Paul Thomas Anderson's Inherent Vice

Well, Europe and Asia do that avant garde **** by default, so it's pretty much dime a dozen over there. When somebody over here does it, it makes it that much more impressive.
 
So here's my official write up on Inherent Vice. First thing I want to say is that I think this movie is virtually un-spoilerable.

If someone put a gun to my head and asked me to give a play-by-play of IV’s plot I’d be a dead man. I’ll need to watch it at least seven more times with subtitles before I’ll have the vaguest idea what was going on. Even beyond the plot the movie is difficult to describe. The word “beguiling” has been used and is actually pretty apt. It’s hard to put your finger on, but that’s maybe the point, because Doc has a hard time putting his finger on anything beyond his lost love for the duration of Inherent Vice’s running time. The beauty is that it doesn’t even matter if you’re able to follow the story — what was most compelling to me was the always unexpected, dissonant ways the characters Doc comes across behaved within their vignettes. A scene is moving “this way” and a character is moving “that way” instead. Their life, their full, fleshed out life, memory, experience, all that, is what you’re watching, a specific slice of it shown just because it happens to coincide with the plot’s need to show a character at that moment, but their helping to unravel the mystery doesn’t really seem to matter. We get to see them, instead. This has to have the best acting in any PTA movie, often Cassavetes level, an unprecedented immediacy in comparison to his previous films, and the detective story seems more an excuse for observation, a way to get Doc mobile running around Los Angeles and into the presence of all these insane characters to fix his eyes on what’s-going-on-with-them as humans regardless of their part within the crime thread.

The Master was beautiful but visually this is another horse entirely, a step beyond. It LOOKS like a movie straight up made in the 70s even moreso than Boogie Nights, and if I was unfamiliar with all names involved and happened to see it I’d probably think it actually was. The lighting, the textures, the furniture…how did he do that? It boggles my mind. I wasn’t alive 40 years ago, but even if it isn’t period accurate it definitely doesn’t look “like now”, and it doesn’t look like a pastiche. I need to rewatch the trailer but I feel like it was color timed to appear more like a normal movie, the picture I saw up on that screen felt such a departure from it. Maybe the trailer difference was my imagination. Whatever.

Inherent Vice starts off like something in the tonal vein of Love Streams and morphs, with the momentum of a hawaiian slide guitar, into a mad, mindblowing labyrinth of cryptic doublespeak and double entendres. It’s perverted as hell, thank god (Thank GOD), and DENSE, so many things going on and to pick up on repeat viewings. It’s a slipstream of madcap antics and unbeatable melancholy. Who is who and why is why and how is what I couldn’t tell you. I don’t think I care that I couldn’t tell you. The acting is SO GOOD though, that even when you’re bewildered, when characters like Martin Short’s Doctor Blatnoyd are speaking almost incoherently but Doc seems right there with them and to have some clue what’s going on, you believe them so fully as people, their renderings feel so real, that it doesn’t feel like the scene doesn’t make sense, but that you’re privy to an actual event that took place and just haven’t cracked the code. I loved that. Even if I never make sense of it I could watch it again and again — an endless supply of deranged company to hang out with.

In some ways Inherent Vice feels like a fraternal twin of The Master, conveying similar skepticism about America’s ideals, about its skeptics alternatives, and of any answers in general, and like The Master, at its core the movie is about a love that got away - love the only thing that will save you, and love as a drug that’s worth taking because sobriety in this life without a point doesn’t seem to be worth it. Love as a drug…a loved life worth living…sobriety as a life without love…drugs as a substitute for that lacking love…something or other…

Ironic that this is the film of PTA’s that has a big studio backing behind it — WB is out of their minds. Yeah it has humor, but it’s his least commercial movie by a mile, and I wonder what the **** is going to happen come day one of its wide release when word of mouth spreads. The trailer is SO OFF — I don’t even know what to relate the movie to as I’ve never seen anything else like it. Long Goodbye this Big Lebowski that — the more I think about these comparisons they are not even close. I’ll say this - the movie makes you feel like PTA is the only real filmmaker out there right now making anything new or pushing any boundaries to show you something you haven’t seen before. You realize how rote everything else is in comparison, how many patterns most movies follow even in terms of “art film” style.

So The Master is more commercial than Inherent Vice? lol. What kind of movie is this? I cant wait to see this.
 
So The Master is more commercial than Inherent Vice? lol. What kind of movie is this? I cant wait to see this.

Yeah I really think so. At least with The Master it wasn't hard to figure out the (very minimal) plot. Inherent Vice is essentially a drug haze of its own. I don't really recall anything plot related.
 
Yeah I really think so. At least with The Master it wasn't hard to figure out the (very minimal) plot. Inherent Vice is essentially a drug haze of its own. I don't really recall anything plot related.


Man, this sounds right up my alley. I've actually grown towards The Master more than any PTA film, and I have a feeling that it'll eventually replace Boogie Nights as my favorite of his work.
 
I know people will brutalize me for saying this, but this is a sexy trailer.
 
Well, Europe and Asia do that avant garde **** by default, so it's pretty much dime a dozen over there. When somebody over here does it, it makes it that much more impressive.

Sure. But they still do it. Some of them have very little boundaries.
 
Penguin Books will release a movie tie-in edition of Thomas Pynchon's "Inherent Vice"

The book lands on November 26th

j7Co5uC.jpg


http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayl...movie-tie-in-cover-for-inherent-vice-20141030
 
Loving the posters for this. Can't wait to see it!

QLIp4Rf.jpg
 
Awesome trailer for select screenings this Saturday.

[YT]BTRMkQzFYHI[/YT]
 
That trailer kind of sets the tone of the film better than the other trailer.
 
I got tickets for a special screening in Phoenix Saturday night. Hope it's good. PTA is, and I've probably said this a billion times, really hit or miss for me.
 
My mini-review.

Inherent Vice

Having never read the book, it didn't stop me from wanting to see this because - A: It's Paul Thomas Anderson, B: The cast and C: The trailers were wacky as s***! It's a quirky stoner crime comedy caper (that's the best way I can put it) and I enjoyed it for the most part. At points it seems a little lost and somewhat meandering but it will definitely leave an impact on people, whether they like it or not. Phoenix was good, but I really thought Katherine Waterston and Josh Brolin's performances were top notch. I'll need to check this out again a few more times to try and figure out exactly what the hell was going on! Rating to be decided...
 
Brolin was the best part, no doubt about it. My issue with it was the plot ran out of steam and never really had a tight focus. We just sort of watch this dude bumble about under the guise of a mystery type setup. Didn't work for me, at all.
 
This isn't playing anywhere within 65 miles of my house.:(
 
Pretty sweet '70s style trailer.

[YT]PrK7Im5UqP4[/YT]
 
Just watched it. Disclaimer: I havent read the book

I loved the performances, the soundtrack, and the look of the movie. I had a good amount of laughs. I really enjoyed it for the first maybe hour. I had seen the RT score and slight rumblings that the film was pretty polarizing, but I didnt know exactly why it was getting that reaction.

Then it got into the 2nd half and the film just got too incoherent, slightly boring, and just felt too long.

I dont know why he would set out to make an incoherent movie, which is what it seems like PTA did. That's just kinda a d*** move in my opinion.
It seem like he just made the move for the silly pretentious people who will love the fact that it was, in fact, a poorly plotted movie and that it is somewhat polarizing.
Person 1: What did you think of Inherent Vice
Person 2: I didn't like it. The plot was all over the place
Person 1: *Scoff* It was supposed to be incoherent. That's what makes it good

To me, people like Person 1 is who this movie is for. The people who like certain movies because they're polarizing or because it's "experimental" (which I wouldnt even say Inherent Vice is.)

Small rant aside I wouldnt even say that I dislike the movie. I say give it a watch. It is pretty funny and the look, performances, and music are good.

I dont know if I'll watch this again. It's too long and convoluted for me to enjoy a 2nd time I think. Maybe one day I'll have time and be in the mood to watch it again.

I think it's a shame PTA wasted all the things that the movie had going for it to make an incoherent movie. I really wanted to like this a lot.

I guess maybe I give it a 7/10. Maybe 6.5.

And on another note: Am I the only one unimpressed by Katherine Waterston? She's been nominated for a few awards for this. I did not think she was anything special at all.
 
Last edited:
I really liked this. I read the book and was familiar with Pynchon. Trying to adapt Pynchon is tough enough without going through a few changes, but this does follow the book for the most part. Just like The Master, I will like this more after a few more viewings.

Brolin won't be nominated for a supporting oscar, he should.

7/10
 
Just watched it. Disclaimer: I havent read the book

I loved the performances, the soundtrack, and the look of the movie. I had a good amount of laughs. I really enjoyed it for the first maybe hour. I had seen the RT score and slight rumblings that the film was pretty polarizing, but I didnt know exactly why it was getting that reaction.

Then it got into the 2nd half and the film just got too incoherent, slightly boring, and just felt too long.

I dont know why he would set out to make an incoherent movie, which is what it seems like PTA did. That's just kinda a d*** move in my opinion.
It seem like he just made the move for the silly pretentious people who will love the fact that it was, in fact, a poorly plotted movie and that it is somewhat polarizing.


To me, people like Person 1 is who this movie is for. The people who like certain movies because they're polarizing or because it's "experimental" (which I wouldnt even say Inherent Vice is.)

Small rant aside I wouldnt even say that I dislike the movie. I say give it a watch. It is pretty funny and the look, performances, and music are good.

I dont know if I'll watch this again. It's too long and convoluted for me to enjoy a 2nd time I think. Maybe one day I'll have time and be in the mood to watch it again.

I think it's a shame PTA wasted all the things that the movie had going for it to make an incoherent movie. I really wanted to like this a lot.

I guess maybe I give it a 7/10. Maybe 6.5.

And on another note: Am I the only one unimpressed by Katherine Waterston? She's been nominated for a few awards for this. I did not think she was anything special at all.

I'm the exact opposite. I think the second half is much stronger than the first. You seem to have enjoyed it a bit, I'd recommend another viewing. I've seen it three times now and the film gets much better on repeated viewings. Not to mention, I think some people are "Trying too hard" with the plot. The details aren't supposed to make sense, that's one of the themes of the story, but the gist of it is pretty easy to understand and I bet you (and the majority of the audience) probably got it, but assumed there was more to it (which was my reaction when I first read the book).

Also opinions are opinions, but one thing I think is unfair is to say PTA made a confusing film on purpose for pretentious reasons/pretentious people. That couldn't be further from PTA. You may honestly not know this, but PTA is the guy who told Roger Ebert to "light the **** up" because he didn't like Big Daddy. Big flippin' Daddy. He personally challenged the biggest film critic in the world over a silly Adam Sandler movie. There's many things you can say about PTA, but pretentious is certainly not one.

Also another example, at Cannes for Punch Drunk Love he said that he has seen Billy Madison more times that Citizen Kane. The French press thought he was joking, but he wasn't and was clearly aggravated by their misunderstanding. This is one of the many reasons he became my favorite filmmaker. I get sick of seeing great films by pretentious *******s ( think Birdman and the press comments about superheros). It's nice seeing artistic films by a normal dude who loves Hunger Games, Ted, Nolan's Batman films, Airplane and classic Adam Sandler movies.
 
Last edited:
Caught this yesterday. I enjoyed this a lot. The first 2/3rds of the film move at a breakneck pace introducing all of the characters and the odd connections between them and all the various mutations and hidden arms of [BLACKOUT]"Golden Fang"[/BLACKOUT].

The latter part of the film is odd though. Though it ties up a lot of loose threads from the earlier mystery it almost suggests that the mystery never mattered.

Some thoughts
The way Doc maneuvered to save Owen Wilson's little family oddly reminded me of the Seventh Seal which I also saw for the first time just recently. In a way the fact that he was able to spare that family made everything else worthwhile.

Sidenote, wasn't Robert Downy Jr. once rumored for the role of Doc? I'm glad he didn't get the part as I think he would have overdone it.
 
I would hardly call the plot incoherent. In fact in the end its all revealed to be quite insular. What at first is crazy complex conspiracies turns out to be very personal vendettas. It reminded me of the paranoid conspiracies to be found in a Phillip K. Dick book, particularly A Scanner Darkly (book and movie).

A Scanner Darkly actually covers a lot of the same specific ground.

I think Paul Thomas Anderson has been unfairly hit with this "super serious" label, mostly due to There Will Be Blood. People tend to cast him with the same ultra dry persona ascribed to Christopher Nolan.

In most of his films and to be certain any interview or commentary with the man himself and you can see it couldn't be further from the truth.
 
I would hardly call the plot incoherent. In fact in the end its all revealed to be quite insular. What at first is crazy complex conspiracies turns out to be very personal vendettas. It reminded me of the paranoid conspiracies to be found in a Phillip K. Dick book, particularly A Scanner Darkly (book and movie).

A Scanner Darkly actually covers a lot of the same specific ground.

I think Paul Thomas Anderson has been unfairly hit with this "super serious" label, mostly due to There Will Be Blood. People tend to cast him with the same ultra dry persona ascribed to Christopher Nolan.

In most of his films and to be certain any interview or commentary with the man himself and you can see it couldn't be further from the truth.

Eh, this dry persona and cold demeanor about Nolan is also extreme.

The man loved MacGruber.
 
Caught this yesterday. I enjoyed this a lot. The first 2/3rds of the film move at a breakneck pace introducing all of the characters and the odd connections between them and all the various mutations and hidden arms of [BLACKOUT]"Golden Fang"[/BLACKOUT].

The latter part of the film is odd though. Though it ties up a lot of loose threads from the earlier mystery it almost suggests that the mystery never mattered.

Some thoughts
The way Doc maneuvered to save Owen Wilson's little family oddly reminded me of the Seventh Seal which I also saw for the first time just recently. In a way the fact that he was able to spare that family made everything else worthwhile.

Sidenote, wasn't Robert Downy Jr. once rumored for the role of Doc? I'm glad he didn't get the part as I think he would have overdone it.

Yeah, RDJ simply wasn't right for the part. He would have played it more sporadic, which doesn't fit Doc, IMO.

I would hardly call the plot incoherent. In fact in the end its all revealed to be quite insular. What at first is crazy complex conspiracies turns out to be very personal vendettas. It reminded me of the paranoid conspiracies to be found in a Phillip K. Dick book, particularly A Scanner Darkly (book and movie).

A Scanner Darkly actually covers a lot of the same specific ground.

I think Paul Thomas Anderson has been unfairly hit with this "super serious" label, mostly due to There Will Be Blood. People tend to cast him with the same ultra dry persona ascribed to Christopher Nolan.

In most of his films and to be certain any interview or commentary with the man himself and you can see it couldn't be further from the truth.

I agree. I think people forget how funny some of his work is, especially Boogie Nights.
 
Eh, this dry persona and cold demeanor about Nolan is also extreme.

The man loved MacGruber.

It is certainly not a fair description of Nolan either but I can at least see where it comes from. With Anderson though its a bit baffling.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"