Session 011 - Human Nature
Who saw it and what are your thoughts on it?
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
In the Screening Room - Michel Gondry's
Human Nature
Session 011 - Human Nature
Who saw it and what are your thoughts on it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I stand by the long standing notion that it takes real talent to create a movie this freakin' terrible.
Thus from the combination of Michel Gondry and Charlie Kaufman awoke this monstrosity of a film. So stupid and lowbrow, so dumb and worthless, so plain out awful that to subject yourself to it should be considered an act of cruelty towards yourself.
My God, where do I start?
Patricia Arquette is a loooonnggg way from True Romance here. Now she's a woman with an overabundance of hair who lives in and writes about the wilderness... of course until she gets horny and goes to try to find a man (I'm so not kidding).
Who she is set up with is, unfortunately, Tim Robbins in another one of his irritating, dumbshit roles (think High Fidelity, Bull Durham, or The Hudsucker Proxy without any of the fun of those films). He's a scientist who teaches table manners to mice and is embarrassed by the size of his penis (again, not kidding).
Eventually their love bubble bursts after they capture a man living in the wild and teach him to be proper and eloquent... after a very, very long struggle to do anything even remotely interesting. She feels like she's sold her soul helping Robbins to refine the natural instincts of this man (who she sympathisizes with natch because of all her hair). Meanwhile, Robbins feels the need to sleep with his assistant and act idiotic. And I feel the need to kill somebody by this point.
With Kaufman behind the script, I expected some relevatory piece of writing at least that shed some fascinating lights on human nature and our disposition. On living in the wild vs. living in society. On ANYTHING.
Instead I get a bunch of lame jokes about a carnival freak woman trying to control her hair output and an ape man who learns to speak.
Honestly, with this as their first collaboration it's a small miracle that Eternal Sunshine was even ever made. I would have thought these guys would never want to work together again. And if I'd seen this first, there's a good chance I never would have bothered with Eternal Sunshine at all.
This is one of the worst films I've ever seen.
Well it sounds like you didn't quite enjoy this film...and once again here we are about to embark on another debate because I liked this film.
Now I can understand just about anyone not liking it. It certainly isn't for everyone and I can respect that, but this was just so odd and sincere that I fell for it. Granted it isn't great and nowhere near Eternal Sunshine in any respect, but I liked it more than Science of Sleep.
I thought that acting was strong all around. I think Patricia Arquette is quite underrated when it comes to comedy. I really liked her in Flirting with Disaster and I think she gives it her all here. No t many actresses would ever be caught dead in a film where they would be covered in hair, so I admire her for that. Also I've always been a fan of Rhys Ifans. He steals the movie not only here but also in Notting Hill and Replacements. Tim Robbins may be the weak link, but I still think he is game for this odd fairy tale.
The direction overall isn't quite there. There are some poorly constructed scenes, but I thought the nature scenes were quite lovely.
And to be honest, and this may be where the science geek comes out of me, I found the whole idea quite interesting. Granted nobody is ever going to try to teach mice table manners, but seeing how Kaufman and Gondry try to creat somewhat believable experiments to teach a primitive creature which fork to use was quite fascinating and down right absurd.
In the end, I found myself laughing just enough to recommend it to anyone who finds absurdity to be an art form. Lets face it Mulligan, this film wasn't made for you. This film was made for me...someone, who along with another contributor to this blog, has constructed tales of badgers, low-grade salami and Wilford Brimley. That would make a great movie.
Dude...you were brutal to this flick. I'm gonna have to side with Chachi on this one. This isn't a great movie. It's barely a good movie. But it's definitely not one of the worst I've ever seen (I've seen all of Paul W.S. Anderson's films, so...).
I thought the actors were all game for roles that certainly didn't flatter them. Arquette covered in hair. Robbins with a small penis. Ifans humping everything that moves (and somethings that don't).
I'm not sure I'd call it a fairy tale. I'm not sure exactly what it is. I know it doesn't all work, but I like the absurdity of the lexan cage, the ape-man, and the mice. I, like Mulligan, expected it all to add up to something bigger. Something illuminating. And it doesn't. Not really.
But I have to disagree with you sir, because it does end up having something to say about human nature. According to Kaufman, we are ruled by deceit and lust, one usually following the other. This certainly isn't anything mind-blowing, but the film is kooky enough that I enjoyed it. Easily the weakest of Kaufman's scripts, but fun nonetheless.
Post a Comment