User Reviews

I read the IMDB reviews on this two nights ago, and decided not to rent this film. But then as if by coincidence, the next night I noticed it was on cable currently, so I taped it.

And I'm glad I did.

It seems some reviewers lament the lack of a message in this, I can appreciate such weighty films, hey I enjoyed the "Whale Rider," but such films often reduce down simply to hackneyed sententia. I'm kinda afraid life does as well...but this ain't the forum for that chat.

Charlie Kaufmann seems to specialize in *mixed* message films. I enjoy them as I enjoy a puzzle. They are thought-provoking both in theme and in details (don't know about you, but I had to look up Franz Kline...)

Other reviewers lament the onanism going on (or should that be down). To me, "Adaptation" was a whole lot more masturbatory, this has an easier-to-follow plot. The humor rises more quickly to the surface...and yes I did chuckle at times.

No one so far has voiced concern over this being a film that reflects back from the start. It is done deftly; although I know some people dislike that as a device.

There are several nice film tricks. A circular beginning/ending, Robbins clearly being in a closed afterworld, and nods to other films...Bambi, Tarzan, Frankenstein, Sophie's Choice... ;> No, I'm forgetting another real one. I'm not that familiar with the director's MTV exploits, but I'll rent that collection sooner or later.

No one here yet has mentioned Young Frankenstein (which I see as more of a prototype than Pygmalion...or even Oedipus Rex.) But there are some serious questions being posed. Less these days than in the 70's do we get pitched an idyllic ideal; one wherein if man were stripped of his modern trappings, social strictures, political oppression and other garb, would we find a purer being? Isn't that also an element of Marx/Hegelism?

Kaufmann weaves a new sort of unibrow...uniting the high and the low.

There are other more universal moments here. Arquette struggling not to care what others think about her. Robbins trying to chose between the sweet girlfriend and the saucy seductress, between his heart and his...

Ahem, still there's much more here than what I fear is found in "Me and Him." Libido is a prime mover...whether subjugated or conjugal.

I'm having a hard time wrapping this up...is it a film that states that human nature is deceitful (all of four main characters are in at least one charade)?

Again, I'm glad I rented it. I've got to get better at cross-referencing other reviewers when reading posts here. I think Kaufmann is a very gifted, and very conflicted guy.

7/10

This is further proof that writer Charlie Kaufman is probably the most unique writer in show business and he's developing into quite the cult figure. This odd story is about a woman named Lila (Patricia Arquette) who's body is covered with hair and at the age of 20 she retreats into the wilderness to hide and she writes nature books to make ends meet. But after some time she decides to leave and get electro-dialysis because she gets horny. Her friend hooks her up with a shy and repressed scientist named Nathan (Tim Robbins) and they hit it off. Then while on a nature walk they discover a man (Rhys Ifans) living in the wilderness who thinks he's an ape. They take him back to Nathan's lab where he is going to teach him to be human. Only Kaufman could come up with such a ridiculous story and make it redeemable. The film is directed by Michel Gondry who is known for directing several of Bjorks videos and he makes his feature film debut here. I think the film works because Kaufman makes sure the viewer is not to take this seriously but at the same time the humor is not presented in an over the top way like some cheap attempt at laughs. The humor is more dry witted and it reminded me a little of something Albert Brooks might have thought of. Another thing I enjoyed was the performance of Arquette. She's the core of this film and it should remind everyone that she is able to carry a film by herself and that she's a very underrated actress. I've always been a big fan of hers and she's just not used in films enough. She does appear nude but she seems fine with it and she should, she looks great. The film wants to ask the question about sex and the difference between humans and animals and the environment we are all brought up in. When the film was over I wasn't sure what to make of it but once I found out that Charlie Kaufman wrote the script an immediate smile came across my face. Knowing he was behind this odd comedy seems to make all the sense in the world!

Screenwriter Charlie Kaufman received a great deal of acclaim for his "Being John Malkovich" script, but while that film contained many quirky and inventive ideas, the plot fell apart in the third act, making for an ultimately unsatisfying experience. The same can be said for his second produced script, "Human Nature," which is chock-full of good ideas but ultimately unravels. Kaufman is clever and a jokester, he's just not much of a scenarist.

On the up side, there's a lovely performance by Patricia Arquette, who's not afraid of any of the many bizarre turns her character goes through, and director Michel Gondry (who has made terrific videos for Bjork and others) does the best that he can with the script. (Although those CG mice are pretty lame once they are set free.)

Not an unalloyed success, but some elements here definitely work. Too bad they don't all come through.

Finally, a definitive answer to the question, "What is human nature?" Actually, "Human Nature" is not the answer to that question, but it does address other issues, one of which is the nature of comedy. Many, if not most, people who see "Human Nature" will not care for it. I was going to say "not get it", but that is condescending. I think "Human Nature" is a hilarious comedy. It's extreme adsurdity makes it so. It combines elements of Pygmalion, Frankenstein and Tarzan into a wonderful, modern day farce. The story is about a love rectangle formed by Nathan Bronfman (Robbins), Lila Jute (Arquettte), Puff (Ifans), and Gabrielle (Otto). Nathan and Gabrielle are somewhat normal (as normal as two scientists can be), but Lila and Puff are a bit off center. She has a problem with body hair which covers her whole body, and Puff, was raised in the wild by his father, who thought he was a gorilla. The story is told through flashback by the dead Nathan, the testifying Puff, and the arrested Lila. Wonderfully done. The one question I had throughout was how Puff came to be testifying in front of congress. The answer was so pat and contrived it was funny. My advice is, go see this movie with 4 or 5 friends, and try and predict which one of you will like it. The rest will hate it.

The latest movie from the warped mind of Being John Malkovich writer Charlie Kaufman is a romantic comedy, exploring the relationships between four individuals brought together by a series of tentative bonds.

The first character, introduced in a series of flashbacks, is Lila (Patricia Arquette), a hirsute girl who becomes an outcast from society due to her fur-covered body. She decides to live in the forest and become a nature writer, but eventually, she gets horny, so her electrolysist (played by Rosie Perez) sets her up with Dr. Nathan Bronfman, an anal and neurotic psychologist, played by Tim Robbins. Bronfman has his own set of issues after being raised by strict disciplinarian parents, and it's not surprising that he's a 35-year-old virgin, considering that his main area of study is trying to teach lab mice table manners. The two quickly fall in love and on a nature trip, they come across a man who has been raised in the wilds, not by a monkey, but by his human father who thinks that he is a monkey. This monkey man, played by Rhys Ifans, brings out Lila's more animalistic urges, but Nathan thinks that this is the key for taking his research to the next step. The newly dubbed "Puff" allows himself to be conditioned by Nathan, trying to please his newfound "father", by learning and acting more human.

Relative newcomer, Miranda Otto, plays Gabrielle, Nathan's manipulative "French" lab assistant, playing with the doctor's feelings to get whatever she wants from him. When Nathan finds out Lila's hairy secret, it horrifies him, driving him into Gabrielle's arms and creating a bizarre love rectangle between the four.

Kaufman once again gets a chance to see how far he can go with a number of strange premises and try to tie them together into a cohesive story. This time around, he is working with another video director making his first feature length film in Michel Gandry.

Frankly, Human Nature only has one or two jokes-neither as original as a portal into the head of John Malkovich-but they're funny enough to be stretched out and provide humorous fodder for the entire movie. It does take a little while to warm up to these characters and the situation though. Early in the movie, when a naked and hairy Lila starts parading through the forest singing a song that could have come right out of Disney's "Song of the South", you expect a very long and painful movie. But it gets better, and clearly, Rhys Ifans steals the movie, much like he did as Hugh Grant's roommate in Notting Hill. Some of the funnier scenes involve Puff's "training" to be more human, and the set-up just gets more and more outlandish. At one point, he is taught how to behave at the opera with a full opera box set constructed inside his cage. Imagine Gene Wilder and Peter Boyle singing "Puttin' on the Ritz" in Young Frankenstein to get some idea how funny this situation becomes as it progresses. Ifans alternates between being highly cultured and refined and being a horny, sex-crazed animal. This leads to all sorts of insane situations, where he tries but fails to control his urges, at one point humping a waitress in a classy restaurant. Eventually, he goes on a lecture tour, and the animalistic lovemaking of Nathan and Gabrielle in the next room, drives Puff to a lecherous life seeking out prostitutes. This allows Ifans to show off a darker side to the character, and he beautifully captures the pain suffered by a man-animal that can't decide which he would rather be. The characters are similar archetypes to those found in Being John Malkovich, as Tim Robbins plays John Cusack's hapless schmuck, Otto plays the Catherine Keener bitchy other woman role, and Arquette is the frumpy, spurned woman. Most of the second half of the movie shows how the four characters play a series of human mind games, as they try to feed their animal urges.

Tim Robbins plays his character a bit subtler then some of his past roles, but it works for the character. One of the other amusing schticks involves Nathan debunking his own shrink's theories on his problems--surely his chosen field of study couldn't have anything to do with his strict upbringing. His reaction to finding out that his parents have adopted a polite and well-mannered six-year-old is priceless.

It's fairly obvious that Otto is one of Australia's latest Nicole Kidman clones, as she has a similar mix of beauty and range of demeanor, being sweet one moment and sassy the next. While Gabrielle is a fairly minor role compared to the others, her next appearance will be in the second chapter of The Lord of the Rings.

Patricia Arquette is the weakest link in this equation. (Or is she the missing link?) She spends much of the movie naked or semi-clothed, but doing everything possible to be as unattractive and as unsexy as possible. If she isn't covered in hair from literally from head to toe, she is shaving her body hair, or she is bald, wearing a bad wig and acting psychotic. The concept of a hair-covered woman is a creep enough concept without Arquette's over-the-top performance.

The movie isn't as stylish as some of director Michel Gandry's videos, although the forest scenes hark back to one of his earliest works, which irony of ironies, was on Bjork's first video for the song, "Human Behavior".

Overall, Human Nature is a bizarre little movie that gets funnier as it goes along. The laughs come slow at first, but once Rhys Ifans takes center stage, the laughs are regular and hearty. It is a terrific exploration of what it is to be human and what it is to be an animal, and how hard it sometimes is to make the two ends meet. That said, if you're expecting this to be exactly like Being John Malkovich, then you may be disappointed, as this is an animal of another species.

Rating: 7 out of 10

After perusing the other viewers' comments on this site and noting the plethora of pertinent sociological questions that arise from the viewing of this obviously intellectual piece of cinematography, I can't help but notice that the most obvious question of all has not yet been touched upon, therefore, I will ask it now.

If you were locked in a room with Patricia Arquette and an electric grooming shear, would you shave her body before making love to her?

Maybe the reason this question has not yet been asked is because the answer is so obvious it pretty much goes without saying. That answer is, of course, no. If you were to buzz-cut Ms. Arquette's body with such a tool, you would, without any doubt, leave a stubble that would be rough and scratchy, causing you so much discomfort during the act of intercourse that the whole experience would inevitably become somewhat unpleasant, relatively speaking.

Leaving her hairy, on the other hand, would give you the sensation that you were rolling around with a large, fluffy dog...a feeling which could only add a new measure of pleasure to the whole coital experience. This should not be construed as bestiality, being that the "fluffy-dog" sense of pleasure would be separate from the "doing Patricia" feeling of prurient ecstasy, which means the whole scenario could be pulled off guilt-free.

That would be superb, especially for me, being that I have been totally hot for this particular actress ever since I saw her in True Romance. I would be happy to be in bed with her even if she was a toothless quadruple-amputee covered with hair from her head all the way down to her...uh, never mind.

In terms of release dates, Human Nature (2001) has got to be one of the weirdest movies I've encountered: It premiered in Cannes 2001, but is getting released only now (May 2002) in the states (limited release) and Europe, in a painfully slow manner - See Release Dates.

Nice movie about the human nature, as its title suggests. It presents some interesting aspects about the human society and the rules we make. Although I expected it to be a little more "deep" and present some more fundamental and philosophical ideas, it's very enjoyable and extremely funny at times.

The 4 leading actors are great, especially Rhys Ifans and Patricia Arquette (how brave!); Who knew she's got such a lovely singing voice, too?

This is Michel Gondry's first feature. Gondry is a French video-clips director, known for his excellent work on such music videos as Massive Attack's "Protection"; Chemical Brothers' "Let forever be"; Foo Fighters' "Everlong"; Daft Punk's "Around the World"; and Bjork's "Joga", "Bachelorette", "Hyperballad", "Isobel", "Army of me" and "Human Behaviour".

6.5/10

i've seen the movie. what a disappointment it was?! At first I thought it'll be GREAT, 'cause Charlie Kaufman is the author of the screenplay. I think, that Charlie Kaufman is the greatest author of our times. Being John Malkovich (1999), Adaptation (2002) and Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002), I can watch these films dozens of times and they became each time more interesting. BUT this movie is a piece of disappointment. IMHO M. Gondry is not the right man to work with screenplays like that.

It's pity that he gonna do "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"( which is the great script by the way). But I hope for the best. You know sometimes the script makes the movie and not the director. But with the Human Nature (2001) it's not the case definitely.

I don't know what's happening with the votes on this movie. It IS really great. May be people just get offended by lots of nudity in this picture? Why to bother? It's VERY thought-provoking, extremely smart, funny and in a same way sad. I prefer it over Eternal Sunshine sometimes. Really great story about how hopeless we all are. A bit farce, a bit comedy, and great philosophical meaning. Why don't we live in forests? Why don't we try to be free? Why do we live in this world of steel and plastic? Just think about what questions do Kaufman movie rise.

Being John Malkovich .. is pretty shallow, not strong work. I still adore it, but it's worst Kaufmans work for me, though it's extremely original.

Adaptation brings out greatest thoughts about movie-making, about human relations, about creativity and Hollywood, about mainstream and real art. And the funny thing Adaptation even mocks about itself. Great script.

Eternal Sunshine is mainly about love, destiny and memories. Nothing else there. Though i have to admit it's a perfect script.

Human Nature is an anti-human, Greenpeace-pro movie... till the very end. It mocks humanity sometimes, but mostly talks about how self-important we are, how ungracious to the nature around us. But the end ... Well, wont write spoilers here.

This movie is a skeptical answer for all those hopeless romantics out there. And i think it's a great symbiotic relationship. Romance and skepticism.

This is a movie full of symbolism and satire. A movie called "Human Nature" starts and ends with two little white rats, for example. We are examining 3 characters: a woman that looks like a monkey, a man that is raised as a monkey and a man that was raised as a man (table manners and everything) by his parents. All hell breaks loose when they interact due to their human nature.

I have seen "Adaptation" and "Being John Malkovich" and enjoyed them tremendously, but this movie failed to capture my mind and heart. Maybe it was the ridiculous hearings that the three characters were subjected to, or maybe it's because I have a great respect for Tim Robbins and my expectations were very high.

It is harder and harder to grade movies. I will grade them by the degree of satisfaction at the end of each. This one gets a 6 and while there are movies that I graded higher and are not better, I cannot in good conscience raise the mark.

The story goes as follows: a beautiful hirsute blonde, named Lila and played by Arquette, upset by her work experience in a circus' freak show, runs away from society and becomes a famous writer. However, due to sexual urges, she decides to undergo painful (and extremely lengthy) electrolysis on her whole body, to find a sexual partner.

During what one can only imagine as extremely tedious and painful epilation sessions, her beautician mentions a screwed-up scientist, who no woman in her right mind could possibly find attractive. For mysterious reasons, Lila is intrigued, met him and falls in love. Unfortunately, electrolysis having not worked its miracles yet, Lila must continue shaving her body regularly. She is keeping her condition a secret and when she moves in with scientist boyfriend Nathan – played by an unbearable Tim Robbins – her secret becomes hard to keep.

At this stage, the weird couple runs into a wild ape-man (named Puff) and they decide to take him back to Nathan's lab and train him to behave. It must be noted that the main experiment carried out by Nathan was teaching rats to use the correct fork while eating sitting at a table. Honestly, you cannot make this stuff up…

After some idiotic antics involving a slutty lab assistant, Lila gets dumped because her body hair is still not completely gone. So she kidnaps Puff and moves back into the forest, to live naked and happily hereafter with the ape-man.

Unfortunately Nathan decides he wants Lila back, despite having moved in with the slutty lab assistant. Tragedy ensues, but honestly who cares? Not a single one of these characters has any lovable (or believable) feature. Starting from the hairy Lila (why would any actress play this part is beyond my understanding), to the sadistic Nathan who wants to teach rats how to use forks, not to mention ape-man Rhys Ifans, afflicted by serious masturbatory problems.

The last - but foremost - question I have is the same asked by another reviewer: how does stuff like this get financed? Seriously, who wants to invest in this type of material?

'Human Nature' will inevitably be reviewed in comparison to 'Being John Malkovich', and the comments will be along the lines of 'less coherent', 'not likely to be as commercially successful', etc. But should these be reasons to NOT see this movie? Only if you want to miss the most intelligent movie to come out since BJM. Forget 'A Beautiful Mind', which gives the appearance of intelligence by flaunting pseudo-guru math, but was just another sappy tale of 'the triumph of the human spirit'.

What makes 'Human Nature' and BJM a cut above the usual cinema drivel, is that they actually attempt to get into some serious philosophical issues. BJM delves into personal identity, while 'Human Nature' digs even deeper into the realm of our underlying... human nature. What makes human nature any better than animal nature? civilization? language? manners? And do these distinctly human features actually make us better, or just different, or different in a bad way... i.e. by making us lead dual lives, tearing our originally united being into inharmonious halves (subjective/objective)? And can we simply unite our duplicitousness by forgetting language, civilization, and manners... by returning to nature? Or, with a philosopher who gets an intensional nod in 'Human Nature', Wittgenstein, are we stuck in language, forever banished from the garden of eden?

This movie raised all of these questions, and more, for me... which is what I expect out of a good movie: not only does it entertain us, but it invites us to join in the entertaining. By posing these questions, it challenges us to answer them, and to ask our own questions of it... which means that we have to see it again in order for it to continue the dialogue. Now that's what I call interactive movie-going. Philosophy has started some great stuff in history: religion, government, science. So I think that's its not asking too much for movies to engage in philosophical debates and trying to include the audience, rather than thinking of the audience as fodder for the box office.

With the talent of Spike Jonze and Charlie Kaufman, the idea had enormous potential to be a profound and insightful exploration. But the entire project just fell flat. It was clever in parts, and overall it was different and interesting, but it was by no means a brilliant work of art or a truly meaningful look into human and animal existence. Many of the elements were present, but they never actually came together in any meaningful form. The opening scene wonderfully illustrates what should have been developed throughout the remainder of the film. After the titles roll by, we see a pair of mice (having successfully escaped a predator) walk by a dead human body with no interest or concern. With an odd sort of humor, we can see the difference between human culture and that of the natural world. Clearly, the mice do not care about filing police reports, notifying the press, learning about the deceases family, and all of the other hundreds of mundane things we humans do without thinking twice. Sadly, this sort of clever writing does not carry throughout the rest of the film. In addition, the acting is mediocre, and the characters feel as if they were not fully developed. The odd quarks and bizarre ideas, so much a trademark of Kaufman, are few and far between and seem as though they were merely added as an afterthought in order to make it seem more unique. The basic idea is good, and Kaufman's writing does manage to hold interest, but it is nothing special. The sad part is it had the potential to be a nearly perfect film. Somehow the great talent behind this move did not do nearly as much as they could have. Nonetheless, it is still a very worthwhile film. Kaufman's subtle presentation of ideas about life still manages to provoke thought, and it is a nice break (albeit a small one) from the traditional formula for movies.

The biggest question one should ask in regards to this work is: how does stuff like this get made - who finances it? Although boasting an impressive cast and a script by Charlie Kaufmann, the result is a chaotic mess.

He may present us with interesting and strangely twisting scripts but somehow Kaufmann's work always leaves me less than fulfilled. Maybe it's because he lets too many thoughts come to the surface and then stray as he buries each under a morass of themes that all peter out long before the end. Work like this mostly comes across as a poor man's Preston Sturges; 'Miracle Of Morgan's Creek' it ain't.

Still, there are some moments of interest and it is intriguing to see an actress as attractive as Arquette defile her body image (including a very young Hillary Duff playing Arquette's character in flashback) so thoroughly as she does here. Yet there seems precious little insight or depth of ideology and Gondry's pop-promo directorial style helps matters little.

This is certainly a curiosity for fans of Kaufmann's writing but surely even the most die-hard admirer would have to admit to its many failings. Approach with caution.

I really loved it, when I watched it for the first time. But when I had to re-watch a couple of years later (it was some sort of Sneak at a local cinema), I just couldn't laugh as much. But the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The movie is actually good, it just has a few flaws, that you might see when you watch it for the first time. And therefor maybe you should only watch it once and stay onto the good feelings you had for this movie.

It is greatly acted and the jokes hit the mark. Cleverly written and nicely directed (by Mr. Gondry who I adore very much), this has a very unique story to it. If you know Gondry, you know more or less what to expect (more or less everything alas not as greatly balanced as his more recent work).

Michel Gondry's 2001 flick 'Human Nature' is a fascinating idea made into a fascinating, superb film. Imagine a women who has hair all over her body... a somewhat Tarzan is trained to be a human being and a dead doctor is talking from hell/heaven. What a unique and commendable idea, Written by Charlie Kaufman and wonderfully directed by Michel Gondry, 'Human Nature' is different stuff, but pretty good stuff. Thumbs Up!

Performances: Tim Robbins can never be doubted. He's fantastic as always. Miranda Otto carries off her french accent wonderfully and delivers a stupendous performance. Rhys Ifans is a complete natural, not once he goes overboard. Patricia Arquette is superb.

on the whole 'Human Nature' is morbid, but, neat work. Watch this one!

A deceased behavioural scientist waiting to enter heaven, a woman with body hair issues and a man raised as an ape each tell separate panels how their lives came to overlap in this offbeat comedy written by Charlie Kaufman and directed by Michel Gondry - the team behind 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'. The drama here is not as touching as in their latter collaboration, but the comedy side of 'Human Nature' is just as quirky with eccentricities ranging from laboratory mice who have been taught how to use cutlery to Rhys Ifans mixing up dining manners with his baser human urges. The title of the film is somewhat ironic as the film explores the effects of conditioning - as well as the side effects of repressing what comes naturally. It is not an entirely realistic story as the scientist, played by Tim Robbins, kidnaps a feral Rhys Ifans, found in the woods, and raises him in a glass cage in his laboratory like a guinea pig, but then again, from the gigantic illuminated signs that Robbins uses to teach him how to talk to politely (!) to the somewhat miniature furniture that he gradually crowds his glass cage with, outrageousness seems to be what Kaufman and Gondry are most acutely interested in. Plus, of course, prodding questions of just how much sense conditioning makes and whether we are in life ultimately driven by sexual desires above all else.

Didn't know what it wanted to say or didn't know how to say it -- maybe both. Could have been hilarious. Excellent cast could have risen to the opportunity, had the writer provided even slightly more opportunity. Too bad...

As he managed to do in Being John Malkovich, brilliant writer Kaufman succeeds in creating a completely believable alternative reality, which he employs as a metaphor that pokes seemingly light (and therefore lethally subversive) fun at 'society' - what it means to be civilized, what it means to be free, how people judge each other based on ridiculously superficial differences of appearance, etc, etc. It works, because Kaufman IS so brilliant, and I left the theatre with the same feeling I had gotten from Being John Malkovich - inspired and gratified that someone like this not only exists in the world but actually gets to put his completely unique and uncompromising visions on the screen.

Unlike the other works from Charlie Kaufman- Being John Malkovich, Adaptation and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind- Human Nature doesn't leave the sort of unbelievable cinematic residue that stays for days and week and even years afterward. It's a work that is low-key even as it's insanely zany in spurts and totally tuned into a comedic frequency that only works for the casual viewer sometimes. But even a lesser work from the likes of Michel Gondry and Kaufman registers higher in a way that comedies with lower ambitions couldn't dream to aspire to. It has some conventionality to it, with its love triangle between Dr. Nathan Bronfman (Tim Robbins), Lila (Patricia Arquette), and Gabrielle (Miranda Otto) that ends up tearing apart the characters to question who they are (aside from Gabrielle). Yet that's not really totally at concern, though it probably has somewhere to figure into the whole idea of what makes for truth in human nature. One might argue, after seeing the film, it has something to do with individualism...actually, if we go by Kaufman's interpretation, it has to do with orgasms.

Told in quasi-Rashomon style (with the law and the afterlife, as in Rashomon, figuring into Human Nature as well), Bronfman has an interest in teaching mice table manners when we first meet him (one of the film's funniest recurring images/scenes), and gets set up on a date with Lila, who's a writer of nature stories (from personal experience, due to an abnormal hair condition as a child she decides to live in the wild after an unsuccessful stint at a side-show). She decides to conform for him, hiding the fact that she's a hairy "ape" from the wild, as he hides his compulsion for manners and proper behavior. Enter in "Puff" (Rhys Ifans, in one of his funniest roles/performances yet), who gets that name by Gabrielle, Nathan's assistant at work, and an adoptive mother to Nathan being adoptive father. Now it will be time to really go further with Nathan's research- to teach one who's been in the wild always to be a proper, educated human. This proves to be a challenge, as Puff can't resist the urge to hump whenever aroused, and is around the sexual explosion that erupts between Nathan and Gabrielle- the love triangle that unfolds that may spell as foreshadowing for Puff later on in the story...

And so on. You might get just the slight sense- scratch that, overwhelming impression- that this is not you're average tale of what it means to be an ape-man and become 'civlized'. It's a whacked-out comedy of manners and sexuality, where one's own soul becomes more of a question then what is really meant to be proper or what not. Actually, there is some interest in how Nathan figures into this as well- he's the least human of all, at least for the most part, as he loses himself in his pursuit of science, with Lila losing hers alongside. So Kaufman does end up working some very interesting characters here, and the situations and little notes that pop up are about as irreverent as he's ever done. The problem is it ends up un-even too: little things are left un-checked, as to Gabrielle possibly not being really French (it's put in as a possible note of her being untruthful as well, but it's never addressed again, or her motives of anything, even as Otto plays the character well enough), or the psychology that emerges from Puff himself. Does he just want to "have some of that" as he says to the committee, or does he get too adjusted to his surroundings.

However what holes or problems might lie in the screenplay, there's no denying the bright strengths just in general working in Human Nature. Who would think up such a strange concept, leaping bravely off of Truffaut's Wild Child into a sort of common theme in Kaufman's work so far? Kaufman would, especially as it's part of the need to feel like someone else, or what it must be to try to be something one can't really be through insecurities and troubles in dealing with reality and surroundings. I would imagine that Kaufman had a lot of fun churning this one out, possibly even thinking it might be improbable it might even get made. Luckily, it's directed by Gondry with his mix of fantastical visual energy and a real sense of humility with the absurd material. It doesn't have the same power as in his best work either, but as a first feature film it could've been a lesser endeavor too. Human Nature ends on an (ironically?) unique ending, where Puff does what we'd expect him to do, but then maybe not, and it caps off what has led up to it- a weird little ball of comic-curiosity that should please fans of Robbins (very funny in his awkward doctor character), Arquette, and especially Ifans.

The only reason I didn't give this stinker a 1 is that very few films actually deserve it and occasionally the acting was OK, but this was close. How can Tom Robbins have sunk so low? From Shawshank to this drivel. Avoid at all cost. I feel violated and need a shower after this one.

2/10

This may be one of the most undereatimated movies on the imdb. Trumped only by it's more popular cousin Adaptation, this movie in the best that film language has to offer express all the joy, sorrow, misery, agony, torment, ennui, sillyness, and boozy lust of being a biologacal creature in a social super structure. I love this movie. I love how it translates the dry language psychological philosophy into an entertaining movie that is both emotional heavy and light heartedly funny. Rhys Ifans is absolutely wonderful in his portayal of the apotheosis of the destructive nature of language on human emotion. As with adaptation I just can't say enough about this movie. They seem so intelligent and full of joy that Charlie Kaufman is quickly becoming one of my favorite writers in hollywood along with Linklater and Tarantino.

10 out of 10 i'm drunk

A black comedy about what motivates people to fall in love in our culture. Kaufman's writing is original and very funny. This is not as good as Being John Malkovich or Adaptation but that in no way takes away from Human Nature. I thoroughly enjoyed all the characters.

I was really disappointed in this movie, stupid story, hardly any good jokes. It was very hard to view the movie till the end, luckily i rented the video and didn't waste any money looking at this bulls**t in the theatre.