Paul Thomas Anderson's Inherent Vice

As weezer spider said, Inherent Vice and The Master seem to be taking on the faults to be found in American ideals. I think There Will Be Blood and Boogie Nights similarly work well with that kind of reading

Together, these films examine a large swath of 20th Century America and in particular, California across decades.

I think it would be interesting to watch the films in chronological order by setting.

There Will Be Blood- 1898-1927
The Master 1945-1955ish
Inherent Vice 1970
Boogie Nights Late 70s-Early 80s.
 
Last edited:
As weezer spider said, Inherent Vice and The Master seem to be taking on the faults to be found in American ideals. I think There Will Be Blood and Boogie Nights similarly work well with that kind of reading

Together, these films examine a large swath of 20th Century America and in particular, California across decades.

I think it would be interesting to watch the films in chronological order by setting.

There Will Be Blood- 1898-1927
The Master 1945-1955ish
Inherent Vice 1970
Boogie Nights Late 70s-Early 80s.

PTA clearly is interested in dealing with the past, but instead of doing it through awards-y oscar bait type stuff like bio pics and such, he does it through personal, unique, stories. Also, a funny thing I thought last night: Due to three straight period pieces, we've never seen a Paul Thomas Anderson film with cell phones in it.
 
Saw it today and my god was this slow, boring, and confusing. Nothing really connects and nothing really hooks you in. Cinematography was great and the performances was good whenever it moves the plot along. I love PTA's other films but except apparently this one.
 
Saw it today and my god was this slow, boring, and confusing. Nothing really connects and nothing really hooks you in. Cinematography was great and the performances was good whenever it moves the plot along. I love PTA's other films but except apparently this one.

I still havent watched this, but Im getting anxious with this one, since Ive seen some people who liked all of PTA's films but hating this one. Do you think it warrants another viewing in order to appreciate it more?
 
I don't think it warrants another viewing based on that two and a half hour runtime. I heard people rewatching it and they still couldn't get into it. The movie has a lot of filler that needed to go. For an interesting premise like this, I was shocked how much I was bored by it.
 
I don't think it warrants another viewing based on that two and a half hour runtime. I heard people rewatching it and they still couldn't get into it. The movie has a lot of filler that needed to go. For an interesting premise like this, I was shocked how much I was bored by it.

It's a shame really.

I loved that first bit, but it all fell apart. As I said earlier, I might rewatch it one day but it's low on my list for the reason you said 2.5 hour runtime and I was so bored with it
 
Saw it today and my god was this slow, boring, and confusing. Nothing really connects and nothing really hooks you in. Cinematography was great and the performances was good whenever it moves the plot along. I love PTA's other films but except apparently this one.

I seriously don't mean this condescending, but did you not find the abundance of jokes funny? Aside from the opening scene and a few dramatic ones, every scene has at least four or fives jokes in it, not to mention all of the gags in the background and such throughout the frame. Someone calls The Master boring, I can see that if your not into that kind of movie, but man, there is so much incredible humor in this film I can't imagine being bored.
 
I seriously don't mean this condescending, but did you not find the abundance of jokes funny? Aside from the opening scene and a few dramatic ones, every scene has at least four or fives jokes in it, not to mention all of the gags in the background and such throughout the frame. Someone calls The Master boring, I can see that if your not into that kind of movie, but man, there is so much incredible humor in this film I can't imagine being bored.

Let it go, Paul. :o :oldrazz:
 
I seriously don't mean this condescending, but did you not find the abundance of jokes funny? Aside from the opening scene and a few dramatic ones, every scene has at least four or fives jokes in it, not to mention all of the gags in the background and such throughout the frame. Someone calls The Master boring, I can see that if your not into that kind of movie, but man, there is so much incredible humor in this film I can't imagine being bored.

I wouldn't call it an abundance, but there's a few jokes that worked. At the same time some of those jokes were spoiled in the trailer. Not only that, it takes a while to get to those jokes and when it happens, it doesn't really go anywhere... it just linger for too long. If anything I liked from this movie, it would be Josh Brolin's character. But everything else? just plain boring.

As for The Master, I enjoyed that for the most part and its oddball humor.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't call it an abundance, but there's a few jokes that worked. At the same time some of those jokes were spoiled in the trailer. Not only that, it takes a while to get to those jokes and when it happens, it doesn't really go anywhere... it just linger for too long. If anything I liked from this movie, it would be Josh Brolin's character. But everything else? just plain boring.

As for The Master, I enjoyed that for the most part and its oddball humor.

I guess we'll just chalk it up to people having different tastes. I personally found a good 75% of the dialogue to be quite humorous. Again, wasn't trying to be rude.

was this faithful to the book?

Aside from a Vegas trip and a minor change or two to the ending, yes, very much so.

Regarding the plot:

The biggest problem I've had is figuring out which events are the work of the Golden Fang and which are the work of the Feds, or even both if that's the case (if the Golden Fang is just a machination of the Feds to control hippie culture).

Instead of trying to chronologically detail what happens in the movie, I'm going to try to give a basic summary of each "story arc" and hopefully draw connections there.

So, the Golden Fang is this heroin cartel operating off a schooner with the same name, distributing drugs to LA hippies, who eventually turn themselves in, or are otherwise forced in, to the Fang-owned Chryskolodon institute to get clean, which also has a dental department to fix their drug-rotted teeth. They use hippies as a sort of triple income source, but they also seem to use strong anti-communist messages in rehabilitation. Could be a deal struck with the Feds, if the Golden Fang is not in fact a department of the Feds themselves.

Adrian Prussia is a high-end Golden Fang operative who also works as a sort of hitman for the LAPD, knocking off whoever they need and getting off scot-free each time. One of these hits happened to be LAPD Detective Vincent Indelicato, Bigfoot's partner, and very possibly partner. I'm under the assumption that Vincent was sticking his nose into the conspiracy and needed to be dealt with, but someone can correct me on that. Bigfoot has had a hard time dealing with this, becoming a pariah at the LAPD, which is why he sort of loses it in the end and decides to not-so-honestly lead Doc to Adrian's doorstep (when Doc is asking Bigfoot about Coy Harlingen, Bigfoot decides to lead him to Puck, and thus to Prussia), knowing Doc would kill Adrian, or at least try. When Doc screams hysterically at Bigfoot after he's killed both Adrian and Puck, Bigfoot responds dryly something to the effect of "I wasn't worried, I've seen you at the range".

Puck Beaverton, the guy with the swastika on his face, is Adrian's right-hand man; also the bodyguard of Mickey Wolfmann who was supposed to be guarding him when he was kidnapped. Instead, he switched places with Clancy Charlock (the dead man Doc wakes up next to) at the last minute, which implies his prior knowledge to the kidnapping. Bigfoot claims he's the guy who gave Coy the "fatal dose" that didn't really kill him.

Now who kidnapped Mickey Wolfmann and why? This is a confusing one. We know from the paper headlines and narration that the Feds want to use Mickey, a huge real estate bigwig, as a key non-Italian competitor to the monopoly the Italians have on the Vegas Casinos, but they are worried about his increasingly liberal ideals as of late. I think his kidnapping has something, at least allegorically, to do with Sauncho's (Benicio Del Toro) story about the actor who was blacklisted for communism, left on the boat Preserved (which was gutted and turned into the Golden Fang schooner), miraculously returned to Hollywood as a anti-communist propaganda actor sometime later, likely having been brainwashed somehow.

I think this is what was happening to Mickey, because he was planning to start embracing hippie ideals and giving his money away - most likely the influence of his love for Shasta - but the powers that be decided to stop him. When Doc pulls up at Channel View Estates we see a mass exodus of Aryan bikers - supposedly the group that's always guarding Mickey - and another group discreetly sneaking up on the building from the desert. I'd guess that the Brotherhood - probably in cahoots now with higher powers and disenchanted with Mickey's strange new behavior - left Mickey behind with the aforementioned Clancy Charlock, knowing these approaching operatives would approach and kill Clancy, kidnap Mickey. These operatives, whether of the Golden Fang or Fed variety, would drug Mickey, and take him to the Chryskolodon institute to reformat his ideals. It's there he insists to Doc, in a drug-hazed state, that his behavior was just some sort of bad hippie dream, but when Shasta's name is brought up, you can tell Mickey remembers something, and it disturbs him. I can only assume he really was in love with Shasta, despite treating her unkindly, and I think someone mentions as much at some point, to Doc's chagrin

Owen Wilson's character, Coy, decided to work undercover for the Feds to "do something good for the country" (I'm pretty sure, but not positive, that he was required to fake his death to go undercover), probably wanting to solve the rampant drug problem due to his own drug-addled past, but found himself way in over his head and missing his family, realizing the work didn't fit his ideals and that he's just "being used." He's an undercover snitch infiltrating his old group of friends, members and groupies of the surfer band The Boards, who are too doped up to recognize him (having supposed to be dead by overdose). You'll notice this group is mingling with the Aryan brotherhood at the creepy house party. So there's a connection.

It's certainly not simple to digest, but I wouldn't call it Incoherent Vice. More like Inherent Twice.
 
I still havent watched this, but Im getting anxious with this one, since Ive seen some people who liked all of PTA's films but hating this one. Do you think it warrants another viewing in order to appreciate it more?

Every PTA fan I personally know has loved it. Everyone over at his forum seems to really dig it. A lot of people came out of the woodworks claiming to be huge PTA fans bashing The Master a few years ago, too. It just is what it is. Not saying they're all lying, but these same things were indeed brought up last time around.
 
Saw it today and my god was this slow, boring, and confusing. Nothing really connects and nothing really hooks you in. Cinematography was great and the performances was good whenever it moves the plot along. I love PTA's other films but except apparently this one.

It's definately slow and doesn't go anywhere. I did enjoy the performances and there were some good scenes. It's better to go in with low expectations. It's a shame because this could of been great. That being said , I never read the novel.
 
Saw it today and my god was this slow, boring, and confusing. Nothing really connects and nothing really hooks you in. Cinematography was great and the performances was good whenever it moves the plot along. I love PTA's other films but except apparently this one.

Really?

Everything ended up being connected to almost nonsensical degree and then it was revealed to all actually be the grudges of a few powerful people.

I agree that the film slows down but I certainly wouldn't say the film overall is slow. It actually throws a ton of information out very quickly, only slowing down when it ties up loose ends.


Folks are really losing me with these reactions.
 
Every PTA fan I personally know has loved it. Everyone over at his forum seems to really dig it. A lot of people came out of the woodworks claiming to be huge PTA fans bashing The Master a few years ago, too. It just is what it is. Not saying they're all lying, but these same things were indeed brought up last time around.

Im gonna watch this thing next week, hopefully it's a classic. All of PTA's films have been masterpieces for me (except his Hard Eight since I havent watched it yet), hopefully Inherent Vice is a masterpiece that will be better regarded as time goes by.
 
It's definately slow and doesn't go anywhere. I did enjoy the performances and there were some good scenes. It's better to go in with low expectations. It's a shame because this could of been great. That being said , I never read the novel.

Yeah and I really wanted to like it...oh well, maybe the book is better which I keep hearing is really good.
 
Very interesting to see the mixed reaction for this. I think time will treat this movie well. It really had it all, at least for me. Did I understand the point of the film? No. The plot is relatively simple, plus I had an advantage from reading the book... but I still can't say with full honesty that I "understood" this film. But none of this matters because it's all about Doc and his walk through the thick pot haze of characters and the shenanigans that arise from Doc being Doc.

This movie has so much style, too. The music? Hell yes. The photography? HELL YES. Paul Thomas Anderson is a beautiful human being.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting to see the mixed reaction for this. I think time will treat this movie well. It really had it all, at least for me. Did I understand the point of the film? No. The plot is relatively simple, plus I had an advantage from reading the book... but I still can't say with full honesty that I "understood" this film. But none of this matters because it's all about Doc and his walk through the thick pot haze of characters and the shenanigans that arise from Doc being Doc.

This movie has so much style, too. The music? Hell yes. The photography? HELL YES. Paul Thomas Anderson is a beautiful human being.

Yes this is easily the most stylistically pleasing film in quite some time.

Also, you can't be wrong for disliking a film, but you can make false statements about a film you don't like. For example: many people say nothing comes together in this film. Nothing connects. That is 100% wrong. Every single bit of information Doc gets is a clue to what is really going on. What There isn't, is a scene at the end with a big bad guy waving his gun and explaining how everything connects. Thomas Pynchon wanted the reader to piece it together as a P. I. themselves. PTA does the same. That's what has thrown most viewers off, IMO. Regardless, if you've ever seen a PTA film you'd know he doesn't like plot. None of his films have a traditional plot except Hard Eight. Why are people expecting Inherent Vice to be a plot driven vehicle when PTA hasn't ever done such a thing aside from his first, small film? It's an honest question.
 
This man. :hrt:

Rolling Stone interview

Rolling Stone: What do you think of the state of movies today? Do you feel like the complaints about American filmmaking being nothing but superhero movies…

Anderson: Ah, that’s such a ****ing crock of ****. I can’t remember a year in recent memory where there were less complaints about the quality of movies. And what’s wrong with superhero movies, you know? I don’t know. You’re talking to someone that enjoys watching those films. People need to get a life if they’re having that discussion [laughs]. Those movies get a bad rap.
 
As weezer spider said, Inherent Vice and The Master seem to be taking on the faults to be found in American ideals. I think There Will Be Blood and Boogie Nights similarly work well with that kind of reading

Together, these films examine a large swath of 20th Century America and in particular, California across decades.

I think it would be interesting to watch the films in chronological order by setting.

There Will Be Blood- 1898-1927
The Master 1945-1955ish
Inherent Vice 1970
Boogie Nights Late 70s-Early 80s.
Good post. I also thought that PTA movies kinda echo Altman's filmo a little bit.
Boogie Nights: Nashville
Magnolia: Short Cuts
There Will Be Blood: McCabe and Mrs Miller
Inherent Vice: The Long Goodbye
 
I wanted to like this movie.

I suspect it was interesting somehow, but i had a very hard time following. A lot of the actors either whispered or mumbled their dialogue or spoke with a thick accent, and sometimes the (annoying) music was louder than the dialogue. I got a few of the jokes and some summary of the plot that would fail a second grade book review homework assignments, not much else.

Jena Malone showed up which is nice.

A whole lot of people walked out of the movie theatre, and i heard complaints from the remaining people at the end.

I may try it again later ... But from the comfort of home, where i can turn on the subtitles.

ETA: If there had been this much male gaze in a michael bay the self-righteous taliban on this forum and elsewhere would never stop letting us know about it.

Toward the end of the movie, Shasta is walking around naked and Doc lets out two puffs of smoke. The first smoke cloud highlites her ass, the second highlites her breasts, lol.

ETA #2: The nose picking joke, what was funny about it?
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,560
Messages
21,760,230
Members
45,597
Latest member
Netizen95
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"