[5]

Gosh. I guess I just don’t get this movie. I mean, it’s beautiful and all, and the performances are certainly something special. But what the hell do I take from the story? It’s so open-ended (thematically), it’s practically a Rorschach test — probably by design, but frustrating nonetheless. Joaquin Phoenix plays a WWII veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress who serendipitously falls in with an L. Ron Hubbardesque self-help guru played by Philip Seymour Hoffman. The two men take a shine to each other, bonding over nothing but their mutual love of alcohol, and then Hoffman’s character proceeds to get upset whenever Phoenix wanders from the flock. Phoenix is given a final warning, some possible gay undertones are implied, and then credits roll.

I found the characters very cold and inaccessible. One is an ignorant drunk and the other is an enigmatic drunk. Amy Adams’ character enters the story to show who is really in charge and throw up some new possible meanings to the whole thing — but she has very little screen time. And just when I’m starting to make something out of the movie, it’s over. The ending shocked me, because I genuinely thought it was only the middle of the movie. I hate that feeling.

The movie might be a study of man vs animal nature. It might have something to do with the fallacy of religion. I think there’s some physical manifestation of the id, ego, and super-ego in the two leading men and Amy Adams’ character… yeah, the more I’m thinking about it, the more I think the movie’s a Rorschach test. (Maybe that’s why the poster art features the characters embedded in an ink blot?)

I love Paul Thomas Anderson’s (Boogie Nights, Magnolia, There Will Be Blood) direction, but I just needed a little more to hang onto with this one. And it wouldn’t have hurt if Joaquin Phoenix spoke a little more intelligibly, either. With Laura Dern.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor (Joaquin Phoenix), Best Supporting Actor (Philip Seymour Hoffman), Best Supporting Actress (Amy Adams)