Inherent Vice

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.

Shiraz 4.99

happysunnydays wrote: »

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.

Birneybau

Catcher7791 wrote: »

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

Whoosh

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.

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.

Right Turn Clyde

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

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.

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

I could have done with subtitles in a few instances

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

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.

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".

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.

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.

Mc Love

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

Saipanne

I didn't like it.

Looper007

DoctorUtility wrote: »

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.

grizzly

The filming was beautiful. The content a joyless mess.

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.

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.

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.

Oh, pity us mere mortals...

e_e

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

e_e

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.

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".

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.

e_e

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.

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.

e_e

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.

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.

cloud493

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

e_e

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

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.

e_e

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

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

Right Turn Clyde

DoctorUtility wrote: »

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?