Inherent Vice | Paul Thomas Anderson, Thomas Pynchon, Joaquin Phoenix
- Thread starter xx001234448
- Start date
I saw this last night, and I went in with complete good faith….I liked 'There Will Be Blood', and I have seen some of PTA other work, but I am not a fanatic, nor disbeliever…but a director to check for, definitely. I like all, or a majority of the actors in this, and thought the previews looked interesting enough. For 25 minutes or so I was in, if not overly impressed…It just all felt very flat and dead emotionally and dramatically, it was well directed and the soundtrack and music were well done. It's a movie where everything works, costumes, casting, direction, music….but there was no life in it…It felt like 'Popeye' or some shyt. A saying I employ
from time to time about movies is 'If it's not funny..and not dramatically (or otherwise) compelling….what the fukk am I doing there'. That is exactly how I felt about 45 minutes into 'Inherent Vice', there were quick little smirks and awkward laughs, but that isn't enough to sustain a 148 minute movie, no matter how much you like the actors or the concept, in theory.
This is like 'The Big Lewbowski', with 3 times the convoluted nonsense, and 40 minutes or so longer, also lacking the humor or gravity to support a movie of this length of ambition. There is simply very little reason to give very much of a fukk about….anything, anything at all in this movie. It is a long journey to an absolutely meaningless payoff. The movie piles on the twists, the intrigue, the oddball characters, but an hour or so in, I felt like I had been there for 2. Atmosphere, good acting and some interesting ideas, the send up of 40's noir and LA culture in general…..it had a lot of potential, which makes it's slow, miserable drag to the end all the more disappointing. I will not pretend that I know exactly what PTA was going for, I think I picked up
most of it….but the real issue is, the movie felt like they didn't know what the fukk they wanted to convey. Full nudity, brief rough' sex scene? A moment of emotional vulnerability from a dull femme fatale. Josh Brolin eating a tray of weed? Joaquin Phoneix in costume after costume? It's never very funny, sexy, dramatic, emotionally involving…..it's a period piece, vanity picture, dressed up as a half cooked thriller, with slight payoffs in the last 20 minutes or so, in a nicely done scene or two of violence.
Bizarre, quirky, well acted and shot scenes do not make a good movie, and I would be at a loss to recommend this movie to almost anyone. The voice over was painfully bad too, for the most part. 'Inherent Vice' is an inherently lifeless and dull movie, an exercise in misfire, and miscalculation.
from time to time about movies is 'If it's not funny..and not dramatically (or otherwise) compelling….what the fukk am I doing there'. That is exactly how I felt about 45 minutes into 'Inherent Vice', there were quick little smirks and awkward laughs, but that isn't enough to sustain a 148 minute movie, no matter how much you like the actors or the concept, in theory. This is like 'The Big Lewbowski', with 3 times the convoluted nonsense, and 40 minutes or so longer, also lacking the humor or gravity to support a movie of this length of ambition. There is simply very little reason to give very much of a fukk about….anything, anything at all in this movie. It is a long journey to an absolutely meaningless payoff. The movie piles on the twists, the intrigue, the oddball characters, but an hour or so in, I felt like I had been there for 2. Atmosphere, good acting and some interesting ideas, the send up of 40's noir and LA culture in general…..it had a lot of potential, which makes it's slow, miserable drag to the end all the more disappointing. I will not pretend that I know exactly what PTA was going for, I think I picked up
most of it….but the real issue is, the movie felt like they didn't know what the fukk they wanted to convey. Full nudity, brief rough' sex scene? A moment of emotional vulnerability from a dull femme fatale. Josh Brolin eating a tray of weed? Joaquin Phoneix in costume after costume? It's never very funny, sexy, dramatic, emotionally involving…..it's a period piece, vanity picture, dressed up as a half cooked thriller, with slight payoffs in the last 20 minutes or so, in a nicely done scene or two of violence. Bizarre, quirky, well acted and shot scenes do not make a good movie, and I would be at a loss to recommend this movie to almost anyone. The voice over was painfully bad too, for the most part. 'Inherent Vice' is an inherently lifeless and dull movie, an exercise in misfire, and miscalculation.
Silver Surfer
Veteran
watching it tonite
brehs, theres a theater in louisville playing this but the theater is 25 minutes away and its 15 degrees outside 
TrueEpic08
Dum Shiny
So I posted this in another thread after seeing it earlier today. I thought it was fantastic, but then again I'm an admitted Pynchon stan. Nevertheless, I'm not surprised by the amount of people that hate it. It's not a movie that's for everyone (still wondering just how the hell Warner Bros. greenlit this. 
).
).So I just got back from watching Inherent Vice...
Damn, a film from a major studio that's right up my alley. Loved it.
Now, if you're the type of person that's big on a plot being ultra-coherent and obvious, this is not the film for you. Let me repeat that: this is not the film for you. In fact, the film isn't necessarily even about the case that Doc (Joaquin Phoenix' character) takes up (even if it is the driving force of the film), but why he takes the case in the first place. That, and the structural transformation of American culture/counterculture in the post-Civil Rights/post-New Left/post-1968 period. The plot (which actually does make complete sense, but the movie forces you to fill in some obvious gaps while watching it) is only a means to the end of examining these issues, and functions quite well in that regard.
Funnily enough for the people that complain about the plot, it's actually pared down quite a bit from the original novel. Anderson actually cut out a little less than a third (or so) of the novel altogether and rewrote the ending to serve the purposes of the filmic medium. There's a section of the plot (I'm not telling you which one, since that will give away a significant plot point) that's completely written out of the movie version for the sake of making the final act of the film more palatable for viewers. And goddammit, the shyt actually worked quite well. I was surprised at how into that new final act I was.
Finally, I'm confused to the point of actually being pissed off at how this film has been marketed as some type of comedy, when it isn't that at all, in any way. It's actually a sun-drenched Film Noir to the nth power, in the Dashiell Hammett tradition, with elements of Romance to it. The fact that it's being sold as a comedy-drama is going to throw a lot (a lot) of people off when they go and see it. Yes, it has it's quite funny moments, but the structure of the film and the types of characters that fill the world of Inherent Vice are Film Noir all the way.
So yeah, I loved it. Probably going to see it again within the week. Definitely not for everyone (I'm still baffled at how this got funding), but if you're curious, definitely worth a watch. A hell of a film.
Also, I almost got myself kicked out of the theatre when this came on:
Who the hell can hate a movie featuring some classic Can in it?
Last edited:
Belladonna is in this shyt?! I'm in.
Uncle_Ruckus
We The North
Movie is fukking solid. I'm gonna watch it again tonight. 
This might be PTA's Pulp Fiction with a Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas vibe to it.
When I heard critics saying they loved the film without really understanding what was happening, I was kinda 
Then I saw it, and was like
and
Yeah. I loved it.
But I'm a HUGE fan of noir, even those that are wildly confusing....intentionally or not.
Then I saw it, and was like
and Yeah. I loved it.
But I'm a HUGE fan of noir, even those that are wildly confusing....intentionally or not.
traaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaash!!!!