The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (3/5 Stars)

There was always something about Harry Potter that I found disturbing. It was always just a little bit off. Here you had a story about an innocent unassuming boy blessed with magical powers and a supremely important mission. They were imposed on him through no actions of his own. He would assume through accident of birth a unique status greater than all in the land. At the same time the hero rejects his unwon fame. He miserates on his unlucky situation and all it means. I am just a normal run-of-the-mill boy he asserts. All I want is the simple things in life like all the good ordinary men and women. In fact, in these stories those who seek fame and fortune above the simple things are looked down upon. In many cases they are the villains. In this way the book has its cake and eats it too. It allows the reader to vicariously live in fame, fortune, and violent glory while assuring themselves that what they really want is simply good friends, family, and love. By reading a book that abdicates the responsibility for all the superficial qualities forced upon the hero the audience earns plausible deniability for their own consciences. A reader can identify with a hero that can handle the fast times but is not defined by them. Or one that can state with a straight face: I could be the greatest most famous most successful person ever but I choose to be one of the people because you know that’s what’s important in life. It works of course just as long as one ignores the insidious subtext: “Please Please Please don’t forget I could have fame, fortune, and glory if I wanted it!” Because, seriously, who would have read Harry Potter if he was just a guy who wanted friends and family. He also has to be something extra. He has to be a wizard and not just any wizard, the best one. (Full Disclosure: I don’t particularly care for Harry Potter).

There is an incredible undercurrent of narcissim in my least favorite genres of storytelling Fantasy and Science Fiction. The Hunger Games a well written, competently acted, and brilliantly produced beauty of a movie is no exception. It stars Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen, the blank slate everygirl who is the best archer in the land and has two good-looking men she feels so very guilty for having to choose between. Katniss Everdeen loves her family. Particularly she is fond of her little sister the exquisitely named Primrose Everdeen. To save Primrose and not for fame and glory she volunteered for the annual Hunger Games in the first movie. The Hunger Games is a ‘Battle Royale’-esque gladiator tournament between the thirteen impoverished districts of a futuristic dystopian society that has the totalitarian Captitol city at the head of it. It is a winner-take-all competition, kill or be killed. So Katniss killed everyone (quite honorably I would say) in the first movie, gaining in the process fame and fortune, though she really did not want to because you know she is so ordinary in the ways that count.

So Hunger Games: Catching Fire starts off with the rising celebrity of Katniss Everdeen presenting a problem to the totalitarian government headed by President Snow, played by Donald Sutherland. He intends to discredit her by various means that only encourage the population to revere her in even more rebellious fashion. Because this takes place in the genre of Science Fiction/Fantasy the movie can ignore many many things. For instance, the entire oppressive government seems to be entirely comprised in only one person, President Snow. In the real world, you would need some sort of bureaucracy to oppress a people. This is generally overlooked. Secondly we can overlook the realistic notion that celebrities that gain fame through reality TV contests don’t have any political power. As far as I can tell power (if you choose to distill it down to its essential essence) comes from the ability to hire or fire people, i.e. control over jobs. Think about that definition and see where it can get you. But as this is the future, a TV celebrity can move the world. And please try to forget what the economy of the extravagant Captitol is comprised of given that it has no commercial class or trading partners. Or what it really takes to not only stoke a rebellion but also to competently carry it to realization, see Battle of Algiers. In the real world, inspiration is the least of all problems. In Hunger Games, it seems to be the only thing that’s missing. But because this takes place in some fantastical land (or a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, or on Middle Earth) we can set up a story whose plot functions can rely almost entirely on character whims for better or worse. If you wanted to do that in a realistic genre, you would have to confine all the characters to a house and make the story take place within a day. But you can have interpersonal opera on a grand scale with world changing consequences in fantasy/science fiction because once again, you can pretend that reality does not apply in this far distant land.

We can be very glad that Hunger Games: Catching Fire is not a preachy metaphor designed to make us think about the problems of everyday life. Some movies within this genre do just this and become horribly insufferable monstrosities. Instead Hunger Games is far more concerned with costumes, hair, and makeup. I suppose we will just have to get used to this as studios start paying due attention to the other half of the population. If Hunger Games is a portent of the future of blockbusters though we should be seeing much to appreciate. For instance take a look at these names: Katniss Everdeen, Primrose Everdeen, Effie Trinket, Ceasar Flickerman, Claudius Templesmith, Plutarch Heavensbee, Haymitch Abernathy. Don’t those just roll off the tongue in some perfect mosaic of sound and diction? Or take a look at the great flair in hair of the game show host Ceasar Flickerman (playbed by Stanley Tucci) and his sidekick Claudius Templesmith (Toby Jones). Or consider the Girl on Fire costumes of Katniss Everdeen and her counterpart Peeta Mellark that catch fire during a chariot parade to the delight of the crowd. Or the even more impressive bride/mockingjay costume that not only makes Jennifer Lawrence look great but is also imbued with important story revealing symbology. This is the first blockbuster I know of that gives the hero/heroine a stylist in a major role. Lenny Kravitz does the job here doling out wisdom the way Obi Wan Kenobi would tutor Luke Skywalker in swordplay. The most impressive creature in all of this superficial exuberance is the presence of Effie Trinket, a woman who changes elaborate costumes and hairdos in every single scene. She is played by Elizabeth Banks and in the most markedly superior aspect of this sequel compared to the first movie, we get some depth to the character peeking out of the ditzy cheerleader persona in a way that very surprisingly doesn’t undercut all we have previously seen from her. I haven’t seen anything else quite like her in movies. Effie Trinket is an original.  

Oh and look we have several notable new castmembers. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is the new gamemaster and a fairly competent and entertaining one as we see in the final third of the movie. And there is Jena Malone, who I have spoken good graces of before. She tends to pop her head up from indie stardom in character roles in bigger movies every now and again. She plays Johanna Mason, the warrior woman Katniss Everdeen would be if she wasn’t so like the rest of us. The movie’s third act in a new series of Hunger Games does not dissapoint and ends in a very satisfying way. I am a little interested in seeing the next one.

Here’s another curiousity. Michael Arndt co-wrote this screenplay with Simon Beaufoy (also very good). Michael once won an Oscar for writing one of my favorite movies, Little Miss Sunshine. That movie had an entirely opposite take on the world compared to these types of narcissistic tales. But since then, his career trajectory since then has been almost entirey focused on big budget sequels in the realm of fantasy science fiction (Toy Story 3, Hunger Games, Oblivion, Star Wars). Et tu, Arndt?

The Hunger Games (3/5 Stars)

The Reality TV Paradox

Great documentaries are lucky documentaries. The greatness of such films like “Hoop Dreams,” or the “Seven Up” series rely greatly on the unlikely coincidences that somehow were recorded by a camera. Would anybody have cared about the Rolling Stones documentary “Gimme Shelter,” if it did not just happen to accidentally chronicle a murder at a rock concert? Would the mockumentary “Borat” be as hilarious if Sacha Baron Cohen had not coincidentally hitchhiked onto that particular RV filled with those particular outrageous frat boys?

Now at the same time imagine that you were a movie or television studio that is attempting to create a documentary that will be predictably successful. How can you produce a predictably successful product that relies on coincidence? If you don’t do anything you are at the whim of fate and the documentary will either be bad or good depending on what you so happen to record. But if you do things to make sure that dramatic coincidences do occur, you are essentially writing the documentary, which in essence makes it cease to be a documentary. In the end, like much reality TV, you get a product that lacks dramatic effect because unlike real documentaries it is untruthful and manipulative and at the same time lacks the production value and professionalism of a documentary that is sincerely untruthful and manipulative, or in other words, a fictional movie.

I bring this up because, “The Hunger Games,” is a fictional movie about a reality TV show, and as such piles on layers of almost absurd complexity on how the characters are perceived depending on whether it is by us the movie audience, or the TV audience in the movie. In other words, the underlying emotions of a scene are generally undermined by the realization that it is all an act. And how much can you care about a person (even if it was a life and death situation) if you knew they were mugging at a camera at the same time?

I have given this movie three stars because I enjoyed it okay. But I want it also to be known that I have never seen a movie quite like this one, and that affirmation of originality should be seen as a sort of moral victory at least. The story takes place in a future where the United States has split itself into 12 districts and hosts an annual game that pits two randomly selected teenagers from each district into a fight to the death gladiatorial tournament. From district 12, there comes the 18-year-old Katniss Everdeen (played here by the 25-year-old Jennifer Lawrence) who volunteers for the tournament to save her 12-year-old sister from being selected. Also selected from her district is Peeta Mellark (played by Josh Hutcherson). They are whisked away from their poor coal-mining district to the big city where they are mentored by Haymitch Abernathy (played by Woody Harrellson) to be likable, because that is the best way to win these particular games. In other words, the games are not real. They are fake reality TV. Apparently a good old fight-to-the-death would not be predictably exciting enough. There is a whole behind the scenes room of producers here who manipulate the games. This can be done by releasing forest fires or releasing lethal wild animals into the tournament space whenever they feel it will add some spice. The most blatant form of cheating is to get sponsored. If you are “likable” enough, the head sponsors will send you a parachute containing a survival kits that can give you an edge over the competition. In other words, the “Hunger games” are bullshit. And to play into the whole “getting people to like you” survival game, Katniss and Peeta pretend a romance. This is original in that it is the central love story of the movie, and admittedly, I have never seen a movie so willingly and transparently admit that its central love story is contrived bullshit.

I suppose we are now at a point of idiotic media saturation where the only way to seem truthful is to exert the highest amount of cynicism. Everything about “The Hunger Games” is fake. The games are fake. The capital city that the games take place is composed of fake 3D generated architecture. The hairstyles and fashion of the inhabitants are grotesque, garish, and nonsensically exaggerated. (Actually I would admit this is perhaps some of the best effects of the movie. Whoever designed the costume and makeup had a field day with this movie. It is done much better than the action and done so well, that at least three quarters of this movie could be deemed a chick flick.) Every other tribute in combat is a one-dimensional stereotype whether it is the evil Cato (Big Evil Guy) or the innocent Rue (Small Innocent Girl). In fact, the only distinguishable human being seems to be the main character, Katniss Everdeen, played by Jennifer Lawrence, who when you think about it, may be the fakest character of all.

Oh boy, what did I mean by that? Well, Katniss is the type of person that does not like to bend toward conformity or try to get people to like her. She just wants to be herself. Now, whom does that remind you of? If you said you and only you, you’re an idiot. That should remind you of everybody. That description describes everybody. In fact, I would argue that Jennifer Lawrence’s best acting asset is her ability to act blank slate and call it individualism. This character has no foibles or eccentricities. It is just Jennifer Lawrence in her plain/beautiful persona having strong feelings for her family and a survival instinct. You would be hard-pressed to find a human being with neither of those characteristics. Do you think it just may be the best marketing ploy ever to take this one-size-fits-all persona and throw it into a story with so much fakery that it seems real by comparison? It would appeal to every person who feels that they are the only real person in a world of phonies (which I would argue is a real cliché way to feel).

The phenomenal success of “The Hunger Games,” should lead to some hilarious movie studio board meetings. I can just see it now: a bunch of middle aged rich guys brainstorming on how they can capitalize on a trend based on the utter distrust of manipulative media because it is ruled by a bunch of middle aged rich guys bent on manipulating people for profit. Vampires were easy. Now I suppose we will have a slew of movies made expressly for profit that aim to expose cliché and promote distrust in manipulative money-grubbing movies. It’s a shame that irony can’t kill. 

2012 (3/5 Stars) December 1, 2009

The end of the world would be funnier, if everyone wasn't so serious about it. 

One of the special things about movies, besides the obvious entertainment value, is the window they open to certain times. Whether the stories they tell take place a thousand years in the past or several hundred million in the future the movie itself is ingrained in the very present year in which it was made. Thus, Star Wars may have been set a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away but everyone in the movie still used shitty 1970s computers. The movies of the first decade of this millennium saw an incredible renaissance in technological spectacle. When this movie’s director, Roland Emmerich, first set out to wreak large-scale destruction in Independence Day in 1995, he was still blowing up small scale set models of the White House, NYC, and LA. Now in 2012, armed with a decade and a half of new technology and several other disaster movies under his belt (Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow) Emmerich has finally succeeded in what may have been his mission all along: Not just the complete destruction of all major cities or the northern hemisphere, but the entire planet. 
I wonder what people in the future will think of our society in this time when they view the movies of the 2000s. In this decade we have seen ignoble trends that set this decade apart. The first started with the ultraviolent D-Day Beach scene in Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan in 1998. Reasonably enough, that movie made it Okay to show violent gore as long as it was done responsibly and realistically. At first this type of gore stayed exclusively in war movies (Black Hawk Down, Enemy at the Gates) but sure enough it crept into other genres (Passion of the Christ, Kill Bill) until sure enough the horror genre took advantage of it. The success of the Saw franchise engendered the term ‘torture porn’ and spawned far too many copycats. Only now in 2009, did a Saw movie, Saw VI, not open with 30 million at the box office. The trend has definitely died too slow a death. The second trend is the vogue of apocalyptic movies of which 2012 is surely the king. These movies are cropping up everywhere nowadays (The Road, Knowing, I am Legend, The Happening, Terminator Franchise, War of the Worlds, Children of Men, Inconvenient Truth, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Wall-E). There haven’t been this many end-of-the-world movies since the early 1960s when everyone was making movies about nuclear holocausts. There are two possibilities as to what this may mean: 
1) We are indeed going through hard times as a planet, people are very worried, and Hollywood is capitalizing on that feeling, or
2) The fast and unbroken technological advancement of the past couple decades is allowing Hollywood to make essentially the same movie over and over again, just a little bit bigger each time. That trend, which first started as disaster movies in the seventies, has culminated in the apocalyptic trend of the 2000s. (One can only guess how 2012 will be topped). 

In Emmerich’s case the second possibility is definitely true. I’ll let you decide if the first is also.

As I’m sure you’ve seen from the trailers, huge earthquakes and vast tidal waves destroy the world. Why? Do you really care? I didn’t. The movie attempts to give an excuse like the Mayan calendar ends and the earth aligns with the galaxy in some special way or whatever (neutrinos?). It really is beside the point. The point is that Emmerich has a new bag of digital tricks up his sleeve to unleash on his unwitting fictional humans. With that point of view an audience member can garner a good amount of enjoyment from this movie, in fact I was giggling throughout it. I viewed the entire movie as joke and all the characters in it as straight men, whose unsung job it is to play to the insanity around them as if it were comprehensible. Watching John Cusack trying to react to the oversized destruction around him was like watching someone try to engage in a conversation with Groucho Marx. It’s completely unbelievable but there is something awe-inspiring in watching the person making the attempt over and over again.

I was ready to give the movie 5 stars through the first 45 minutes of it. (My rating system is not really concerned on how great a film, but whether I think I could do it any better.) Given that the plot was about the destruction of the Earth, I could not have improved the first 45 minutes. The destruction of Los Angeles really was a spectacular spectacle. So was the volcanic explosion of Yellowstone. And I felt that John Cusack and Woody Harrelson in particular did a very good job of acting in relation to them. Then something happens that dooms most movies. The best character dies. In this case it was Woody’s crazy prophet of doom character. He met his fate while broadcasting live at the site of the Yellowstone volcanic eruption. A shame. Because with that character’s demise, so went the only person that had looked at the end of the world with any sort of joy. Frankly after Woody left, it just wasn’t as fun to witness the death of 5.9 billion humans.

I spoke of this idea somewhat in my review of Zombieland. When making an apocalyptic movie, it really hurts to take death too seriously. If you have too many sincere scenes where people say goodbye to each other before hurtling to their doom, well dude you’re gonna bum people out. And I do not go to movies that feature the complete destruction of the world to be bummed out. I come to witness some spectacle. Emmerich only half understands this for some reason. He provides the awesome spectacle and then expects us to want to be depressed about it. Like I said before, all the sincere moments would have been funnier if they weren’t so sincere.

Following the weird idea that this movie could possibly be a noble exercise in cinema, there is this really annoying scientist character named Adrian Helmsly (played by Chiwetel Ejoifer). He’s on the government side of the whole plot and spends the second half of the movie lobbying the White House Chief of Staff Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt) to be more humane in his effort to save the human species. In particular he doesn’t like how Anheuser basically auctioned off the seats in the Arks that the Chinese built into the Himalayas in order to finance the huge project. Anheusar has also been killing off any people that are about to give away the secret that the world is about to end. Reasonably enough, he feared that if people knew the truth then there would be mass chaos and everyone would die. This isn’t good enough for Helmsly who does some very moral grandstanding, including one speech at the end where he advocates a rather drastic change of course. He somehow gets people to agree with him and subsequently almost gets everyone killed. Point is, the guy is a complete moron and this movie’s attempt to make him into some kind of a hero is about as unrealistic and stupid as the Mayan conspiracy. I especially liked Anheausar’s bewildered response to one of his inane pleadings, “What? Life’s unfair?” He may have also added, “No shit Sherlock, the human race is being annihilated. You’re complaining about this, Now!.” Watching this guy made me more than annoyed. I would have given the movie a much better rating had Oliver Platt landed one right in his kisser during the middle of his dumb speech, especially right after he quoted a bargain basement author of an unknown book as inspiration. That would have been hilarious. That’s what Emmerich can improve on in his next movie about a black hole that eats up the entire galaxy.

Zombieland (4/5 Stars) October 23, 2009

It’s the Zombie Apocalypse and Jesse Eisenberg still can’t get laid. 

Zombie movies really don’t have much leeway in terms of originality. There like the opposite of a superhero movie or a James Bond flick. A lot of what makes those distinguishable from each other would be a new villain with an ingenious way to take over the world. In Zombie movies the enemies are always the same. They are zombies. And by Zombie rules, how they plan to take over the world never changes: They will relentlessly stalk you and eat your brains. So what sets some zombie movies apart from other zombie movies usually has more to do with style than substance. Some are social commentary, some are thrillers, some try for laughs. But putting aside genre differentiations all of them have one thing in common: They are incredibly predictable. This can be boring (I am Legend) or this can be comforting (Shaun of the Dead). Like I said, it usually depends on the story teller and how they use the rules. 

In this movie, the rules are used for comedic purposes. The zombies are oafish and stupid. And they move just slow enough that the heroes can be clever in how to dispatch them. Woody Harrelson is perfectly cast as Tallahassee, a gung-ho zombie killer. Here's an exchange that describes him perfectly

Jesse Eisenberg: You're one of those guys that constantly have to top everybody, aren't you?
Woody: No, I once knew a guy who was better at it than I am.

It’s hard to keep count of all the weapons he kills zombies with (banjo, shotgun, car door, machine gun, garden shears, etc.) because he never uses the same weapon twice. But to say the primary purpose of this movie is to create clever ways to kill zombies is selling it short. The movie has another more difficult subplot than survival in zombieland and that is this movie’s mission to somehow get Jesse Eisenberg laid. And if you thought that would be a relatively easy thing to do what with the near extinction of the human species, then you probably haven’t seen a movie starring Jesse Eisenberg.

Jesse Eisenberg (Adventureland) is like the poor man’s Michael Cera (Superbad, Juno). He’s oppressively neurotic, awkward, and paranoid. But unlike a Michael Cera character that seems to be at least reacting to strenuous outside forces, Eisenberg gives off the sense that these attributes are inherent. He starts off awkward and perhaps because his he senses how pathetic he is, all his actions seem like he’s consistently apologizing for being such a loser. In this movie he is a self described loner who before the zombies took over, spent all his time playing Warcraft and drinking Code Red Mountain Dew. He calls the pretty girl down the hall “406" because that’s the number of her apartment and he hasn’t bothered to introduce himself. Like I said, surviving zombies isn’t the most difficult plot problem this movie has set out to overcome. 

I wouldn’t have been surprised if the idea for this movie started off with Eisenberg’s problem and that the writers came up with zombies because they couldn’t think of any other way to solve it. After meeting up with Tallahassee, Jesse happens upon two sisters who haven’t been zombified yet. One (Emma Stone from Superbad) happens to be just about his age. What's even more convenient is that the gung-ho Tallahassee is more interested in Hostess Twinkies than women. So that means there is absolutely no competition. He’s the last man on Earth and she is the last women. Unfortunately that doesn’t seem to be enough. Emma Stone ditches him several times and even steals his guns and his car.

But this movie is just getting started. Emma Stone somehow forgets several cardinal zombie rules while at an amusement park and her and her kid sister (Abigail Breslin) become hopeless damsels in distress. Jesse and Tallahassee come to the rescue in a gorey carnival zombie killing climax! Now he’s got to happen, I mean, he just totally saved her life. Please tell me he at least gets to first base. I’m not giving it away. You’ll just have to watch and find out. 

There’s a certain romance to zombie movies that all the best ones key in on and that is our endless fascination with apocalypses. There is an ironic joy in being completely free of restrictions from your job, your family, or your civilization. In Zombieland there are no authority figures. The characters smash up an Indian casino for fun and play golf inside Bill Murray’s abandoned mansion. They need a car so they just take an abandoned yellow hummer they find in the middle of the street. No strings attached, the owner is dead and the car works fine. I get the sense that this would be a very fun movie to work on. To think when I was Abigail Breslin’s age I was in goddamn grade school. I think at that age I would have rather been in Zombieland. 

Overall I felt the movie was probably funny. I say it that way because I saw it on Thursday Night at 10:00 pm and I was practically the only person in the theater. I laughed out loud several times but didn’t hear anybody else titter. It’s hard to gauge a comedy completely alone. At least I thought it was funny. Although, there was some unneeded sentimentality in it. Sure its realistic that people would be a depressed upon remembering the death of family members, but come on, this is a zombie movie. If you dwell realistically on these things, it could become kind of depressing and boring (see that clunker I am Legend, god that movie sucked).

Note: there is a fine cameo by Bill Murray in which he plays himself. He exits perhaps too soon when he is killed in perhaps the stupidest possible way to die in a zombie movie.

Semi-Pro 03/16/08

(This movie is only slightly rotten) Early in Will Ferrel's career he was known as a scene stealer. (This is meant to be complimentary.) He would play these bit parts in movies such as Dick, Starsky and Hutch, Zoolander, and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. He would come into the movie, take it over for a couple minutes with a ridiculous character, and then high tail it out of there on a high note. I bring this up because Will's character in Semi-Pro is not unlike the hilarious one dimensional scene stealers he once played, except in this one, Will (Jackie Moon) stays for the entire picture. 
I never thought I would say this, but I think this movie would have been better if there was less Will Ferrel. Not that he isn't funny, its just his character is not someone you base a movie around. His character would make a kick ass scene stealer that enters when the movie needs a boost true, but then he should leave until the movie needed him again. Unfortunately Ferrel is such a big star he may not ever play those small great roles again. It was imperative that this movie was made about him, after all he was being paid the most. But the character is ridiculous and it hurts the movie that the camera would be so close that one starts seeing the impossibility of such a person. 
The movie should have been about Monix (Woody Harrelson) and Black Coffee (Andre Benjamin). These two are capable actors, though not comedians, that could have provided this movie a greater center. Instead their stories are somewhat ordinary and cliche and Andre sort of disappears in the second half. There is a host of other comedians here in bit roles. I recall seeing Rob Cordry, Ed Helms, Will Arnet, Andy Richter, and David Koechner. Andrew Daly provides the movie with some of its funniest lines as the commentator Dick Pepperfield. But the movie itself doesn't juggle these guys as well as Ferrel's other sports movies like Talladega Nights and Blades of Glory. When it comes to WIll Ferrel sports movies, this movie is not up to par with the rest. (I will say though, that a poor Will Ferrel movie is better than a lot of mediocre comedies. This movie does contain laughs)

I think this ought to be the last sports movie Will does. He's pretty much said all there is to say, and in this one, he wears his welcome out a bit. He needs to move on. (Actually looking at his future projects, it seems that he has. I'm looking forward to Step Brothers this Summer)

No Country for Old Men 12/05/07

I very much want to see this movie again. and I say this because three quarters of the movie was fantastic, and the last quarter was confusing, bewildering, and criminally anti-climatic. The ending was so bad, that I started to question myself: Was it possible that I completely missed the entire point of the movie. It's possible. The Coen brothers are some of my favorite directors, and they have never made a completely worthless movie. Perhaps there was a deeper meaning to this picture, that I missed.
This type of omission has happened before. I remember when I saw 'The Departed' for the first time. I completely misunderstood the woman psychiatrists' role. I kept on expecting her to do different things at different times and was confounded at every turn. When I saw it a second time, her charachter worked perfectly. I wonder if that's what happened here. Next time I hope to pay more attention to what Tommy Lee Jones is saying and hope to not get so caught up in the cat and mouse chase between Llewllen Moss (Josh Brolin) and Chigurh (Javier Bardem). I'll add more to this review if and when I see it a second time.

P.S (added later)
I saw this movie a second time, and it is brilliant. I give my highest recommendation to it, and suggest that people see it twice if they are going to see it at all. The second time everything made sense. My expectations weren't getting in the way of understanding it like they did the first time around.

A Scanner Darkly 10/25/06

The only thing that saves this movie is that it's never boring. And for that we have two things in general to thank. One: the animation and direction of Richard Linklater that is completely different than anything I have ever seen. It's apparently a technique in which he shoots actual live footage, and then he animates it through something called rotoscoping. This works especially well in a movie about drug addiction because it allows hallucinations to appear on the screen and seem totally within this movie's realm of reality. The second reason is the strong performances of several supporting characters. Most notably Robert Downey Jr. who's eccentric character plays like he knows he's in a cartoon. Through quiet eccentricities he steals every scene he's in. In scenes when his character is shooting the spit with Woody Harrelson the drama is doubled and usually quite funny. I would love to watch a movie about this character. Unfortunately the movie isn't about him, or even needs his character. 
The real story in this movie is about a narc/drug addict named Bob Arctor (Keanu Reeves). This story also is somewhat exciting. I say somewhat because in truth I don't really know. I feel it could have been exciting if the movie hadn't ended after the second act. Here we have Bob Arctor brought into rehabilitation on a mission he knows nothing about. He's supposed to prove that the rehab programmers are the ones who are dealing the drugs. He finds the drugs in a middle of a cornfield, he still under the influence partly and he doesn't have much cognitive power but we sense that he knows what they are. He puts a flower in his sock with the intention of bringing it back to his friends at the main compound. Then the movie ends. I don't have a problem with what's in the movie, I have a problem with what could have been in the movie. I have a feeling that there could have been a kickass third act to this movie, where Arctor meets Barrister (Downey Jr.) in the prison, they hatch a plan to elaborately escape. There's an animated chase scene or fight scene (Something I bet would be totally awesome) and then you know the great twist or enlightening conclusion or whatever. That's what I would have done.
Of course can I give a movie a bad grade because I liked it so much I wished it were longer. I honestly don't think that would be kosher. So there the paradox. They gave me only the first two acts of a what would have been a great three act story.