Inherent Vice | Paul Thomas Anderson, Thomas Pynchon, Joaquin Phoenix
- Thread starter xx001234448
- Start date
@ the early scene with brolin going to work on that black popsicle and phoenix lookin at him like 
i really enjoyed the first hour.
it started to lose me after that.
great cast though.
i know the PTA stanbase is gonna overrate this one. for all the talk nolan stans get PTA stans are just as bad
klosterman said on a recent BS report he goes into every PTA flick thinking if its not the greatest film ever he will be disappointed
TheGodling
Los Ingobernables de Sala de Cine
I agree. It's basically one of those unnecessarily convoluted 40's noirs where the story barely adds up, but set in a time of crazy drug induced hippie madness.The biggest issue I had as such was the length, which needed to be edited down by at least half an hour. Noirs are often fast paced in its twists and developments that keep the reader's attention and slow in the dialogue where the heart lies. PTA gives too much room to the former, which means the plot starts to bleed life after about an hour and feels more and more like cutting from one event to another instead of a tightly woven plot.
That's pretty much the only thing he did do wrong here, because despite this the man is such a goddamn master of the craft that all those loose scenes are all pretty much classic, and the movie still achieves what it sets out to do. And that scene where Shasta returns to Doc's crib and gets naked on his couch (in a single shot, take note Innaritu, this is how it's done!) is cinema of a level no other director alive can reach outside of maybe a very focused and inspired Scorsese. I'm not sure if it has the replay value it deserves because of the unnecessary length, but I suspect this movie will spawn a Youtube video for nearly every scene in it, because you just can't argue against the cinematic quality of each and every single one of them.
xx001234448
Visual Storyteller
Since I started this thread, I guess I'll give a more detailed breakdown of what I thought.
Pros: Joaquin Phoenix, Katharine Waterston, Owen Wilson and of course Josh Brolin. Using Can in the title sequence. Jonny Greenwood's score, especially Amethyst. The entire sequence with Martin Short. The Board's Mansion sequence. Hong Chau's performance was a nice surprise, never heard of her before. Robert Elswit's cinematography, Mark Bridges costumes and David Crank's production design. Owen Wilson's last scene(again, "Amethyst").
Cons: Unmotivated handheld camera work in the flat opening sequence(couldn't believe this was happening). The dialogue was too reverential to Pynchon's words(I liked the book but there are certain things that just don't work coming out of an actor's mouth). The slow two shot push in on Michael K. Williams that dragged down the scene and the momentum of the story. Joanna Newsom was natural on screen but very nasally and unnatural in her delivery of the narration. Speaking of the narration, there was way too much of it(it reminded me of the Blade Runner cut with the studio imposed voiceover). Jena Malone's scene was flat and slowed the movie down. Benecio Del Toro, one of the best working actors, was only on screen for exposition purposes(still can't believe this either). Belladonna can't act and her whole scene slowed the movie down(noticing a pattern?). The Chrskylodon Institute sequence was campy and over the top in a way that was tonally wrong. Some of the song choices were cliched and forced("Simba" was too much like The Big Lebowski Jackie Treehorn party sequence and the Minnie Ripperton song was the wrong choice for the mood of that scene even though it was cool to hear while seeing Maya Rudolph). The scene with Martin Donovan slowed the movie down as well.
Overall, this was one of the most disappointing/interesting movie experiences I've had in a long time. I saw this three times at the theater before it leaked and have watched the screener a few times. Ironically, even though I think movies like Birdman and Whiplash were better than this, I've only watched them once whereas this one I've seen a lot. Maybe because the good things in this were really good and the bad things were really unthinkable coming from this filmmaker, which made me revisit it to make sure I was really seeing what I saw? Or, maybe the fact that this is just a pretty cool little noir movie in the grand scheme of things, but a weak film in comparison to what Anderson's capable of? Some scenes felt like they were directed by someone with no passion and no sense of pacing, which is the exact opposite of anything I would've expected from Paul Thomas Anderson. That's one of the reasons I keep watching it over and over again because I can't believe what a misstep this was. A movie like "Ida" was slowly paced because that was the best way to tell that story. Inherent Vice was slowly paced because the director made a mistake. In The Big Sleep, Chinatown, The Long Goodbye and The Big Lebowski, the pacing and sense of momentum throughout are all pitch perfect. In this movie, the story would grind to a halt for every scene with two people sitting and talking except for Hong Chau and Owen Wilson's scenes. The single take sequence with Katherine Waterston was a good idea but poorly executed(the first time this has happened in one of his films concerning a long take). All in all, I still look forward to his next film and would recommend this to someone so they could experience it for themselves.
Pros: Joaquin Phoenix, Katharine Waterston, Owen Wilson and of course Josh Brolin. Using Can in the title sequence. Jonny Greenwood's score, especially Amethyst. The entire sequence with Martin Short. The Board's Mansion sequence. Hong Chau's performance was a nice surprise, never heard of her before. Robert Elswit's cinematography, Mark Bridges costumes and David Crank's production design. Owen Wilson's last scene(again, "Amethyst").
Cons: Unmotivated handheld camera work in the flat opening sequence(couldn't believe this was happening). The dialogue was too reverential to Pynchon's words(I liked the book but there are certain things that just don't work coming out of an actor's mouth). The slow two shot push in on Michael K. Williams that dragged down the scene and the momentum of the story. Joanna Newsom was natural on screen but very nasally and unnatural in her delivery of the narration. Speaking of the narration, there was way too much of it(it reminded me of the Blade Runner cut with the studio imposed voiceover). Jena Malone's scene was flat and slowed the movie down. Benecio Del Toro, one of the best working actors, was only on screen for exposition purposes(still can't believe this either). Belladonna can't act and her whole scene slowed the movie down(noticing a pattern?). The Chrskylodon Institute sequence was campy and over the top in a way that was tonally wrong. Some of the song choices were cliched and forced("Simba" was too much like The Big Lebowski Jackie Treehorn party sequence and the Minnie Ripperton song was the wrong choice for the mood of that scene even though it was cool to hear while seeing Maya Rudolph). The scene with Martin Donovan slowed the movie down as well.
Overall, this was one of the most disappointing/interesting movie experiences I've had in a long time. I saw this three times at the theater before it leaked and have watched the screener a few times. Ironically, even though I think movies like Birdman and Whiplash were better than this, I've only watched them once whereas this one I've seen a lot. Maybe because the good things in this were really good and the bad things were really unthinkable coming from this filmmaker, which made me revisit it to make sure I was really seeing what I saw? Or, maybe the fact that this is just a pretty cool little noir movie in the grand scheme of things, but a weak film in comparison to what Anderson's capable of? Some scenes felt like they were directed by someone with no passion and no sense of pacing, which is the exact opposite of anything I would've expected from Paul Thomas Anderson. That's one of the reasons I keep watching it over and over again because I can't believe what a misstep this was. A movie like "Ida" was slowly paced because that was the best way to tell that story. Inherent Vice was slowly paced because the director made a mistake. In The Big Sleep, Chinatown, The Long Goodbye and The Big Lebowski, the pacing and sense of momentum throughout are all pitch perfect. In this movie, the story would grind to a halt for every scene with two people sitting and talking except for Hong Chau and Owen Wilson's scenes. The single take sequence with Katherine Waterston was a good idea but poorly executed(the first time this has happened in one of his films concerning a long take). All in all, I still look forward to his next film and would recommend this to someone so they could experience it for themselves.
MenacingMonk
Tranquilo
I couldn't get into this flick. I busted a track 1
92Inc
Fear me
Pta the gawd
nearly fell asleep 3 times watching it
dull plot with weak twists.
i was waiting for the film to change gear and it never did
dull plot with weak twists.
i was waiting for the film to change gear and it never did
TheGodling
Los Ingobernables de Sala de Cine
Just read a review on this that pretty much analyzed the movie as the third part of PTA's unofficial trilogy on American capitalism and religion in the 20th century.
There Will Be Blood depicts the rise of America at the turn of the century, shaped strongly by religion and capitalism, but only one can win out to be the dominant factor and in the end it's capitalism, the greed of man, that beats out the nation's need for spirituality.
The Master shows America in its 'glory days' post WW2 as the American dream come to life, a job, a family and a house available for everyone, a capitalist utopia, but it's all fluff and people who don't fit into the narrative wander aimlessly in search for something new to believe in, which new capitalist entrepreneurs will gladly sell to them in the form of new religions.
Inherent Vice shows America on the decline, the entire nation has become disillusioned by the Vietnam war, an ugly, where morality is gone, the American Dream is a lie and the misfits of society have detached themselves from this reality through drugs, their new religion that ironically has also become the cornerstone of American capitalism in decay.
Reading shyt really made me want to rewatch all three movies again ASAP.
There Will Be Blood depicts the rise of America at the turn of the century, shaped strongly by religion and capitalism, but only one can win out to be the dominant factor and in the end it's capitalism, the greed of man, that beats out the nation's need for spirituality.
The Master shows America in its 'glory days' post WW2 as the American dream come to life, a job, a family and a house available for everyone, a capitalist utopia, but it's all fluff and people who don't fit into the narrative wander aimlessly in search for something new to believe in, which new capitalist entrepreneurs will gladly sell to them in the form of new religions.
Inherent Vice shows America on the decline, the entire nation has become disillusioned by the Vietnam war, an ugly, where morality is gone, the American Dream is a lie and the misfits of society have detached themselves from this reality through drugs, their new religion that ironically has also become the cornerstone of American capitalism in decay.
Reading shyt really made me want to rewatch all three movies again ASAP.
I'm watching it on another tab right now.... and I'm posting here.
I love noir films and I'm usually the guy telling people "It's a great film, you just don't get it". So I tried to be open and search for meaning or a running theme I was missing and I'm still here like what the fukk am I watching.
From start to now with 9 minutes left in the movie, I still don't know what the fukk this is about.
As I was typing this I read @TheGodling post, so I'm going to give this another shot after I rewatch there will be blood, and watch the master for the first time.
I love noir films and I'm usually the guy telling people "It's a great film, you just don't get it". So I tried to be open and search for meaning or a running theme I was missing and I'm still here like what the fukk am I watching.
From start to now with 9 minutes left in the movie, I still don't know what the fukk this is about.
As I was typing this I read @TheGodling post, so I'm going to give this another shot after I rewatch there will be blood, and watch the master for the first time.
I liked this film. Pacing issues were off a little, but i think its much better the 2nd time around, brolin killed it.
Goat poster
KANG LIFE
PTA's biggest weakness is his movie pacing and lengths.
Almost every one of his movies could use tighter edit.
With the exception of maybe boogie nights.
Almost every one of his movies could use tighter edit.
With the exception of maybe boogie nights.
Roman Brady
Nobody Lives Forever
Sounds like another self indulgent extravaganza. Remembers when boogie nights and magnolia came out and was thinking this dude would be the goat 
Goat poster
KANG LIFE
Sounds like another self indulgent extravaganza. Remembers when boogie nights and magnolia came out and was thinking this dude would be the goat
Magnolia was great, but even he admitted if he could do it again he would make it shorter.
icelandSpar
Rookie
Just read a review on this that pretty much analyzed the movie as the third part of PTA's unofficial trilogy on American capitalism and religion in the 20th century.
There Will Be Blood depicts the rise of America at the turn of the century, shaped strongly by religion and capitalism, but only one can win out to be the dominant factor and in the end it's capitalism, the greed of man, that beats out the nation's need for spirituality.
The Master shows America in its 'glory days' post WW2 as the American dream come to life, a job, a family and a house available for everyone, a capitalist utopia, but it's all fluff and people who don't fit into the narrative wander aimlessly in search for something new to believe in, which new capitalist entrepreneurs will gladly sell to them in the form of new religions.
Inherent Vice shows America on the decline, the entire nation has become disillusioned by the Vietnam war, an ugly, where morality is gone, the American Dream is a lie and the misfits of society have detached themselves from this reality through drugs, their new religion that ironically has also become the cornerstone of American capitalism in decay.
Reading shyt really made me want to rewatch all three movies again ASAP.
That's great. Pynchon's books, including Inherent Vice, are themselves alternate, postmodern American histories.
As far as this movie, I think the book is better and even more dense. For those who can't begin to figure it out, I'd suggest that the real point of the movie is the undercurrent of characters and ideas that play a part in the main plot, and not the actual story on screen. When you begin to read into the characters' motivations (which, honestly, might not be worth the time for those who already know this film isn't in line with their tastes) you'll find additional untold stories and themes.
only made it half way through and had to pull a track 1, which is usually rare cause even if it sucks i like to finish since i already put the time in