actor after being Marky Mark. Who knew he survive without the Funky Bunch?
But, I must admit, he's a local. I'll ride for Matt Damon, too.
cue Matt Damon clip from the South Park movie
i should have saved it when i had the chance
I guess I understand that. It's for the same reasons I don't really like the Coen brother's films.
I think with Huckabees I thought the shallowness was at least somewhat appropriate, as the whole thing felt like an after-school special, or some sort of film they'd show in a high school health class. If the director went through that much trouble and had such lofty ambitions, I can certainly see why people were disappointed. This is probably a case of me going in expecting something awful and being pleasantly surprised by a lighthearted film.
I have a similar beef with their films. No heart. However, they more than redeem themselves by making films which are unique, well scripted and beautifully filmed. At least up until Big Lebowski. Every subsequent film seems like someone else trying to make a Coen-esque like film.
I don't really see how Huckabees relates to the Coen Bros. films at all.
To me they are apples and oranges.
Huckabees was the biggest turd EVAR.
Although I must admit I think I made it about 10 minutes into it...
I thought it was super corny, and not in any type of good way.
But I can't stand Jason Schwartzman (except for Rushmore where he
is brilliant), to me he is the new Keanu Reeves.
So it's not surprising that I couldn't make it past his performance
and get to the rest of the movie.
Then maybe you should re-read the original statement.
Re-read it and still don't get it (your take on it that is).
I feel like the characters in the Coen Bros. films are more realistic and fleshed out.
But that's just me.
Whoa, they both go buckwild. This is the kind of behind-the-scenes meltdown that gets rumored about, but until now, rarely seen. Insightful (or is the word inciteful?)
As for Huckabees as a movie, I liked it pretty well. Marky Mark was great, the Naomi Watts plotline was kind of eh, and I love Isabelle Huppert in almost everything. It freaked me out though a little because Dustin Hoffman was almost the spitting image of my dad in this movie. Looked just like him, just shorter.
Thanks for sharing these clips. I never would have seen them otherwise.
Best,
JRoot
excellent. i have mixed feelings about jason schwartzman but it's quite amazing that he doesn't flinch when Russell starts getting violent like inches away. he's just lounging in that chair like nothing is wrong
It's tough because someone's always got something to say. If it's not, "Eh. It's not the best movie i ever saw." As if a movie can't be good[/b] unless it's the best of something, then it's "they are shooting to high for a movie". It's a movie that's got a lot of similarities and trappings as a lot of other movies that came out under the same umbrella. It had its moments, it had some laughs, i think the scene at the dinner table with all of the questions and double/cross talking was a great scene, so ok. A movie is allowed to just entertain without fart jokes or explosions. Yes this was supposed to be a lot more than that, but to argue whether or not it was or wasn't is pretty impossible. For some it is, for others it isn't.
If you don't watch a movie until the end, you don't have a real opinion about it.
Rockstar might be an exception.
In movies characters go through a change. If you don't watch it until the end, you can't possibly understand everything about the characters. Would that have helped you if you watched the whole thing? I don't know, but in the future it might.
I could tell right away that movie was a waste of my time, and cut my losses.