Category Archives: Mark Wahlberg

Movie Review: I Heart Huckabees

1 Reply

Like any David O. Russell movie, “I Heart Huckabees” begins with a character talking faster than they can think. Or in the case of Albert Markovski (Jason Schwartzman), he’s thinking faster than any normal human being should ever think. Then again, that’s just the kind of behavior we should expect from any character played by Jason Schwartzman at this point.



“I Heart Huckabees” is what would happen if “Being John Malkovich” crossed paths with “The Royal Tenenbaums.” Most descriptions of this film (even the negative ones) will describe it as “quirky.” This is an overused and condescending term to describe odd character-driven films. Yes, this film is full of strange moments and eccentric characters, but to call it quirky would be like calling it cute. Frankly, there is nothing cute about existentialism.



Albert is an environmental activist currently fighting the development of a major department store, Huckabees, on open marshland. While Albert feels that his work isn’t appreciated, a strange coincidence triggers an internal crisis. In order to solve his coincidence, he turns to existential detectives Bernard and Vivian Jaffe (Dustin Hoffman and Lily Tomlin). Quite fittingly, their office lies at the end of a long, blank, confusing maze of a hallway. The detectives study human motives as opposed to actual crimes, and they go through a process of psychology and stalking their clients.

Albert is brought further down an existential rabbit hole after he meets Tommy Corn (Mark Wahlberg), who is able to disprove the Jaffe philosophy. Corn is inspired by another existentialist, Caterine Vauban (Isabella Huppert). While the Jaffes follow the belief that everything in the universe is connected, Vauban believes the opposite. The Jaffes and Vauban soon partake in a philosophical tug-of-war for Albert’s psyche. After Albert’s company teams up with the vacuous Huckabees boss, Brad Stand (Jude Law), the existential problems become a little too public, and it prompts Brad to hire the Jaffes to explore his own problem. Lost yet? Just hang in there, please.



“I Heart Huckabees” is ambitious in all of the existential ground that it covers. Some think “Huckabees” gets lost at times sniffing Sartre’s existential farts. The film definitely has a few loose ends and some factors that don’t quite add up. For example, if the detectives follow Albert around, and he can see them spying on him, then how can they know that everything they see is the candid truth?



Then again, one could argue that the film is as flawed as the sprawling theory that it sets out to explore. And with the passage of time, the film has taken on a new meaning. It also represents the time following the War in Iraq that was ruled by “existential threat.” I am sure that David O. Russell didn’t intend for this to happen, but it is funny what the passage of time can do. The best example of this would be the scene in which Tommy argues about the significance of oil with a nice Christian family, and unravels all of their lives comforts in such a flawlessly deadpan matter. That is what existentialism does: it takes apart the meaning of existence, and reduces it to its most simplistic form. For this scene alone, “Huckabees” is a film that was just one slight step ahead of its time.

The sum of “I Heart Huckabees” can be viewed in two ways: whether it works as a philosophical whole, and whether it works as a film. Let’s just say it works out in both ways. The film’s loose ends are somewhat smoothed by its undeniably curious nature, its wit, and its chaotic and totally free form.



The characters’ enlightened meltdowns are all understandable and abide by the idea that one can only see their flaws once they are fully laid out in front of them. That is why it is understandable when the Huckabees model (Naomi Watts) tries to hide her beauty when she realizes that she is totally replaceable, and when a story Brad repeatedly tells ends up making him physically ill. That scene represents the one of the best moments in Jude Law’s acting career.



As for the rest of the ensemble, Tomlin plays into the film’s free structure and brings out her improvisational past. While Hoffman, under that mop of gray hair, plays one of the strangest neurotic messes he has ever played. Wahlberg, meanwhile, shows why he has become a coveted actor. His character doesn’t seem like someone who would ever transform into a brilliant philosopher, but he fits the role with the sort of subtle comedy chops that I never thought he was capable of. And then Schwartzman is just playing what I assume is a heightened version of himself, which he has gotten better and better at playing.



“I Heart Huckabees” may lose a lot of people early on. However, there is a sense of genuine and convincing connections that exist between the characters that becomes more apparent upon a second viewing. Also, its rebellious spirit, including its putdown of corporations and most mainstream American ideas isn’t exactly daring but it is definitely is refreshing. With “Three Kings” before it and “The Fighter” after it, “I Heart Huckabees” shows what a versatile filmmaker David O. Russell truly is. He deserves an extra accolade for turning a philosophy by some of the world’s darkest thinkers into slapstick comedy.



There is one exchange at the very end of “I Heart Huckabees” that stands out (don’t worry, this quote barely gives anything away). When discussing a protest involving chaining themselves to a bulldozer, Tommy asks, “Should I bring my own chains?” Albert ambiguously and succinctly replies, “We always do.” Once you’ve seen the whole movie you’ll understand that he wasn’t just talking about the protest.

Movie Review: The Fighter

Leave a reply

When “The Fighter” was first released, the common reaction was likely, “are you kidding? Another boxing movie?” If a director has the chutzpah to make a movie about a topic that has been explored to death, he better make something good. Since it’s David O. Russell, the director of “Three Kings,” then it must be worth our while.


“The Fighter” is the kind of entertainment that has a huge mass audience potential, yet its slow pace is made for those with patience. The film begins as a psuedo-documentary and switches between that and narrative format throughout. This film tells the true story of Mickey Ward (Mark Wahlberg), a struggling boxer from a rough neighborhood in Lowell, Massachusetts. His future career as a boxer is compromised by both his love for a beautiful bartender (Amy Adams) and his dysfunctional family, which includes his abusive mother (Melissa Leo) and his washed up, crack addicted brother, who is a former boxer (Christian Bale).

“The Fighter” is what one might consider a slow burner, for better or worse. It begins slow and at first doesn’t seem to know quite which direction to take the story. It takes an extremely dramatic twist less than midway into the story for “The Fighter” to truly pick up steam. It goes from an average underdog story to something very different; something that is much more immediate and important than the typical Hollywood fable.


“The Fighter” also brings a new dimension to the now popular tough-and-from-Boston film. Coming off the heels of this year’s “The Town” as well as “The Departed,” “Gone Baby Gone,” and “Good Will Hunting” of past years, Boston has become less of a city and more of a theme in the eye of the filmmaker. Growing up in Boston means being tied down to societal and familial constraints. The only way to escape these constraints comes through pursuing one’s passion, whether that be solving math problems, robbing banks, or boxing.

While this is also one of the more realistic looks at crime and drug problems in the city, there is also a sense of warmth surrounding the characters unseen in most other Boston films. This can be seen mainly in that fantastic first scene, where Mickey and Dicky walk through the streets of Lowell and embrace everyone they see shows that in a way, everyone is looking to escape with Mickey. Everyone feels Mickey’s quest is their quest as well.


Looking past a few small flaws, “The Fighter” is an example of how a few good performances can severely impact the course of a film. Wahlberg is a fine choice for Mickey. In fact, this could even be a bit of a personal role for him given his past in Boston as well as his troubles with family and the law. However, he is nothing truly special. He lacks that hilarious, nasty, and committed attitude that made his performance in “The Departed” so unforgettable.

The true strength of the ensemble lies in a few supporting characters. The ladies of the film bring much needed emotional depth to their roles. Adams is proving herself a fine young actress capable of even bigger roles while Leo shows she is always more than capable of playing troubled, lower class mothers.


The real soul, the real strength of the film, lies totally in the performance of Christian Bale. It is weird to think he is even a supporting character, given how much of the story relies on him, and how he dominates every scene he is in and makes you forget the story is really about Mickey Ward. I could tell from the film’s very first shot that his performance was going to be something special. Like Natalie Portman in “Black Swan,” Bale acts with his entire body. With his googly eyes, shaky arms, and salamander-like body, he is the sad embodiment of drug addiction. Bale makes Dicky fast-talking, funny, and sad. He starts the story as someone we look at and pity, but by the end, he has truly earned his redemption.
What is most interesting about Bale’s style of method acting, most similar to De Niro in his glory days, is that he is always acting. A common habit for an actor when they are in a shot where they don’t talk is to just sit silently, and stare. Bale however, doesn’t end his drug-addled fidgeting. I could probably spend an entire review talking about Bale’s acting, but there is actually a whole movie here to still talk about. So let’s just say this: Bale has earned this year’s Best Supporting Actor statue.
What Bale’s performance shows is the potential energy and excitement surrounding the story that “The Fighter” is ultimately able to embody. “The Fighter” is the story of the unlikely coming true. Director David O. Russell, who also made the Gulf War parable “Three Kings” highly plausible (and still relevant), succeeds at this task admirably. Scenes like the one where the characters walk through the streets, as mentioned earlier, show the uplifting potential of such depressing material. Not to mention, the boxing scenes are shot in a televised style, capturing the excitement of watching a match live. It also creates a strange, yet effective, detachment from the actual violence happening onscreen.
“The Fighter” is a film that shows that what is ultimately most important is not what a film is about, but how it is about. There are only so many stories to be told so the same old stories might as well be told in new, innovative ways.
The struggle of the boxer has been captured so many times that it can’t possibly be interesting anymore. However, David O. Russell makes the right choice and takes a page out of the “Raging Bull” handbook of how to make a good sports film and barely focuses on the actual sport itself. The sport is less of a sport and more of a means for the characters to express themselves in some way, either to release energy, or overcome adversity. The title of “The Fighter” does not suggest someone fighting for a title, but rather someone fighting merely to stay alive.