|
Directed by: David O. Russell Starring: Jason Schwartzman, Isabelle Huppert, Dustin Hoffman, Lily Tomlin, Jude Law "I Heart Huckabees" begins with Albert Markovski (Jason Schwartzman) going to a so-called existensial detective Vivian (Lily Tomlin) to solve why he has been seeing a tall African man continually; he thinks these coincidences have deep meaning. Vivian and her partner/husband Bernard (Dustin Hoffman) explain that everything in life is connected, so they take the case. Along the way, they discover later that there is much more interesting aspects to Albert's life: he has recently been sold out of a deal by his ex-friend Brad (Jude Law). Also being treated by the couple is Tommy (Mark Wahlberg) who has recently read a book that goes against everything Vivian and Bernard have been teaching -- that nothing in life is the same, that the only thing that bonds us together is misery. The couple think it's a good idea for both clients to put them together so they can work out their own differences. The film is amusing, but not in a "these jokes are hilarious and we are making them blatantly obvious" way. In the beginning, the philosophical stuff may be hard to take, but by the end the movie will come full circle and explain itself (albeit rushed). It is quite fair to call the movie a look at existentialism, the philosophy in which we attempt to make "rational decisions despite an irrational universe." There are two sides to that coin, that either everything is meaningless, or has a meaning we cannot understand. Through the film, we see several groups of individuals and witness how they react, what they put their beliefs in (success to be popular, looking good to be noticed, believing in God, dismantling the universe). However, the film does a fair amount of jabbing alternate belief systems that do not coincide with the film's own message. After discussing this movie with my other friends, we began to compare it to "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," and it is a fair analogy to say that, while "Eternal" focused on two individuals, "I Heart" universalizes the message: everything might not be so great, but relax, it'll be fine in the end. RATING: 5 PROS: Amusing, offers interesting perspectives on life, believable characters CONS: A bit heavy-handed at times, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0356721/
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2004 18:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
I think this is going to be one of those movies that really divides people - it gets a bit into some philosophies (albeit mockingly) that people who aren't willing to open up and stick with it aren't going to get and that's going to shut them off to the film very quickly. I dig on that sort of thing, so I was able to follow along with things, a coworker of mine got lost and ended up just hating the movie. The trailer didn't really hint at how much the philosophy takes up of the movie, if you're not able to grab onto what the idea is and this is how they're mocking it, it's going to be a long, long time until it's over. I prefer ambiguous trailers and I thought it was a riot. Marky Mark and Jason Schwartzman are a great (and unlikely) duo together (It's always good to see Schwartzman ride a bicycle) I really enjoyed how it went out of the bounds of a normal movie, through it's transitions and floating squares things. I think it's going to get better the more times I see it.  5
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2004 09:49
|
|
|
Finally saw this. I watched it at the Arclight, Hollywood, which is probably one of the best theaters around. Lots of hip, movie-lovers in the crowd. So about as good an environment as you can get. The movie was really different. But let's face it, it really plays with reality. It tries to cram so much into 1:50 that there are no transitions. Just scene, scene, scene, scene. I mean there are points when people just show up and there is no way possible they could have gotten there that fast or known, but we need them for the next scene, so there they are. I have to FINALLY stop calling Mark Whalberg Marky Mark. He does a really good job in this movie and is definately the high point. Many of the premises in this movie are just completely bogus. I don't mean the philosophy stuff. Just how the whole movie starts and continues. This isn't much of a spoiler since it is the 2nd scene, but the existential detectives are contacted because a guy meets someone 3 times and finds their card in a borrowed jacket. And pretty much everything the detectives and their nemesis do is completely unrealistic. I just felt that somewhere (DvD?) there is a 3 hour version of this movie with transitions and explanations and it got cut to hell. Such as his Meet The Parents episode. Completely pointless. He gets some emotional point and at the end they are trying to hook up the stereo again??? I just didn't get that at all. It gets a 3.5 for effort. Maybe the director's cut will get better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2004 15:55
|
|
|
This movie is absolutely loving brilliant, whether you take it as comedy or philosophy, and especially if you don't care about genre. Any of the reviewers you may read who claim it's using "pop" philosophy or "trying to sound cool" simply don't know what they are talking about. As a comedy, the pacing and script are among the best I have ever witnessed on film. The philosophical elements are simple enough to be presented faithfully, so they are in no way "dumbed down." I'm not a particular fan of existentialism (I absolutely HATED "Waking Life") but this is the best comedy in many years. As a way of judging the comedy value, I can say that laughed even more per minute than I did watching through all the episodes of Arrested Development, which is about the best compliment I can give to a comedy. But, I also thought it was as intelligent a comedy as Being John Malkovich. It also definitely retains the style of Flirting with Disaster and Three Kings, so fans of those films should enjoy themselves too. 5/5 quote:DukeRustfield came out of the closet to say: that scene wasn't about him trying to "reconnect" with his parents or anything as it would be in other movies, they really ARE worthless to him. the purpose of it was more along the lines of "if he is honest with himself he can see his own pain in his enemies and vice versa" orborborb fucked around with this message at 08:09 on Oct 12, 2004 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2004 07:29
|
|
|
I'm afraid I don't buy your rationale. In fact, I'm still betting that the director's cut will have a largely expanded parents/son interraction or at least explain why it was so trimmed. Personally, I went in thinking of all the philosophy as just entertainment, which I think made the movie more enjoyable. If I tried to take it seriously and analyze it, well, I'm not having fun. Still, as part of a story, the scene didn't work - for me, anyway. So I personally recommend people go in and watch the floating cube philosophy as just goofy visuals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2004 17:21
|
|
|
I actually think that this was my favorite movie of the year. Not the best movie, Eternal Sunshine probably holds that distinction (so far), but I really really really enjoyed this movie. Every character is pitch-perfect - Dustin Hoffman's absent-mindedness, Mark Wahlberg's offbeat distress, Jude Law's shallowness. Fantastic. I've seen it twice, the first time was far better since it was at an indie theater, being shown fairly late. That brought out the relatively more intellectual audience, which was a big plus. The other was a standard multiplex, in which a few folks walked out after the Jason Schwartzman suckling at Jude Law's teat scene. Jon Brion's score was absolutely fantastic, and I was ridiculously pleased to see Jason Schwartzman FINALLY have a second good role in Hollywood. His TV show on Fox had me worried  I feel assured that, even though the majority of America might not find the whole thing hilarious, at least the goons should. RATING: 5
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2004 02:58
|
|
|
This was a fun, quirky movie with a great cast and great lines. It does suffer from being too over the top with it's philosophy, unless the whole point was to be over the top. Let me put it this way: I don't know what the writer was trying to say exactly, but whatever it was was said in very funny way. Don't take the movie to seriously and don't take the philosophy too seriously and you've got a nice fun movie. Rated 4
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2004 08:05
|
|
|
I didn't like it. The characters were flat and uninteresting, which is excusable in black comedy if it has laughs to make up for it -- but there's nothing that funny. There's a lot of "oh, that's weird" moments, but I didn't really find anything genuinely clever. Mostly I was just bored, and felt condescended to by the obvious "philosophy doesn't really matter" message. 2.0/5.5
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2004 17:57
|
|
|
I saw this movie and and I liked it a lot...I usually hate philisophical movies (i.e. Waking Life) because they always seem very pandering, but this movie did a great job avoiding that. As to the floating squares, I think it might have better without them, I know that they were used as a visual aid to help connect everything, but I thought the scene with dustin Hoffman and Marky Mark arguing about the cracks and the tiny spaces would have been better if it was just Hoffman's finger the whole time and no squares But overall I thought this movie was really good and not as Wes Anderson-y as I thought it was going to be... 4.5
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2004 19:28
|
|
|
THIS WAS NOT A REVIEW YOU IDIOT.
Somebody fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Oct 25, 2004 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2004 21:15
|
|
|
The best way to sum up my opinion of this movie would be to say that after the showing ended, I headed straight to a bar and started drinking. Unfortunately, I didn't have enough money to completely obliterate my memories of this film, the viewing of which I would compare to repeatedly pounding your head into a brick wall for two hours straight. Of course, this is the kind of movie that leaves people divided: either you love it and post roaring reviews about how it's a masterpiece on the level of "Garden State" and "Eternal Sunshine," or you end up like me--thanking god you went to a matinee showing and didn't have to pay full price to be bombarded with what has to be the most uninspiring and self-indulgent philosophical prattle a director has put to film in recent years. Was it even about philosophy, or existentialism? Because it sure didn't sound like existentialism to me, except in its most basic masturbatory sense, and really, who wants to pay money to watch other people jack off? The only thing that kept me from walking out was the acting and characterization--great performances from Jude Law and Mark Wahlberg, but there's only so much actors can do when they're running around onscreen in a desperate attempt to realize a director's personal existential crisis. This movie really pissed me off. I have a high threshold for pretentious independent filmmaking, but I have to draw the line when I see Jason Schwartzman and Isabel Huppert loving in the mud. 1.5/5.5 FuzzyDunlop fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Oct 26, 2004 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2004 19:42
|
|
|
I think this was a really great movie. I've never seen a more faithful representation of Sartre and Heidegger's philosophy on screen. As far as the philosophy aspect goes it is obvious that the people who wrote this movie did their share of research on it. I hate to be one of those "you have to be there to get it" people, but unfortuntaly you sort of have to be there to get some of it. Not that there isn't plenty to enjoy in the movie in general, but there are a lot of comments and inside jokes that seemed to be directed toward those who are familiar with the history of philosophy "Should I bring my own chains? We always do.". I think that will be a major factor in the hate it/love it division that I agree will occur. As far as the disjointed scenes go I think it adds to the surreal environment of the movie in general. It reminds you that what you are watching isn't a straight narrative but some sort of mental journey. When I reflect back on my own thoughts I find them just as (if not more) disjointed. And yeah, the whole teat sucking thing weirded me out. 4.5/5.5 Bad Sneakers fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Oct 26, 2004 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2004 03:49
|
|
|
I really liked this movie, but it wasn't at all the kind of flick I was expecting to see. I swent to the theater thinking this was going to be a quirky and funny flick, in the spirit of David O'Russel's comedy 'Flirting With Disaster.' I was really quite surprised to see that this film is way over the top and goes in quite a few directions. I enjoyed it on the whole, and as far as the technical aspects go it was pretty well put together. The directing and acting seemed a little bit too crafted and overdone, especially in the case of Lily Tomlin's and Naomi Watts' characters. I liked Jude Law's american accent though, and that O'Russel cast him really perfectly in that role, though he wasn't as good as Wahlberg. Schwartzman wasn't bad, but I keep thinking 'Rushmore,' and fear he is typecast. He should work on his band some more. I agree with the comments of the guy before me in that the script was full of little philosophy puns that are very funny to those of us who have taken classes on existentialism, and pretty much the whole film could probably be analyzed in those terms. However amusing this was, it's not a great way to make a very engaging film, and judging by the 10 or so people that walked out of the theater I saw it on it doesn't appeal to everyone. Which brings to my next point, which is how insanely uncomfortable this film is to watch. Watching this movie, at times, felt extremely torturous and painful in a way that is comparable to reading the weekend web, or something like that. Scenes like Jude Law's tit and Schwartzman and the french chick smearing mud all over each other and loving was just... unpleasant, really, and seemed a bit much. Same with a lot of the body bag stuff, it all went on a bit too long. I thought this flick suffered from bad pacing and just started dragging after a certain point, maybe an hour into it. The plot was pretty banal and predictable in a conventional sense, and eventually became boring, while the philosophical tomfoolery ceased to be as funny. 3.5/5 kaworu fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Oct 26, 2004 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2004 05:23
|
|
|
Well I just saw this with a bunch of Physics Grad Students and we all thought it was hilarious. As many others have said, I think it is one of the funniest movies of the past few years. The only time I can remember laughing more often for as long was during Jackass the movie. Just as a comedy, the timing and pacing is excellent, so there aren't really any boring parts. Of course this means if you aren't laughing in the first few minutes, you might as well leave, because it's not going to change. As far as the philosophy... I don't really study it, I think the key is that you know enough to think "I've heard somebody say something like that before". They don't really delve deep, just some lighthearted "everything is the same" and "nothing exists, nothingness doesn't exist" stuff going back and forth. The movie is funny on its own, the philosophy stuff just adds a bit more. Also I bet if you go in with expectations, you won't enjoy it as much as I did. Suckers. 5/5 PS: Why does Brad wear blue suits, but all the other execs wear black?!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2004 08:39
|
|
|
I studied existentialism and actually consider myself an existentialist. I'd like to clear up a bit of the confusion about this movie. There is no point to this movie. Although there is a resolution, there are no real points in it. There are some parts that seem really significant that aren't. There are scenes that go nowhere because they're meant to. Read L'etranger by Albert Camus if you still don't get it. The book opens with, "Today my mother died. Or yesterday, perhaps, I am not sure." And her death goes nowhere. In fact, it has no bearing on the rest of the book. That's how you need to look at this movie. The point of existentialism is that there are two possible realities: a world in which there is a greater meaning that we don't understand, or a world in which there is no meaning whatsoever. Now, Sartre saw this and became depressed, calling Hell other people. Camus saw this and stated firmly that we must remain happy--after all, what else is there to do? We are all connected to each other. In this movie, the two camps are represented by parties that viewers can readily identify. It is funny to note a few plot points between the two camps, because Sartre and Camus were lifelong friends who disagreed on existentialism. Their philosophies were quite interconnected, but they both played up the differences. That said, I loved this movie. It is important to note as well that this movie is not meant to be a dark comedy. Instead, it is a movie about humans and being human, and precisely where we fit into this whole of existence. Anything that's actually funny about that is up to you. The humor in this movie is all in your head, basically boiling down to how you perceive existence. Personally, I'm a Camus existentialist, and so this movie was hilarious to me. It sounds like a few people here who saw this would really dig Sartre. The scene with Jude Law and Jason Schwarzman as mother and son was meant to be disturbing, but not solely in the bizarre sense. Thinking about the ramifications of the scene (they have played out this relationship before, somewhere, somehow) and the similarity we have with our worst enemies, well, I find that more disturbing than a little teat suckling... 5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2004 18:46
|
|
|
Just read an interview with the director. He had asked Shaina Twain or however you spell it, if she would do a teat sucking scene with the two guys. She said she would but would still keep her bra on. So they shot the scene and he said the two guys were just really uncomfortable and weren't doing a good job. He goes, "I give you the chance to suck on Shaina Twain and you can't do it?" So they cut it. But he said it will be on the DvD.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2004 19:23
|
|
|
Alright movie, funny but nothing special. Way to much philosophical crap. It's like "alright I get the concept, now shut up about it and interact more." It was like sitting in on a philosophy lecture, not a movie that's supposed to be entertaining. I love dark comedies, but this one was a little too boring for me. Schwarzman's character was the only one who had an real depth. Just couldn't get into this one. More time is spent on the two sides arguing about who's right than letting the main character develop. This one is only appealing to philosophy majors, and even to them I don't see how it would be that entertaining. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2004 08:39
|
|
|
Very rarely will I award a movie an incredibly high score, but this movie deserves every accolade it recieves. The acting is top notch, easily the best I've seen in a movie this year. Watching the characters continually betray themselves, and work through it with the "help" of existential philosophers/dectives Dustin Hoffman and Lily Tomlin, and polarizing former student Isabelle Huppert is an incredible look at the mind, and the question of Self. If I had to pull out a quote to define the movie, it must go to Dustin Hoffman, posing a question to Jude Law: "How am I not myself?" Additionally, the acting of Jude Law in this scene is simply astounding. On a personal level, watching his face contort and shift, his eyes glaze and focus, the amazing play of emotion across his face carries significant personal meaning for me, so much that in identifying with this character I experienced a powerful wash of emotion. Mark Wahlberg delivers a great performance as well; a disillusioned firefighter experiencing, like almost every character in this film, an existential crisis. While primarily used as a foil for Schwartzman's character and comic relief, his character carries as much meaning as the others, the degree to which he buys into the nihilistic teachings of Huppert's character is a very chilling sub plot. I will probably come back and add to this later, but I'm still going through the film in my mind, forming additional opinions and conclusions. To address a post below: This isn't a film about existentialism, correct. It is a film about existential crises as suffered by the four actors (Wahlberg, Schwartzman, Watts, Law); ergo, this is a movie about Self, and personal Identity. My interpretation is that the philosophy wasn't intended to be a focus in the film, but simply window dressing and roadmaps for the characters to look at in attempting to find themselves, and a way of keeping the audience up to speed in some way of what was going on in each character's head. 5.5/5 Redmonkey fucked around with this message at 08:01 on Nov 19, 2004 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2004 08:06
|
|
|
4.0 from me. Way better than that overhyped Garden State. Not what I expected and didn't get as deep with the existential philosophy as I had hoped. The scene at the dinner table made the movie for me with the fireman crack. loving heroes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2004 22:39
|
|
|
I don't think this is an existential film, but rather a film about existentialism (or perhaps more accurately, one that uses the notion of existentialism as its subject). That may seem like an insignificant distinction at first, but I think it explains why so many students of philosophy are excited about this and others are sort of indifferent to it. I don't necessarily buy into any specific philosophy, but I think if you want to see real existentialism at work, watch post World War Two films from American and Europe. The filmmakers behind those movies may not have even been aware of this kind of philosophy, but there are really strong threads of that way of looking at the world in the films of that era (specifically noir and crime films). This was an ok movie, but it seemed a little too self-aware for me to really enjoy it. I could admire parts of the craftsmanship behind it, but it wasn't a satsifying experience in the end. It seems a lot of popular contemporary films suffer from those same qualities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2004 23:20
|
|
|
Saw this movie last night, and it was wonderful. I was cracking up twice as much as the people that I went with, but perhaps that's because I went through an existential phase in my own life at one point. Mark Wahlberg's character was my favorite, especially at the Open Spaces/Huckabees meeting. Overall, it'd have been a solid 4.5 from me, but listening to Jude Law's American accent wane made it a 5.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2004 16:11
|
|
|
straight up 5/5 amazing movie definitely worth a look it makes you think a bit, but its hilarious and definitely worth it
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2004 07:35
|
|
|
Man, does this get a 5. Just caught it tonight, and this was one of those "This was the movie I needed to see at this point in my life" movies for me, but that aside I just walked out with a big, huge grin on my face. I think everybody complaining about how the character interaction wasn't realistic at times (The scene with Albert and his parents) is missing the point; it's not supposed to be a realistic movie. That's besides the point. It's a comedy not about "real life" but about the characters, and the ideas characters are at times avatars for. Absolutely fantastic, A+++++++ would watch again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2004 06:37
|
|
|
I really really liked this movie. I didn't have a whole lot of trouble following the existential dialogue, and actually found the smart humor refreshing in the face of otherwise formulaic Hollywood comedies. Even if you took all the jargon and babble out of the movie, there's a lot of generally amusing material to play with. The antics and absurdity frequently reach levels of deliciousness only hinted at by science. I'm going to vote this a 5 in hopes that it will provoke you into watching this. EDIT: Now that it's a few months later and I have the DVD, I'm going to change my rating to 5.5. I can watch this movie over and over and over again and even though I know pretty much every bit of dialogue, I'm entertained. Multiple viewings will definitely help you to better understand the characters and the existential dialogue, but so, too, will they allow you to appreciate all the little details of the film. The commentary track I listened to was also pretty interesting. It started off a little boring (mostly because of David O. Russell), but when it picked up, it kept me involved instead of putting me to sleep, which is the mark of any good commentary. Anyway, one of my favorite movies of the last few years. Aquasol fucked around with this message at 12:47 on Mar 24, 2005 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2004 11:22
|
|
|
If you're gonna go watch this film, you should be prepared for something slightly different to your normal cinema experience. You might enjoy it, you may not. Whatever you do, dont try to follow the plot or figure out whats happening at any one point. Note also how the two main characters are in the end very similar, and how ( in the lift scene) they swap roles (as in the one that was on top falls to the bottom, and the one on the bottom comes out on top) towards the end. Much of the narrative revolves around/is connected to the central detective plotline, while some of the scenes are totally irrelavant. The directing & editing do their best to emphasise the themes of the movie, which is something you have to remember when looking back and trying to figure out why you hated/loved/couldnt care less(about) it so much. Jude Law's charater is my favorite part of this movie. He is played up as the steriotypical big buisness bad guy, develops and grows into a charater that has real depth. Cinema needs more 3d charaters like this one. 4.5, I still dont know wether this is a good or bad film. All I know is I liked it, which isnt much of a indication.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2004 12:00
|
|
|
This movie was reccomended to me by a friend and I must say I wasn't let down at all. I was, however, not expecting this movie. The flow was superb and the performances were outstanding. I have to reccomend this to people I know, something I rarely do. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2005 09:42
|
|
|
This was my favorite movie of 2004. Funny, touching, and superbly acted. And the scene with Jason Schawrtzman and Isabelle Huppert in the mud is one of the funniest loving things I have ever seen. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2005 08:11
|
|
|
I watched this because of this thread. Very comical. Dustin Hoffman and Mark Wohlberg were both excellent. Everytime Mark was on the screen I was cracking up. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2005 02:18
|
|
|
A friend of mine watched this last week or so and, since i'm taking an Existentialism class, recommended it to me. I don't have the philosophy stuff down enough to comment on the movies authenticity there, but from what I do know it seemed pretty on it. Very cool movie. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2005 03:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
I understood the movie, but I didn't think it was very good. The humor was annoying and not funny. Jude Law's accent was horrible. Jon Brion's score was really nice. 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2005 05:29
|
|