|
 Inherent Vice is the seventh feature film of Paul Thomas Anderson (Boogie Nights, There Will Be Blood, you know everything he's directed why am I listing these credits?), and, more importantly, the first film to be adapted from the novels of Thomas Pynchon. As one of Pynchon's "California novels," it's a natural fit for Anderson, who's demonstrated how at home he is in LA, and with stories featuring densely-woven narratives, drugs, sex, and melancholy. It's also one of the few novels of Pynchon's that could realistically be made into a film, and even given how slight it is compared to Gravity's Rainbow, Mason & Dixon, Against the Day, or Bleeding Edge, that's still not a short order. Significant portions of the novel had to be excised, and the plot, originally far more convoluted, is comparatively streamlined. Still, all that in mind, this is for the most part a very successful adaptation. Inevitably, you lose something of the depth - and especially the humor, as PTA is no match for Pynchon's wordplay - of the novel, and compared to the Looney Tunes freneticism of the novel, this is a more melancholy, somber affair, but PTA manages to hit on the core of misguided nostalgia and humanism in the face of increasing bureaucratization that's central to Pynchon's work. It's not the Inherent Vice I expected, or maybe even the one I wanted, but it's nonetheless a very worthwhile take on the material. (And, Jesus Christ, I got to see my favorite author adapted by PTA - eat your heart out.) I wouldn't rank it with my very favorite PTAs, but all that really means is it isn't one of my favorite movies ever. I can't help but wonder what a non-Pynchon reader would make of this, since even given how much more straightforward this is compared to Pynchon's usual excess it still presents a fairly winding and dense novel, and his sense of humor doesn't perfectly translate to the screen.
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
Just got out of seeing this and as someone who read the novel, I was expecting a little more humor (don't get me wrong there's a good bit), and extravagantness, but for the most part the adaptation was pretty faithful. I just felt like the pacing seemed a little off. Will definitely want to see it again. I think that most people going into it are going to be scratching their heads a bit if they aren't familiar with Pynchon. It is pretty accessible, but still feels like there's a lot to digest as characters come and go in the story.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
One of my friends is a huge Paul Thomas Anderson fan. Loves his movies, and she texted me earlier about walking out of movie half way through, she hated it that much.  I'm interested in seeing this film anyways, its critic reviews have been pretty mixed though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
It's absolutely PTA's least approachable film (even beyond The Master), and I think it might be his best. I hold him to a high standard compared to other directors and yet I was simply floored by this movie. Talk about a fantastic collaboration. Time to listen to Can.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Criminal Minded posted:I can't help but wonder what a non-Pynchon reader would make of this, since even given how much more straightforward this is compared to Pynchon's usual excess it still presents a fairly winding and dense novel, and his sense of humor doesn't perfectly translate to the screen. I've never read a Pynchon novel but I thought this movie was great and super funny. I loved it. It was a confusing ride, especially from the point when Shasta came back to the end, but I didn't really care that I was getting lost, as the constant humour kept me hooked. Seriously, I pretty much had a smile on my face the whole movie, except the previously spoiled section. So many great performances as well, but Phoenix and Brolin were definitely the best parts for me (I lost it hard at the baby photo scream and when Doc leaves Wolfmann's home and Bigfoot is trying to drag him away while he's tucked in a ball). MagicCube fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Jan 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
The Bigfoot/Doc scenes killed it for me. Will definitely see it again.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Few years back I read the book, and even checking with a guide to keep the characters straight and thinking that, for the most part, I understood it, the last half immediately backed out of my memory because I couldn't make heads or tails out of it. Even when I watched the film I was surprised by the events in the last half because I just could not remember it at all. Somehow though, watching the movie, the plot seemed to make more sense to me, but my reading is so balls-out whacky that I need someone to either confirm that I'm not crazy or that I am crazy and that I need to stop thinking this crazy stuff. My understanding is that the movie is saying that the hippie age failed because the government ensures that basically anyone who is part of the establishment and starts to go "hippie" is brainwashed back into straightworld. Like Wolfmann, the big real estate conglomerate, who had a "bad hippie dream" or however he puts it, is brainwashed out of it, which is alluded to by whichever blacklisted-turned-anti-commie actor Doc and his lawyer were talking about in the diner. It seems that in the actor's case this brainwashing happened on the Golden Fang boat itself, butwith Wolfmann it was in a psychiatric ward run by the Golden Fang. Obviously, the government is involved because the FBI was watching over Wolfmann and was fully aware of where he was while everyone else was still running around looking for him. The only thing I couldn't put together is why the Golden Fang would work with the government in doing so, and my only thought is that if the government goes hippie, then drugs won't be illegal anymore, and the international drug cartel essentially disintegrates. I get that there's a lot more going on in this movie, but this is basically the only way I can arrange the plot into making sense. Or is it just not supposed to make sense at all?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
second-hand smegma posted:It's absolutely PTA's least approachable film (even beyond The Master) drat, really? quote:Time to listen to Can. siiiiick. excited to see this this weekend. just read the book and loved it. can Joaquin out-Dude the Dude?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Honestly the trailers make it look like crap and I really don't want to look at Joaquin Phoenix's unlikeable loving face for two and a half hours (two Januaries running!). It's remarkable how much The Master ended up bringing PT Anderson's reputation down - remember how last time his new movie was supposed to be the greatest poo poo ever, and it took like weeks/months/years to accept that it wasn't?
No Wave fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Jan 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
No Wave posted:Honestly the trailers make it look like crap and I really don't want to look at Joaquin Phoenix's unlikeable loving face for two and a half hours. It's remarkable how much The Master burned PT Anderson's reputation - remember how last time his new movie was supposed to be the greatest poo poo ever? actually, the Master was really good and got a bunch of Oscar nominations soooo his reputation is fine
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
No Wave posted:It's remarkable how much The Master burned PT Anderson's reputation - remember how last time his new movie was supposed to be the greatest poo poo ever? The Master was really well received and reviewed so I'm not sure what you mean.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
No Wave posted:Honestly the trailers make it look like crap and I really don't want to look at Joaquin Phoenix's unlikeable loving face for two and a half hours (two Januaries running!). It's remarkable how much The Master ended up bringing PT Anderson's reputation down - remember how last time his new movie was supposed to be the greatest poo poo ever, and it took like weeks/months/years to accept that it wasn't? Nice troll.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
What I mean is that the hype and excitement over a new PT Anderson film going into the Master was very, very high all over. The SA thread was 8 pages long before the film even came out, and I knew tons of people who were really looking forward to his next film. This time, this seems much less to be the case. No Wave fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Jan 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
I have never been more disappointed by a movie in my entire life. I first heard about this film maybe eight months ago and have been eagerly anticipating it since; checking fandago for the first possible showtimes, looking at posters, reading news, etc. Then finally I get a ticket. I go by myself because I just want to focus on what I think will be my new favorite movie. As for Pynchon, I've read Crying of Lot 49, Gravity's Rainbow, Mason & Dixon, and of course, Inherent Vice. And PTA is my favorite director. This movie sucked. I am so bummed. The pacing SUCKED, the scenes were flat. It looked like almost everything was a first take. The awkward pauses weren't funny, they were just awkward. Because this film meant so much to me as it was being developed, I'm going to watch it again after reading some really in-depth reviews. But the entire second half I just wanted to leave because I was so miserably disappointed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
I don't know that it's less accessible than The Master. The Master is very off-putting, odd, and unsettling from the get-go. Inherent Vice eventually becomes that, but it's also very funny for much of it's run-time and plays off of classic detective tropes. Phoenix plays Doc as very "Dude-like" but it'd probably double-feature better with The Long Goodbye than it would The Big Lebowski.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
Actually, I can probably review this using the exact same review I used for Snowpiercer: This is easily the director's worst film, but if this is your worst film, you're a pretty drat good director. Although this will likely benefit on a rewatch, assuming that you either catch the plot the 2nd time around or stop trying entirely. I'm more disappointed in how stale the film feels visually at times - it looks good, but I'm surprised Anderson went for such a static look on what should be one of his zanier movies. A busy camera would've improved the film immeasurably. Admittedly, it would've made it harder for people to follow the plot and dialogue - but that's a lost cause anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
I was surprised by how much of the film was just close-ups.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
I liked it, but I feel like I'm missing out on something. Some of the scenes were funny, but I didn't understand why. I'll have to re-watch for sure. But I did laugh at the weird name drop for a company(?) "Voorhees/Krueger" That was funny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 09:25
|
|
|
having read the book, i really think the plot is incidental.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 13:25
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:I don't know that it's less accessible than The Master. The Master is very off-putting, odd, and unsettling from the get-go. Inherent Vice eventually becomes that, but it's also very funny for much of it's run-time and plays off of classic detective tropes. Phoenix plays Doc as very "Dude-like" but it'd probably double-feature better with The Long Goodbye than it would The Big Lebowski. How much like The Long Goodbye is Inherent Vice? I watched TLG for the first time a month or two ago, and found the whole thing pretty insufferable once Marlowe's cat left the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
How can someone not like Joaquin's face? If it's the harelip, he really can't help it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:How can someone not like Joaquin's face? If it's the harelip, he really can't help it. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Also, he makes smoking joints look magnificent. It's my favorite noir-ish element in the movie. Look at that outfit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:How can someone not like Joaquin's face? If it's the harelip, he really can't help it. No Wave fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Jan 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Yeah, I know what you mean. He has a permanent snarl but a perfectly expressive face, which always makes me wonder if he's doing it on purpose. He definitely plays it up in The Master.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
HUNDU asked me to bring this here. Regarding the scene with Shasta returning, it just really felt wrong to me. It felt like the end of the movie, and then it just dragged for me. I understand that Shasta was not the main story line but merely a vehicle to start the whole madcap story but something about that whole scene felt off. It ended a part of the story but didn't really add anything for me. I'm not even sure why I felt so poorly about it so Id love to hear some more opinions on the scene
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
I read the book in the months leading up to the movie and enjoyed it a lot. I liked the movie a good bit too, but the themes seemed noticeably different. The book kind of feels more about loss of innocence on a cultural level and a pervading sense of mistrust of the establishment in general. While that's all still present in the movie, it all feels more incidental, as the movie seems to focus more on personal loss. That's not necessarily a bad thing, just not quite what I expected. If I'd seen the movie before the book I might have liked the movie better. On another note Joaquin Phoenix was fine, but I really would have loved to see the Robert Downey Jr.'s version of Doc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Frackie Robinson posted:The book kind of feels more about loss of innocence on a cultural level and a pervading sense of mistrust of the establishment in general. While that's all still present in the movie, it all feels more incidental, as the movie seems to focus more on personal loss. That's not necessarily a bad thing, just not quite what I expected. i agree with this. also, am i misremembering, or does Shasta Fay not reappear in the book like she does in the movie?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:i agree with this. also, am i misremembering, or does Shasta Fay not reappear in the book like she does in the movie? No, it plays out in the book almost entirely the same way, and she's similarly tight lipped about where she's been. That's the last she's in it though, she doesn't show up at the very end like in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Frackie Robinson posted:No, it plays out in the book almost entirely the same way, and she's similarly tight lipped about where she's been. That's the last she's in it though, she doesn't show up at the very end like in the movie. drat. there were a bunch of bits i didn't quite remember from the book but then i checked the wikipedia page and it said they definitely happened. my memory's as bad as Doc's. also Pynchon is confusing to me. i did like the decision to preserve a lot of Pynchon's narration through the character of Sortilege. one line from the book near the beginning when they're at the pizza place that i was hoping would show up but didn't: "Can I have that piece of tofu?" "That's a marshmallow." Uncle Boogeyman fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Jan 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Did anyone else read Sortilege in the movie as a figment of Doc's imagination?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Frackie Robinson posted:Did anyone else read Sortilege in the movie as a figment of Doc's imagination? there's definitely something strange going on there with how she's this omniscient figure, but i took it to be that "doper's ESP" that keeps coming up. unrelated: i don't always like Josh Brolin very much but he absolutely killed it in this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:there's definitely something strange going on there with how she's this omniscient figure, but i took it to be that "doper's ESP" that keeps coming up. Well we also see her riding in the car with Doc several times but she never shows up at the destination, most notably when he goes to Wolfman's development and gets into trouble.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Frackie Robinson posted:Well we also see her riding in the car with Doc several times but she never shows up at the destination, most notably when he goes to Wolfman's development and gets into trouble. huh, i did not notice that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Frackie Robinson posted:On another note Joaquin Phoenix was fine, but I really would have loved to see the Robert Downey Jr.'s version of Doc. See, I would've found this incredibly smug and obnoxious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:How much like The Long Goodbye is Inherent Vice? I watched TLG for the first time a month or two ago, and found the whole thing pretty insufferable once Marlowe's cat left the movie. I would say heavily alike. Similar setting and meandering plot and laid-back vibe going on, although I think I preferred The Long Goodbye. Marlowe is an inherently different protagonist though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:See, I would've found this incredibly smug and obnoxious. i'm very curious about it, but i think Joaquin was the right choice for the part. RDJ would probably be a better fit for Sauncho Smilax.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Cacator posted:I would say heavily alike. Similar setting and meandering plot and laid-back vibe going on, although I think I preferred The Long Goodbye. Marlowe is an inherently different protagonist though. the fact that both stories are about the protagonist helping out a dude who faked his own death didn't hit me until the movie - although as i understand it, the film version of The Long Goodbye (which i haven't seen) changes that aspect significantly
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:See, I would've found this incredibly smug and obnoxious. It certainly would have been different, and probably not right for the character. Oh well, we still have Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
I would have loved to see Adam Sandler's Doc Sportello personally. The movie was fun but it hits some false notes for me here and there, it's probably just ill-advised to adapt Pynchon novels into movies in general, they have such a unique tone and sense of humor that is impossible to imitate and the movie doesn't quite do it. Still an enjoyable ride and any movie with Can on the soundtrack can't be that bad, some of the performances felt weak but Josh Brolin was great and it's always nice to see Martin Donovan getting work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 01:19
|
|
