Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Inherent Vice

2»

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭IvaBigWun


    The consensus so far seems to be saying; good but very confusing film.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,216 ✭✭✭Looper007


    IvaBigWun wrote: »
    The consensus so far seems to be saying; good but very confusing film.

    Its pretty confusing when it comes to the case he's trying to solve. It goes all over the place so many ins and outs but I pretty much gave up on it and just enjoyed the acting on screen which is great. It's not Anderson's best by any means, I be honestly shocked if people say it is his best, but its a very good but confusing film. No wonder it's such a split down the middle film, some hate it and some love it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 836 ✭✭✭fruvai


    Well it's a noir so I think you should be confused by the plot the first time you read it/see it. It's designed so that you feel the protagonist's confusion as the plot advances (lotta ins,lotta outs,lot of what have yous:D) I've read the book twice and it a helluva lot less confusing the second time round and more enjoyable too.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,724 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Those wonderful bastards in the Lighthouse are showing it in 35mm. Here's hoping this is the case for more films shot on film - really great to see something of a mini revival on the back of pushes from the likes of Anderson and Christopher Nolan


  • Site Banned Posts: 824 ✭✭✭Shiraz 4.99


    I was so disappointed with this & I'm a big PTA fan.
    The mumbling local dialect was difficult to penetrate & once you grasped the premise the story was just far too confusing to allow any engagement.
    I was close to giving up on it on a number of occasions & I succumbed around the 2 hour mark.
    How could the man who gave us TWBB lose their artistic rudder so completely.

    A self indulgent mess, 3/10.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 247 ✭✭happysunnydays


    I was so disappointed with this & I'm a big PTA fan.
    The mumbling local dialect was difficult to penetrate & once you grasped the premise the story was just far too confusing to allow any engagement.
    I was close to giving up on it on a number of occasions & I succumbed around the 2 hour mark.
    How could the man who gave us TWBB lose their artistic rudder so completely.

    A self indulgent mess, 3/10.

    This isn't out until 30 Jan, how did you see it already?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭IvaBigWun


    This isn't out until 30 Jan, how did you see it already?

    Like me he finds himself travelling between different countries on business and they just happen to be showing these films.





    What luck! :)


  • Site Banned Posts: 824 ✭✭✭Shiraz 4.99


    This isn't out until 30 Jan, how did you see it already?


    I'd imagine I'm not the only person in this forum who has seen it considering an Oscar screener has been freely available for about a week.


  • Site Banned Posts: 824 ✭✭✭Shiraz 4.99


    I was so disappointed with this & I'm a big PTA fan.
    The mumbling local dialect was difficult to penetrate & once you grasped the premise the story was just far too confusing to allow any engagement.
    I was close to giving up on it on a number of occasions & I succumbed around the 2 hour mark.
    How could the man who gave us TWBB lose their artistic rudder so completely.

    A self indulgent mess, 3/10.

    Further to this I decided to give the final 30 minutes a chance & perhaps it was my mood that dictated my meager original impression.
    Turns out I turned it off just before a pivotal Tarantinoesque scene & from there it held my attention right to the end.
    A knowledge of the source material & the main protagonists would be a considerable advantage as the characters & plot are not laid on thickly as in most Hollywood fare.
    Unlike a book you don't get a second chance to re-read paragraphs to familiarise yourself with who's who & what's their purpose again.
    Obviously PTA has aligned the screenplay too closely to the source material, clearer visual signposts are needed at pivotal moments in order to not lose the audience.
    Somewhere in there is a fabulous movie & a fine story that is just weighed down by a director sworn to upkeep the mood.

    What could have been, 7/10


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 247 ✭✭happysunnydays


    I'd imagine I'm not the only person in this forum who has seen it considering an Oscar screener has been freely available for about a week.

    Hold on a minute.

    This film is not released in cinemas until Jan 30, now you are admitting that you just reviewed this 'freely available' 'Oscar screener' Be honest, you downloaded a torrent ......and you sit there complaining about the sound!?!

    You then changed your review from 3 to 7 stars....because you didn't even watch the full movie the first time. Was the problem picture quality this time? Do you think everyone here in the film forum are stupid or what? Your reviews have zero credibility.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 151 ✭✭Catcher7791


    IvaBigWun wrote: »
    Like me he finds himself travelling between different countries on business and they just happen to be showing these films.





    What luck! :)

    The only country it's opened in yet is the US, so this also sounds like a dodgy download.


  • Site Banned Posts: 824 ✭✭✭Shiraz 4.99


    Hold on a minute.

    This film is not released in cinemas until Jan 30, now you are admitting that you just reviewed this 'freely available' 'Oscar screener' Be honest, you downloaded a torrent ......and you sit there complaining about the sound!?!

    You then changed your review from 3 to 7 stars....because you didn't even watch the full movie the first time. Was the problem picture quality this time? Do you think everyone here in the film forum are stupid or what? Your reviews have zero credibility.

    The sound on my copy was perfect, the dialect was difficult to understand, like Omar going full Boston on the wire, I could have done with subtitles in a few instances.

    The wild variation in my ratings was down to my mood during the 2 viewings days apart, that and the increased quality during the final act.
    It was me who quoted my original review purposely to show the variance based on different viewings.

    My reviews are not gospel, no more than any hurler on the ditch but they are honest based on my own subjective view.
    I'll be interested in reading whatever you or any other posters have to share on their experience of the film.

    I hope you enjoy it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,357 ✭✭✭✭Birneybau


    The only country it's opened in yet is the US, so this also sounds like a dodgy download.

    Whoosh


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭e_e


    Beautiful film, more haunting and sad than has been advertised. It's less a stoner detective noir (like Lebowski) and more a melancholic ode to an era lost. Finished watching it an hour ago and it's only sneaking up on me now what the film is really about.

    Also needless to say this is going to divide audiences right down the line with there being a couple of walkouts at my screening. If you're the kind of person who thinks plot is the single most important aspect to movies you should maybe look elsewhere, you've been warned. ;)


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,724 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    As is to be expected from Anderson, this is a deeply peculiar, defiantly eccentric work - and it's beguiling because of it.

    The film has this constant ethereal vibe which is far more effective at conjuring up a mood of a perpetually stoned character than the typical goofball, crude tomfoolery that typically make up the 'stoner comedy' genre (although there are some hilariously crude gags here, not least the most ridiculous brothel ever visited in a film). That dreamy, surreal and unhinged vibe is the very lifeblood of the film. It's in Newsom's strange, mystical narration, enhanced by subtly disorientating editing that constantly raises questions about whether Sortilège is actually even present or not. It's in the soundtrack, constantly slipping between diegetic and non-diegetic music, and songs that rarely cut off when you expect them to (some continue on through several different scenes entirely, again disrupting the audience's comfort zones). It's in the visuals, which benefit tremendously from that distinctly moody, shadowy celluloid look (for the love of god if you're in Dublin see it in 35mm - even looking at the trailer you can tell this is a film designed for actual film). This is a film of near constant foginess, and that's perfect for a film that resists clarity at every turn.

    The themes and emotions, too, are in constant flux, reluctant to settle on simple answers. Scenes can be riotously funny while at the same time unnervingly melancholic and sombre (an increasingly trippy visit to a dentist's office, for example, or the typically love/hate dynamics between Doc and Bigfoot). It is a film that is both a love letter to film noir and 60s-70s Hollywood cinema, but also a critique of the same and a call for more forward-thinking filmmaking (timely given the amount of uninspired genre pastiches being released these days). Right up until the ending - a scene which serves as something of a triumph for the protagonist, but a costly and potentially shallow one - it's a film that rejects the temptation of easy, definite emotional payoffs in favour of something that's richer and more intriguing. There's a scene where two characters debate whether a tattoo is a Nazi swastika or a Buddhist one - it's a funny scene, but also a succinct summary of a film that invites, maybe even dares multiple readings.

    As the plot knowingly descends into nonsense and Anderson takes his damn time (thank you very much) letting scenes play out, there can be moments of unease, uncertainty and even frustration. There are definitely immediate pleasures, but it's a film that almost hits hardest as the credits roll and you're left reflecting on a difficult but fascinating film. Inherent Vice is not always an easy film, but it's perhaps a great one.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭Right Turn Clyde


    The sound on my copy was perfect

    DVD screeners are lower quality than retail DVDs, often with little or no image processing, and the torrent you downloaded would have been compressed. So nothing about it was perfect. Be honest with yourself. It was just good enough to save you spending money.
    I could have done with subtitles in a few instances

    So you're already thinking of buying the Bluray. Good man.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭e_e


    Besides if ever a film needed the sensory deprivation of the movie theater it's this one. This is not a film to watch passively on a small screen with lots of distractions around you as I'm sure a lot of people who are just labelling the film as pointless, self-indulgent, boring etc are doing. Also the guy in my screening who spent half his time looking down at the phone and then left after an hour. :rolleyes:

    Not necessarily saying you weren't committing to the film Shiraz but it's the kind of detached film watching that happens nowadays and it annoys me.


  • Posts: 15,814 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I've not been to the cinema in quite some time, bar two trips where I took my little brother I think Gone Girl was the last adult film I went to and as such next week is my cinema week. Going to binge on all the films out atm that I want to see and at the top of that is Inherent Vice. How anyone could watch a compressed to hell copy of a Paul Tomas Anderson film is beyond me, his rich colour scheme will be muted, the sound will be tinny and worst of all the screener will look like garbage. I think that you download and watch a screener then you really shouldn't be allowed to comment on a number of aspects of the film or complain in months to come that "cinema really has got bad".


  • Registered Users Posts: 6 DoctorUtility


    The movie's a strange combination of Kubrick and Big Lebowski. It reminded me a lot of Barry Lyndon oddly enough, this sad, darkly funny period piece kind of movie, the somewhat passive main character (though that's the beauty of Doc's character lol, he actually has an arc going on) where every scene (the brothel scene lol) makes you sit up and focus. It's very different from the novel as well, Anderson completely changed the ending and got rid of some of the more esoteric references. But does it work? It's one of the finest films I've seen in some time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6 DoctorUtility


    The movie's a strange combination of Kubrick and Big Lebowski. It reminded me a lot of Barry Lyndon oddly enough, this sad, darkly funny period piece kind of movie, the somewhat passive main character (though that's the beauty of Doc's character lol, he actually has an arc going on) where every scene (the brothel scene lol) makes you sit up and focus. It's very different from the novel as well, Anderson completely changed the ending and got rid of some of the more esoteric references. But does it work? Bloody hell it does. It's one of the finest films I've seen in some time.

    And yeah, a number of people walked out on it, which I found surprising lol.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,015 ✭✭✭✭Mc Love


    Have to say I didnt like the movie as far as the story goes, but the filming of it is spectacular.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,882 ✭✭✭Saipanne


    I didn't like it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,216 ✭✭✭Looper007


    And yeah, a number of people walked out on it, which I found surprising lol.

    Not surprised in the little about that to be honest, it's not a film for everyone. If you ain't a fan of Anderson and understand his kind of cinema over his last two or three films then you are in for a tough time. This isn't a linear from A to z type film, its pretty much a mood film and you just got to crash out and go for it. It's a excellent film though.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,789 ✭✭✭grizzly


    The filming was beautiful. The content a joyless mess.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,835 ✭✭✭✭cloud493


    I thought it was absolute nonsense personally. Wish I hadn't watched it to the end, I just couldn't be bothered getting up and leaving the cinema.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭e_e


    http://www.theguardian.com/film/shortcuts/2015/feb/03/inherent-vice-walk-outs-paul-thomas-anderson-movie

    I'm kind of happy the film is having this effect tbh. I think a lot of film fans (including myself) fit into the critics category too of craving something challenging and unconventional. It's The Tree of Life all over again. :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,882 ✭✭✭Saipanne


    e_e wrote: »
    http://www.theguardian.com/film/shortcuts/2015/feb/03/inherent-vice-walk-outs-paul-thomas-anderson-movie

    I'm kind of happy the film is having this effect tbh. I think a lot of film fans (including myself) fit into the critics category too of craving something challenging and unconventional. It's The Tree of Life all over again. :D

    Oh, pity us mere mortals...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭e_e


    Who's pitying you? Doesn't bother me one bit if it's not to somebody else's tastes.


  • Posts: 15,814 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    e_e wrote: »
    http://www.theguardian.com/film/shortcuts/2015/feb/03/inherent-vice-walk-outs-paul-thomas-anderson-movie

    I'm kind of happy the film is having this effect tbh. I think a lot of film fans (including myself) fit into the critics category too of craving something challenging and unconventional. It's The Tree of Life all over again. :D

    I really hate articles such as that, there's such a sense of snobbery and condescension in it. The line "Most critics have sat through thousands of beginning-middle-end movies where everything ties up predictably and the good guys win. Unlike your average multiplex punter on a Friday night, they crave something more challenging" just reeks of someone who thinks they are better than the great unwashed masses. I really do hate that attitude, you see it here all the time when someone will talk about Snowpiercer or the like and say that it has to be cut so "that dumb Americans can understand it".

    I'll never forget the Q&A I attended for What Richard Did where some pompous dick got up and said something along the lines of "really loved the film but it's a shame that the Friday night cinema goer will be too dumb to get it". Lenny Abrahamson looked at him and said, "well I'm your average Friday night cinema goer".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭e_e


    Really? I did not get that sense from the article at all, if anything to me it's more taking a dig at a critical hive mind than the average punter who'd pay to see it based on a misleading trailer and then leave after an hour. I really don't blame anyone for taking a dislike to the film and it seems that the piece is the same way too.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 15,814 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    e_e wrote: »
    Really? I did not get that sense from the article at all, if anything to me it's more taking a dig at a critical hive mind.

    Maybe I misread it which quite possible considering that I haven't slept since Saturday.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭e_e


    Yeah it's not really judging the people who have walked out of the film, it's just putting into context why it has happened.


  • Posts: 15,814 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    e_e wrote: »
    Yeah it's not really judging the people who have walked out of the film, it's just putting into context why it has happened.

    Reread it there and see it now, I'm at the point where I think I may start having full blown conversations with myself given the lack of sleep.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6 DoctorUtility


    To be fair, I think the walkouts were due to more of an expectations going in. I remember seeing Drive in the cinema, knowing nothing about it, bar the poster at the time, which made it look like "Ryan Gosling stars in The Fast and the Furious action movie!". One of the best movie surprises I've ever had,

    Were people expecting a straight up goofy stoner comedy? And then they get this artsy fartsy (good mind you), meandering hybrid of a thing? I guess reading the book before hand, being Pynchon and all of that, I wasn't expecting that, but you could definitely see how it would piss off other people, especially with the trailer.

    Sometimes you just want a burger and chips and all.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,835 ✭✭✭✭cloud493


    Sure people are allowed to like different things. I loved GOTG, e_e didn't. Thats good, variety is the spice of life.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭e_e


    Partial to burger and chips myself, especially when they're as well made as a film like Edge of Tomorrow. ;)


  • Posts: 15,814 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Nothing wrong with some easy to watch trash, honestly I found Wild Card to be a great slice of fun that was the perfect antidote to a week spend watching a lot of rather heavy going fare. That said, I'd sooner chew my hand off than watch anything like Scary Movie or any Adam Sandler effort where he dresses as a lady or goes on holiday.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭e_e


    It's so apt that this thread wandered off point. :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 41 jas376


    Sex, drugs and rock and roll and plenty violence thrown in. Nothing I hadn't seen before though and it was too long I thought. Still though, it's well acted and well directed and it just about held my attention because of that: 5/10


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭Right Turn Clyde


    To be fair, I think the walkouts were due to more of an expectations going in. I remember seeing Drive in the cinema, knowing nothing about it, bar the poster at the time, which made it look like "Ryan Gosling stars in The Fast and the Furious action movie!". One of the best movie surprises I've ever had,

    So you actually went in thinking it was that kind of movie?


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 11,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fysh


    I understood what the film was trying for, and quite liked the evocative melancholy mood of it all...but i found it overlong and pitted with dull stretches. Too few of the characters were actually interesting in their own right (Doc's character was easily outshined by Bigfoot, IMO) and it kind of felt to me like it needed to be either a much tighter, disciplined film or just sprawl out even more and get more insight into the various characters. As it is, I couldn't escape the feeling of watching a stoner comedy written by someone who doesn't understand comedy.

    My OH's comment on it was that it felt like a film edited by stoners. Which is also true.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,145 ✭✭✭lolo62


    i felt it dragged too much up untill around the whole ouija board thing, from then on it was highly entertaining. i dont usually read reviews before watching films but luckily did (well the start of one) and got that i really needed to concentrate on the plot..was still a bit lost at times but still enjoyed it......and that Can tune, actually the soundtrack in general. it was great


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    Enjoyed every single second of it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 836 ✭✭✭fruvai


    I saw it this week and I think it's a good film but I didn't really take to it like I did the book.I found it strange that in some ways it's extremely faithful to the novel (large chunks of dialogue and prose turn up unaltered in the film) yet in other ways (especially tonally) it really fails to capture Pynchon's vibe and some of the really interesting ideas in the novel (ARPAnet for example). I knew that PTA was gonna do his own thing with it but I wasn't expecting it to be so gloomy. Yes, the novel is melancholic but not overwhelmingly so; there's a vibrancy and energy in it that's missing in PTA's adaptation. I thought it was kind of sedate and that it lacked the necessary tension until near the end. And where were the chase scenes? A Pynchon story without a chase scene is like a Michael Bay film without explosions and female objectification :D. It was also disappointing that some of the great comic characters(Denis,Sauncho Smilax) in the novel were totally neutered ,Sauncho in particular was sacrificed purely for plot exposition purposes.


    Having said that there was a lot to admire in it. Doc's relationship with Shasta was very well handled,Brolin did a fine job as Bigfoot and the soundtrack was excellent. The idea to make Sortilege (Joanna Newsom's character) the narrator was very clever. I loved her narration
    especially the part where Bigfoot plants the heroin in Doc's car and she goes -"Psst..Doper's ESP Doc!..Doper's ESP!...Oh Noooooooo!!!!!!! Bigfoot you mother****er!!!!!!!!)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,236 ✭✭✭Decuc500


    Made the trip up to the Lighthouse last night to see this in 35mm only to be met with a sign saying that the 35mm print wasn’t available and it was shown in digital instead. So that was disappointing.

    Anyway, I thought the film itself was very enjoyable. I couldn’t really follow the plot so gave up on that and just basked in the whole stoner vibe instead.

    Bonus points for the Neil Young songs on the soundtrack which, unusually, were played out till the end and over a couple of scenes.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 41 Titus Andronicus


    I caught this at the weekend & was disappointed in it I'm afraid.
    I never really caught the stoner vibe of the piece so it never really let me in.
    I'd read about the story being difficult to follow so I tried to keep up but the mumbling dialogue lost me in places.
    Ultimately it was a piece that demanded too much from it's audience & was perhaps self indulgent.

    I'm starting to think it's a film you might enjoy on a 2nd & 3rd viewing once you didn't need to keep up with the story & characters.
    Problem is that it's hard to be bothered enough to watch it again.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭e_e


    To me the joy of the first watch was just soaking up the atmosphere and being as lost as Doc along the strange journey. It's not a film to followed as much as felt imo but I don't doubt that trying to sort it out on multiple viewings will be fun too.


Advertisement