Reviews

Not for your average movie-goer, this one. Although the situation is teed up nicely for a typical feel-good ensemble gush-fest, it resists that temptation and takes you to a place where the characters are not, although they seem to need it, ready for rehab. It has an easy, rambling style that gradually rather than gratuitously opens their world to us without (for the most part) overly relying on hackneyed situations and gimmicks (although Quaid's insistence on keeping his wifes clothing was not one of them). In fact, the situations portrayed are so dark and lo- keyed that I wondered if this movie could have been made without the ready-made typecast qualities of Quaid, Haden-Church and Parker. ...Gritty Pittsburgh backdrop in a very real academic surrounding adds to the slice-of-life tone.

Judging from the range of comments it produced, this one could very well become the gold standard for a 'cinema-Rorschach' test. Yes, the 70's eventually degenerated into over-the-top, disco-drenched silliness so of course it's understandable why some frame the film that way. All syrupy, wrong-headed excess. And part of me agrees with them - even Stigwood's other 70's 'successes' such as Jesus Christ Superstar and Tommy strike me as not good enough to be called absurd. And remember that this IS a musical - which means you have to check your normal perspective at the door anyway. And THAT usually means you are either a musical lover or hater.

So, what are we actually reacting to here? 'I liked the 70's AND I like musicals - so I like this movie'? Or, 'I hated the 70's AND I hate musicals - so I hate this movie'? Or, 'I LOVE the Beatles - NO ONE can ever do their music the way they did it - so I hate this movie'.

OK, so it doesn't work for you or maybe it does. I thought the premise was inane (I generally don't like musicals anyway) and the acting was , well, inane also. And I didn't like the 70's when I lived through them and like them even less in retrospect - so I have some fairly deep garbage to wade through to give something like this a decent shake.

But, there are some qualities to recommend this film. I found the Bee Gees to be a surprisingly good fit for a lot of the Beatles tunes. Their rich harmonies complimented and in some cases provided unexpected new dimensions to the Beatle's themes. Not every song worked but most did. Unfortunately that was not the case with Frampton. His soft demeanor just didn't deliver on many of the tunes (Sgt Peppers theme, for example). Forget the acting - I ignored most of it.

Rather than pick the whole thing apart, I decided to reside in the camp that says 'sit back, shut off the brain and just listen to the music'. And that allowed me to appreciate George Martin's unerring hand on the throttle. His timing, attention to detail and sophisticated musical guidance were ever-present. The production quality should seem familiar to true Beatles fans.

So in the end, I thought the whole attempt to be so much lesser than any individual Lennon/McCartney song (many of them are entire stories in their own right anyway). And squeezing something as sublime as 'Because' out of Alice Cooper was just sad. But even so, I'd say overall the music as steered by Martin makes this one at least worthy of a listen, if not a viewing.

came to me during this film: John Lennon's work is as relevant now as when it was made. And not just because of his Beatles-related music but now, thanks partly to this film, because of his post-Beatles life and it's current and no doubt future relevance.

I feel fortunate to have lived through the psychological and musical evolution of Lennon - struggling with his art and struggling with the mystery of his personal life. Admittedly, some of his post-Beatles work seemed whacked out and influenced too directly by Yoko's performance art pov. But the film, arguably, reveals his motivations to be driven more by an honest compassion for the human condition rather than, as has been expressed in various biographies, the rantings of drugged out egomaniac.

After the Beatles break-up he could simply have taken his money, fame and accomplishments and just settled into, well, a life like Paul McCartney. Instead he chose to use his talent and celebrity to try to make a difference a la Harrison,Bono, Nelson, Young, Geldof etc., although he didn't, to my knowledge, raise money for causes as successfully as those artists.

So the critical issue asked of the viewer is: was he sincere or not? Were his 'peace' actions the work of a self-absorbed nut-job driven by the hidden hand of his manipulative wife or of a man who soberly, rationally tried to leverage the awesome power of his fame in the best way he could by speaking out against war and violence?

Granted, how can you go wrong with such a simple theme of 'peace - not war' if your goal is to arrange your place in history among the greats? But Lennon didn't just make peace art, he threw it into the face of power. He took some serious risks with that approach and you'll need to see the movie to decide if that was out of arrogance, stupidity or bravery.

This film will challenge you. Most will, understandably, wonder just what the hell it's about. Then, if they give it enough thought or multiple viewings they may gradually grow to appreciate the writing, the acting, the music and maybe even ask themselves the question - 'How am I not being me?'.

Russell takes us on a metaphysical voyage where ideas and philosophies become anthropomorphic personifications - existential or 'new-age' perspectives inhabit the bodies of 'detectives' who bristle at being called 'therapists' and philosophical dilemmas become their 'clients' - a fireman, an environmental activist, a corporate ladder climber and a model - all consumed by moral/existential questions that cause them to question their own lives.

This all sounds pretty academic but Russell manages to make great entertainment with it as he confidently drives his characters to confront their assumptions and self-deceptions through loopy plot lines that spin and twist their way towards their ultimate interrelated connectedness.

But it's not necessary be in 'allegory mode' to find some of the situations hilarious. As when Caterine (the 'existential position' played by Isabelle Huppert) feels it necessary to drive home a key point about the inevitable drama of human suffering to Tommy (Mark Wahlberg) when she disrupts the cozy friendship that they both enjoy with Albert (Jason Swarzman)by slipping away with him in front of Tommy for a sexual liaison.

The resulting romp in the mud is hilarious - but why? And do you need to know the 'deeper'answer to laugh at it? Not really - but it helps.

Huckabees is funny but it is much more than that. It is a film that functions on many levels and will delight those who follow its characters with the same earnestness that Russell imbues into those characters. In the end, you get out of it what you put into it - and you will be richly rewarded if you give it a chance.

Syriana could have been an excellent movie rather than just a very good one by simply adding a few narrative nudges. I was prepared for the difficulty of comprehending it and turned up my attention in anticipation of grasping multiple plot lines but I finally had to give up on a few of them.

With that said, I still was able to follow the main themes and appreciated its technical strengths; strong acting, directing and writing. Some may need a second viewing if they want to sort all the plots out - which for me is not a negative thing. Many good films require this.

In the end I was wrung out and disturbed for reasons that I am very familiar with so in that sense it didn't break new ground. But the film revealed itself very effectively (and thus was very entertaining) and therefore might serve a higher purpose for those who have not considered some of the subtexts behind our gluttony for oil.