Human Nature 2001

Renee Graham, Boston Globe: It's just weirdness for the sake of weirdness, and where Human Nature should be ingratiating, it's just grating. Read more

Terry Lawson, Detroit Free Press: A sporadically amusing mess of good intentions and bad execution. Read more

Rene Rodriguez, Miami Herald: Remains more of a riff than an actual movie. Read more

Richard Roeper, Ebert & Roeper: It's way out there, but not effective enough. Read more

Moira MacDonald, Seattle Times: What lingers is Arquette and her wistful little squeak of a voice, imbuing Lila with a mournfulness that's quite touching. Read more

Susan Stark, Detroit News: All the way to the middle of the movie, and maybe beyond that, it's impossible to get the script's drift. That's frustrating if not outright defeating. Read more

Chris Vognar, Dallas Morning News: This is an aggressive mix of smart and stupid, a high-concept goof that swings with abandon and makes enough contact to keep you smiling. Read more

Michael Wilmington, Chicago Tribune: Tries for both civilized wit and primitive joy -- and mostly misses both. Read more

A.O. Scott, New York Times: Human Nature should have been more polished, and less tame. Read more

John Anderson, Newsday: Human Nature is a goofball movie, in the way that Malkovich was, but it tries too hard. Read more

Eleanor Ringel Gillespie, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: A movie that falls victim to frazzled wackiness and frayed satire. Read more

Paul Tatara, CNN.com: Give this one a try, if for no other reason than to convince Hollywood that 'something different' doesn't automatically mean throwing away good money. Read more

Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly: The movie is too cute to take itself too seriously, but it still feels like it was made by some very stoned college students. Read more

Liam Lacey, Globe and Mail: For all its highfalutin title and corkscrew narrative, the movie turns out to be not much more than a shaggy human tale. Read more

Jonathan Rosenbaum, Chicago Reader: Read more

John Powers, L.A. Weekly: Although a few moments are hilarious, this would-be romp remains laboriously earthbound when it should be swinging gaily through the trees. Read more

Rex Reed, New York Observer: It's all squeamishly pathetic in a freaked-out way, as the actors are reduced to primates and the movie makes no sense at all. Read more

Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times: If it tried to do anything more, it would fail and perhaps explode, but at this level of manic whimsy, it is just about right. Read more

Andrew O'Hehir, Salon.com: The funniest movie I've seen so far this year (which is saying almost nothing), but it has an air of pale, forced outrageousness about it. Read more

Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle: A satisfying and original picture. Read more

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Read more

Geoff Pevere, Toronto Star: The simplicity with which it depicts these [animal] forces eternally at war with each other is sometimes sublimely evocative. Read more

Derek Adams, Time Out: Read more

Todd McCarthy, Variety: Read more

J. Hoberman, Village Voice: An overemphatic, would-be wacky, ultimately tedious sex farce. Read more

Stephen Hunter, Washington Post: The results, if not memorable, are at least interesting. Read more