First off: why the hell didn’t anyone tell me that Tippi Hedren is in this movie? It was so great seeing her onscreen that I wished there was more of her, of course. She plays a woman whose family foundation has arranged the donation of the woods and wetlands that are at the center of the film’s plot. She did get one great moment towards the end of the film where she shouts angrily, “Fuck him!” Titilating. Bless David O. Russell for casting her. It’s pathetic that iconic American actresses like Tippi Hedren and Gena Rowlands, who are probably at the height of their gifts as performers, are usually shunted into tiny roles of the sweet grandmother variety (when they get any roles at all). Meanwhile of course Catherine Deneuve and, thankfully, Charlotte Rampling get juicy parts all the time (and bless you Francois Ozon!)

Okay, now the film itself. It’s wonderful! Picture a film collaboration between Jean-Paul Sartre and Preston Sturges and you have a very close description. It’s thoughtfulness at the speed of screwball. I admire the film for actually being AN EXISTENTIAL COMEDY instead of taking the easy way out, which would have been to take a shallow Pop Psychology version of “existentialism” (whiny New Age soul searching) and make a movie that was “funnier” but less authentic. The film’s “authority” is a key to its success. This is not a perfect film, but it’s one that’s more interesting and more admirable for being true to itself. I think one of the reasons that some people have been put off by it is precisely because it dares to use deep questions as the basis for a zany comedy, and rather than scorning or parodying the concept of self-examination it takes it seriously. And follows through. It’s harder to just dismiss something that creates a premise and then handles it with such honesty. I think it’s a film that will deepen with repeated viewings.

The ensemble is perfectly cast. Jason Swartzman IS youthful idealism personified. Dustin Hoffman and Lily Tomlin are so exactly right as a couple; it’s one of those pairings that makes you wonder why it hasn’t been done before. He takes the more mystical approach to existence whereas she relies on the accumulation of facts to get answers. And Isabelle Huppert would tempt anyone into becoming a nihilist. Only Jude Law and Naomi Watts are anything less than satisfying. Mr. Law looks absolutely right for the part but too often appears hamstrung by maintaining his American accent (the only two BritsI can think of who can pull off an American accent and make it look effortless are Kenneth Branagh and Bob Hoskins). Ms. Watts has a few moments of awkward improv in the film and her role itself is a bit on the thin side. However, Mark Wahlberg as an angst-ridden firefighter has just the right balance of goofy pin-up and wounded hero.

People have compared David O. Russell to Paul Thomas Anderson, and I think that’s most unfair. Because this is a film that would be a failure had it been made with the kind of over-the-top, baroque stylism that is Anderson’s trademark. Russell has chosen a messier method which is less literary and Mametesque than Anderson and more kinesthetic, more like Preston Sturges. The characters are compelled to act out their frustration and questioning: they jump around, talk a mile a minute; in a memorable scene between Schwartzman and Huppert, they express their new-found nihilstic connection by smearing mud over each other before fucking. Where Anderson might choose to compliment his characters’ frenzy with a swooping camera and whiplash cutting, Russell seems mostly content to let camera and editing remain calm and merely capture heir behavior (at times like a more polished Cassavetes). It gives the film a more humanistic and intimate tone.

I’m so happy I finally got to see this movie. You ought to see it too.