I Heart Huckabees - 2004

"I Heart Huckabees" - 2004
Dir. by David O. Russell - 1 hr. 47 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

"I Heart Huckabees" is a very weird movie.  And that's valuable to know going in - either you have a tolerance for deliberate weirdness or you don't.  If you don't, this film is probably going to be the sort of thing you might want to pass on.  But if you don't mind talky films that take a while to coalesce into something resembling a plot, this is a lot of fun.

Albert (Jason Schwartzman) is the leader of Open Spaces, an activist group that aims to preserve undeveloped land in urban areas.  He goes about that by doing things like planting trees in the middle of mall parking lots and accompanying everything he does with a poem.  Due to a series of coincidences, Albert comes across the services of Vivian (Lily Tomlin) and Bernard (Dustin Hoffman), existential detectives, whom he enlists.  Soon, his work rival, Brad (Jude Law), hires them too.  Another client, firefighter Tommy (Mark Wahlberg), gets paired with Albert, and they soon decide to follow the teachings of Caterine Vauban (Issabelle Huppert), who believes in cruelty and meaninglessness.  There's a lot more that goes on, but honestly, the plot isn't the point in "I Heart Huckabees."

So what's the point?  Part of the point is the sharp, yet elliptical writing.  Part of it is absolutely awesome casting (in that the actors involved are not only perfect for the role, but their personas add to the characters). Jason Schwartzman does what only he can do: be conflicted and confused, sympathetic, but also kind of unlikable at the same time.  Jude Law is a dick, in the way that a confident, good-looking man in a suit can be a dick.  Mark Wahlberg does confused and on the verge of violence better than anyone during ordinary circumstances.  Here, he's the chaos that a bunch of philosophers can't quite explain or contain.  And if this film didn't exist, someone would have to create it so that Lily Tomlin and Dustin Hoffman could do exactly what it is that they do here.  I'm not sure you could pick two better people to embody just what it is that a pair of married "existential detectives" are.

As for the story, it's more or less about pairs, and the relationships between them.  Hoffman and Tomlin exist as a unit, a crazy-ass, impenetrable unit that baffles everyone.  Albert, at different times in the film, is paired off with either his rival, his manipulative guru, or with Tommy, exploring "truth" together.  Ultimately, the real question is what do these relationships mean; it's as if all of the people populating this film have either never understood or have entirely forgotten what relationships mean and are for.  This film is less dry than that might sound; anyone who explores philosophy will come to understand the humor inherent in trying to understand what things really mean.  And this film downright hilarious at times, confusing at times, very awkward at times, but it's never a chore to watch.

"I Heart Huckabees" is a bizarre, weird, unique film.  If you were a fan of 90's indie films, that's a good reference point to start from here.  You can enjoy the round-about way the plot turns in on itself (and it does make sense, if you're paying attention), or you can just enjoy a bunch of committed weirdos trying to find some answers and happiness.  As Mark Wahlberg's character keeps saying, it's important to ask these questions.  You might not find any answers (especially the answers you might hope for), but one's curiosity about what's happening around them is important.

3.5 / 5 - TV

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows - 2011

"Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" - 2011
Dir. by Guy Ritchie - 2 hrs. 9 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

There's something to be said for a well-done, fun franchise movie.  You can do so much worse at the multiplex to go see a couple of big stars do a big budget period movie.  As long as each installment delivers enough to have you smiling on your way out of the theatre, it doesn't need to be revolutionary or ground-breaking.  Every couple of years, you get to visit a character that you like again.  That's a fair bargain.

I don't really need to get into who Sherlock Holmes is, unless you're some kind of genius, Sherlock.  The characters are essentially the same as last time around, except Dr. Watson (Jude Law) is on the verge of getting married.  Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) doesn't look very positively on that development, but he's willing to stand by his friend.  Before that, Holmes interjects into a criminal plot being executed by Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), at the behest of Moriarty (Jared Harris).  Irene is quickly written out of the film, and Moriarty refuses Holmes' request to leave Watson out of whatever mischief might pass between the two.  There is a stag party for Watson, shoddily organised by Holmes, where we are introduced to Mycroft (Stephen Fry), Sherlock's older brother.  Later, Holmes is forced to interject during Watson's honeymoon, as Moriarty proves that he's not interested in leaving Watson out of the equation.  From there, the larger mystery is a battle of wits between Holmes and Moriarty, sometimes literally, sometimes via physical confrontation, sometimes metaphorically.

I'm of two minds about Guy Ritchie's stamp on the Sherlock Holmes movies.  It's easy to see his visual flair and the trademark of his smaller budget films' story-lines: twisting heist plots with a large cast of real men who show a penchant for oneupmanship.  Even if it's coached in turn of the 20th century British language and mannerisms, Ritchie's Holmes is swaggering alpha male driven to success almost maniacally, and fueled by exotic substances to keep his motor running.  It's different than "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" or "RocknRolla" only on the surface.  But as much fun as those movies are, he seems very comfortable making this sort of big-time franchise film.  I wouldn't doom a director to make low-budget swear-a-thons for his entire career, so I suppose as much fun as those early films are, they'll always be available to go back and watch while Ritchie continues on this path.  Besides, it's not as if the Sherlock films are bad or anything.

I have some sympathy for people who worship the source material; a lifetime of reading comic books has put me in that category for more than my share of films.  I've never read a Sherlock Holmes novel, which is probably the best way to go into any given movie.  I couldn't tell you whether this was based on anything in particular, and I don't care to find out.  When someone is setting out to make any movie, the goal should be to make the best film possible.  So while I have no idea if there was a book partially set in a munitions factory, what shows up on screen is an excellent action sequence that goes from a violent direct, face-to-face confrontation between Holmes and Moriarty to a batch of rebels fleeing what seems like an army with that same munitions factory at disposal.  The actual fleeing is captured by very good editing and camera-work, and special effects that really do heighten the tension of the scene.  For a couple of minutes, we're taken from a crime version of a chess game into a war film, and it works.

And in a general sense, the film works.  It's better than the initial "Sherlock" film; it's still fun watching Downey, Jr. simultaneously border insanity and outsmart everyone, there's plenty of cleverness to the proceedings, and what's not clever can be pretty funny.  There's even a gag near the end that almost demands a repeat viewing (I, for one, am going to have to re-watch that scene at the minimum to see if there are shortcuts or if it's a matter of misdirection leading the viewer to not catch on earlier).  I'd have a hard time imagining that this will be anyone's favorite movie, but it's not supposed to be.  It's fun, it's a good sequel, and I'd show up for a third installment, should it come.

3 / 5 - Theatre

Contagion - 2011

"Contagion" - 2011
Dir. by Steven Soderbergh - 1 hr. 46 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

In the age of Purell, germs are the last frontier of horror.  There's a proud tradition of mystery viruses in movies, whether it be action movies that have villains trying to sicken everyone (like "Mission: Impossible"), or one that take a closer look at the actual outbreak ("Outbreak," to give a terrible example), or ones that follow the aftermath of such an outbreak (like the original "The Andromeda Strain" or even "28 Days Later," in a way).  These movies vary vastly in quality, but the best of them are both plausible and maintain a tension throughout the film.

"Contagion," to some degree, follows the standard plot in these situations.  People die, the CDC clues in, and scientists and the government try to work out a cure or vaccine before it's too late for a ridiculous amount of people.  That's fine, because that's pretty much how things really work.  It's a solid premise that works.  But this film has a few things working for it that takes that basic framework and turns it into a very good film.

First off, a lot of credit goes to director Steven Soderbergh.  He's one of the most consistently excellent filmmakers over the last twenty years or so, whether he's doing sub-$1 million budgeted experimental work  (like "Bubble" or "The Girlfriend Experience") or big-budget, star-studded extravaganzas (like the "Ocean's Eleven" series).  One of his hallmarks is always having the camera in the right place, and not being particularly showy about it.  It's understated excellence: he wants you to pay attention to what's on-screen, not his awesome technique.  Even so, once you've seen more than a couple of his films, it's always apparent that it's his work.  So it's no surprise that he gets all of the little details right.  Just in the opening sequence alone, instead of needing some prologue explanation of what's going on, the entire situation is conveyed visually.  It's a master-class in effortless film-making.  Instead of hammering on the people who have become sick, the camera lingers for a moment on something that the sick person has touched; you know what's happening without having to be told.

Another big point in "Contagion's" favor is that it does an excellent job of humanizing what is a fairly large cast.  People live sloppy, complicated lives, and that point is made.  You'd expect the main actors to have enough time to get that across (especially with actors like Matt Damon and Laurence Fishburne), but even the small roles are well done.  That shouldn't really be a surprise, given Soderbergh's earlier ensemble work in movies like "Traffic" or the "Ocean's Eleven" series, but it's also true here.

"Contagion" also begs comparison to one of my favorite science-fiction films, "The Andromeda Strain," and holds it's own.  There's a heavier emphasis on the science aspect in "The Andromeda Strain" (which was copied to some degree in the "Resident Evil" series of films: look at the underground bunker structures to begin with); it's the germ-horror genre's version of a police procedural.  One of the things that I immediately noticed a similarity in was the score for the two films, and I really liked the score to "Contagion."  The tension throughout both films was excellent, and when you're talking about maintaining tension while watching scientists perform lab work, that's a nice accomplishment.

"Contagion" is on the high upper end for this sort of movie.  Good acting, good direction, and a good story all add up to a really good film.

Gil Melle - "Desert Trip" - from "The Andromeda Strain" soundtrack

Cliff Martinez - "Placebo" - from "Contagion" soundtrack

4 / 5 - Theatre