Inherent Vice

Looper007

emo72 wrote: »

the trailer reminds me of "The Dude" or just "Dude", if you know what i mean.......man.

or "The Big Lebowski"

If it's as quotable as that film and awesome as that film and Phoenix does a Jeff Bridges then we could be on for a stone cold classic.

duckworth

Can't wait for this. Seems to have a lighter tone than the last two movies - it's more Boogie Nights than There Will be Blood. Not sure I'm in favour of the move, since The Master and TTWB are pretty much my favourite two films of the past 10 years.

I'll line up for anything he makes though - he's one of the only true geniuses making mainstream movies these days.

I also got a Big Lebowski vibe off it BTW - so it will be interesting to see how it turns out.

Yarf Yarf

Read some interesting reviews of this already. 'Weird' seems to be the word most closely associated with it and definitely not Oscar-bait-y (one review said that it's probably the kind of film the Academy will hate). Seems that it has really captured the spirit of Pynchon's novel though, which is great to hear.

Arghus

The embryonic consensus is that it the central mystery is incomprehensible, but if you are willing to accept that you may have a good time. If that is the case at least one thing has been captured with success- the spirit of the novel. It's also reassuring. I read the novel a few years ago and being utterly befuddled by the plot, so I take heart in the fact that said befuddlement has turned out to be widespread and present and correct in the adaptation.

Really looking forward to this. PT Anderson makes amazing films and Thomas Pynchon writes brilliant books. It's likely to be the only adaptation of Pynchon we ever get. The big novels are just literally too huge and baggy to be translated to screen and of the "minor" works, I think only The Crying of Lot 49 would fit the bill for someone brave enough to give it ago.

Yarf Yarf

Well, The Master was a lot of character and not much in the way of plot. This could be in a similar vein. I think it's refreshing. He's one director who never fails to be interesting and try things that are a little left of field. I found The Master completely mesmerizing and I could not stop thinking about it for days after I watched it. Could see this one striking a similar chord.

Yarf Yarf

The soundtrack is out there if anyone is interested. Some good tracks on there. It includes a previously unreleased Radiohead song and Les Fleurs by Minnie Riperton, who is PTA's wife's mother.

Can't post the link to the article because I'm a new user (wtf?), but it's on Spotify and Youtube, I think.

charlie_says

emo72 wrote: »

the trailer reminds me of "The Dude" or just "Dude", if you know what i mean.......man.

or "The Big Lebowski"

Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

BlutendeRabe

fruvai wrote: »

Whoever selected that waif to do the narration should be shot.

Here's Thomas Pynchon back in 2009.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjWKPdDk0_U

Just hope it doesn't turn out like the Counselor or Prometheus. You know, over-fricking-hyped garbage.

Sad Professor

Newsom is narrating the whole film.

johnny_ultimate

Just when I thought I couldn't look forward to this anymore, I find out my favourite musician Joanna Newsom is narrating the whole thing. I thought she would only have a small cameo

e_e

Kind of brilliant on PTA's part to have such a divisive voice narrating the whole film, kind of a way of warning "this won't be everyone" right off the bat.

Looper007

e_e wrote: »

Kind of brilliant on PTA's part to have such a divisive voice narrating the whole film, kind of a way of warning "this won't be everyone" right off the bat.

Well its split opinion pretty much like PTA's The Master, some think its great five stars at it and some aren't quite enamoured with it saying its hard to follow. I doubt it's going to be PTA Oscar break through then :pac:. Who cares as long as its PTA at his best then all is good in the world.

Yarf Yarf

PTA doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who places much value on the approval of the Oscars. He seems far too confident and uncompromising in his own visions to care for that.

Honestly, if your films are a bit much for the Oscars to take, you're probably doing something right.

Sad Professor

Re: the hard to follow criticisms, an impenetrable plot is basically a requirement of hardboiled fiction. I’ve no idea what’s going in most detective noirs and I’m not sure i’m supposed to either. Their plots are designed to be as confusing as possible. PTA plays this up in the trailer for Inherent Vice.

fruvai

charlie_says

Try to stay away from thread until after movie....must try....hard already

s8n

When is this out here ?

fruvai

s8n wrote: »

When is this out here ?

30 January

ciaranlong

I'm looking forward to another crime movie coming out soon - it should be out on Jan 1st I think. It's called "A Most Violent Year". It's set in New York in 1981 and stars Jessica Chastain. Early reviews are comparing it to The Godfather, so my expectations are certainly high!

Looper007

After seen it three times in a row (I'm that big of a fan of Paul Thomas Anderson and his more mature work needs rewatching although this is a good 2 and a half hours) is it his best work? No far from it I still have Boogie Nights, Magnolia and There Will Be Blood in my top 3 but you don't get bad with Anderson and this is still a very good film. It could have done with shorten, plus anyone looking for a linear straight detective story in the vain of the Big Lebowski are going to be disappointed. You will get confused if you try to follow any of the plot just go with the flow and you find yourself gripped.

Joaquin Phoenix holds the whole film together as Larry "Doc" Sportello , a pot-head private detective who runs his business out of an actual Doctors office. Is it as good as his performance in The Master, no but he's still pretty damn good. Josh Brolin steals the film as Lt. Det. Christian F. "Bigfoot" Bjornsen , who hates Doc just cause he's a hippie. But he get's the best lines in the whole film and anytime him and Phoenix are on screen you get some of the films bets moments.

Katherine Waterston, as Shasta Fay Hepworth the ex girlfriend of Sportello, who was been talked up as the films shining glory and new bright star in Hollywood, was fine but nothing that made me think that we have a new Jessica Chastain in the making. It's a fine performance but maybe I was expecting some mind blowing by all the hype around her. She's on screen more then 15 minutes. Reese Witherspoon, Jena Malone, Owen Wilson and Benico Del Toro give good performances in what are basically cameo roles. Some praise has to go to Martin Short for probably the best few minutes in the whole film

As a Drug up hippie Dentist who takes advantage of young women, Snorting dope and shagging his Asian Secertary and whole scene when they are pulled over by the cops is funny as hell

.

It's not a classic by any means (I will expect a few critical trashing's on here once people see it) but I say it probably end up in my top 20 list by the end of the year. Not really surprised the Awards aren't going its way, Anderson is way too weird to ever get a sniff of winning them. But a film directed by Paul Thomas Anderson and based on the novel by Thomas Pynchon would always be a interesting look.

IvaBigWun

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

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.

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.

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

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.

happysunnydays

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

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?

IvaBigWun

happysunnydays wrote: »

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!

Shiraz 4.99

happysunnydays wrote: »

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.

Shiraz 4.99

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

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

happysunnydays

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

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.