Too much theory, too much psychoanalysis, too much Jude Law, too many damn commercial interruptions for Wal-Mart during the denouement of America’s Next Top Model. With that list as a somewhat-fair representation of my current situation, I don’t think anything was made better by seeing “I Heart Huckabees.”

The question, “Do you speak English?” was posed to me (by Herschel) approximately thirty seconds before entering the theater, something which should serve as an indicator of my mental capacity while watching David O. Russell’s film. I should also say this: Russell’s “Three Kings,” in my opinion, is a fabulous film, so I had some fairly high hopes for his latest. But, then again, who wouldn’t when it boasts the tagline “An existential comedy?”

That said, I spent two hours watching an incredible cast throw around too many psychoanalytic catch phrases. Jude Law’s slimy Shania Twain-obsessed ad-man is confronted by his model-girlfriend (Naomi Watts) for failing to understand the depths of her “infinite nature” when neither they nor I know what that means. It’s no wonder firefighter Tommy’s (Mark Wahlberg) wife leaves him: “Pure being” is a Hegelian term, as Jesse informed me mid-movie, but Tommy (Mark Wahlberg) equates the idea with beating himself in the face repeatedly with a big red bouncy ball. The existential detectives (Lily Tomlin and Dustin Hoffman) pull Kafka out of a garbage can after tailing people on their enviro-friendly bikes. I’d do Albert (Jason Schwartzman) even though he’s already doing the hot I’d-also-do-her French nihilist (Isabelle Huppert).

But that’s also what I’m supposed to want. Russell makes psychoanalysis, critical theory, and deconstruction sexy while simultaneously critiquing it all. Recruiting Jon Brion for the film was particularly amusing to me once I saw it as a) a pretty score, and b) as a subtle poke at movies Brion has worked on such as “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” a philosophical movie that takes itself seriously.

Unfortunately his preferred form of satire is to mix everything up so badly that none of it makes sense rather than building an argument based on why too much light makes the baby go blind. (No one goes blind in the movie; I’m the baby, and that’s a theater I once attended in Chicago.) Of course I didn’t go to “Huckabees” looking for a key to successful living in a postindustrial/late-capitalist/postmodern world, but I think I left even more frustrated than I was when I came in.

I guess what I’m trying to say is this: yes, it’s an overly intelligent movie (I mean that as a compliment) and very funny, especially for it’s successful incorporation of mancala, Korean barbeque references, Amish dress, and a mud puddle sex scene. But I think I prefer movies that attempt to use philosophy while simultaneously taking themselves seriously; that way, at least I can walk out of the theater agreeing or disagreeing with a coherent something posited by the film and proceed from there.

In “Huckabees,” there was no idea coherent enough with which I could agree or disagree, though I laughed a lot at what I thought the film was making fun of. After turning it over for a while, I realized the movie was really laughing at people like me, people who know just enough theory to make everyday life a little more awkward, yet won’t turn away from theory once they see what it’s doing. Intellectually, I have a hard time watching a director make fun of his audience, no matter how beautiful or innovative the composition of his shots are.