I own all of PTA's other work, (besides his first film), and it's brilliant. Boogie Nights, Magnolia and There Will Be Blood are all massive cinematic achievements. And then this. What the *beep* was PTA on when he made this? I couldn't take it after 60 minutes and turned it off.
shareLoser.
shareCool. Now that you know what Inherent Vice is, watch it again with an open mind.
You mean Norman Bates Jr. is the baby daddy?
I tried. If you can't say anything of substance after AN HOUR, then you're not going to say much at all.
shareWell considering that there are people who love this movie (and the book), there's obviously substance there. How would you know there's no substance anyway? You didn't even finish it. Some fan you are lol
I only suggest that you re-watch it because it's one of "those" movies. Totally "wtf?!?!" At first. Then it slowly clicks with you upon subsequent views, much like PTA's last film, the Master. I even read the book and was the first time. But I gave it another go, and another, and slowly grew to love it. Not saying it'll be the same for you but odd ball movies like these can't be done justice on one viewing (Especially in your case as you didn't finish it)
You now know that Inherent Vice is a confusing, slow burn, neo-noir that's light on the comedy so try again with that in mind and with a completely open mind. Take it easy on the re-watch. If you get lost in everything, just roll with it and let it wash over you as the confusion speaks volumes about Doc and his perspective on the whole thing.
You mean Norman Bates Jr. is the baby daddy?
I agree, the first 40 minutes were WTF to me as well. Then it started to click in, by the time I got to the arc of the film where PTA gives it away, it all made perfect sense. Haven't read the book but his inspiration for this film comes from Neil Young. PTA understands Neil Young's music better than anyone. He took one of his songs and made a movie about it, brilliant really.
The song that became Inherent Vice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXStKdubasA
On a side note, I hope Michelle Sinclair (Belladonna) can build a career for herself as a legit actress. She held her own well in her scene with Phoenix and Maya Rudolph. With what she's put herself through she's entitled to a few milkshakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPao32UJPUs
PTA also understands Aimee Mann's music as noted in Magnolia. He just makes really good movies and I include this as one.
shareMagnolia is the only PTA film I haven't seen, I have no time for Tommy Boy Cruise. On the flip side I was amazed by what Adam Sandler can do when he's not running for the border. Punch Drunk Love is to PTA what After Hours is to Martin Scorsese.
shareI will not financially support a corrosive cult nor their semi-psychotic, women hating mouthpiece. And I hate that Splinter Cell is being roadblocked by Scientology. They know that should it be green lit, they'll lose their Mission Impossible breadline.
They have good reason to fear, here's who will play Sam Fisher.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs6B3uXXllI
Cruise is good in Magnolia.
Buy The Ticket, Take The Ride
Tom Cruise kills it in Magnolia and even if you don't agree the other performance, the writing, the directing and the atmosphere would more than make up for one performance in a 3 hour movie.
"This is a $4000 sofa, upholstered in Italian silk. It's not just a couch"
"IT'S JUST A COUCH!"
For me, Magnolia kills it despite Tom Cruise, which has the sweetest golden piece of character an actor can dream of in this movie, and he does fine, he does ok, nice, but not GREAT, the final death scene where he is totally unable to cry being the reason for that.
It is a terrific movie, and he did quite good (specially in the awesome "empowering" talk scene), but did not nailed it.
@Chris_Sportello.After reading yours and some of the other posts here, I feel I should give it another chance. I enjoyed The Master on the very first viewing so how come I couldn't get into IV? I went in with no expectation to be entertained, and without preconceptions on what it might be similar too, but quit after the first hour. I don't mind difficult films like this as long as they also have good performances I can enjoy, but I'm not convinced it even has that.
I appreciate your thoughts on it though, so thanks.
That was my initial response, too. But I hate wasting my time, so I almost insist on finishing a movie once I've started it. ?. It really grew on me. It's a little confusing (or was to me), but the subliminal humor got me. And Joaquin Phoenix (while I'm not a huge fan because he's a little odd...) was FANTASTIC. He saved the movie in my eyes.
shareThat's what I thought, then my eyes opened and it's leaped into my favorite all time list...it does start out slow, but it isn't as it appears on the surface.
shareIf you didn't finish the movie how can you comment on it at all? Obviously it won't make sense if you don't watch it all the way through dummy, unless it's some stupid Farrelly brothers movie. Maybe you should stick to those.
shareIt is quite legitimate to comment on a movie you partly watched, but shut off because you were bored. Someone can finish a novel or movie and say they love it, but be stupid and not understand it, just as someone can toss away a novel or movie after 20 minutes of seeing that it's pure trash, and be spot-on.
shareNo, you can't. That's not how that works. If you intend to say that the ENTIRE MOVIE is cr@p, then you must therefore watch the ENTIRE MOVIE. If you don't, then you cannot make a statement on the quality of the ENTIRE MOVIE. It's not f!cking rocket science.
And saying a movie is "boring" says more about the person watching it than the movie itself.
It is quite legitimate to comment on a movie you partly watched, but shut off because you were bored.
Completely agree! I managed to get through it but it was an excruciating experience. I had to stop and re-start it many times. I literally got a headache from this film. I love PTA and I love esoteric films but this was just garbage. If he continues down this path, I won't bother watching his future films as will a lot of other people.
shareI had to stop and re-start it many times.
Well that's your problem right there. Some films really need to be seen in a cinema. this is one of them.
I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.
Well that's your problem right there. Some films really need to be seen in a cinema. this is one of them.Yeah, some people did that, and also quit on it and walked out, including me. First time I ever gave up, and only like the third film I ever seen people walking out on (South Park, How High). And those other two instances were because those idiots didn't know what the movie was about and brought kids, or were seniors wasting time.
Are we really talking about the same film? Because the "Inherent Vice" I saw was really funny all the way through - as well as being politically sharp and simply aching with nostalgia. Maybe you have to have hung around with stoners or hippies to understand it. But it's pretty baffling to me that anyone could see this as a 'difficult art movie'.
Warhol made plenty of those "solid single colour" films (and more recently Kiarostami and Vincent Gallo). But this wasn't one of them. It was full of content.
I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.
Maybe you have to have hung around with stoners or hippies to understand it.What the fuq does that even mean? Understand what? That it's fine to make a movie about stoners where absolutely nothing of substance happens, as long as it's a period piece for nostalgia nerds, with some childish humor randomly thrown in...again for no actual rhyme or reason?
Massive idiot Citation.
I wonder if Doc wasn't stoned in the film, would he (and YOU) see what the hell is actually going on?
What is meant by 'hanging around stoners' or whatever is that the film has a short hand that enlightened folk will appreciate. Many jokes that go over the heads of low minded people if you understand my drift...which you won't. Get it?
This film has 'volumes' on society - and of course the people who walked out or quit watching it don't get it - no attention span, no understanding of how a film conveys information and meaning and obviously no taste in art. So head on back to the Jada Smith boards, chum.
Buy The Ticket, Take The Ride
Did you come up with that by yourself? Don't answer, it's rhetorical. Not one original thought in that post whatsoever. Even your insults are straight from the defensive internet retards playbook. Thanks for proving me right simpleton.
shareThe fact that you resort to abuse says all we need to know about you I think.
In the words of the great Walter Sobchak, "You have no frame of reference here. You're like a child that wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know..."
I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.
The fact that used a quote that doesn't even apply to your previous statements says all we need to know about you, non sequitur boy. Get back to us when you can come up with a cogent thought.
shareTrump voter?
I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.
This movie is trash and the people who like it are the same people who would look at a solid single color painted canvas and get worked up over the spectacle of who painted it, proclaim it a masterpiece and start giving it false meaning based on things completely unrelated to the painting, because they delude themselves to cope with a reality they can't bare to face. It's quite pathetic.
I love PTA and I love esoteric films but this was just garbage. If he continues down this path, I won't bother watching his future films as will a lot of other people.
Relax. Nobody said anything about "boycotting" anyone. The poster merely made an observation that, in light of his/her past experience, it makes sense to spend time with other filmmakers or films that are more likely to provide engaging works. Since there are already more films that exist than one can possibly hope to see in one's lifetime (and this dilemma will only become compounded in future years), this is an entirely rational decision.
You PTA fanboys are the most insecure lot I've come across. You seem so desperate to make sure this director is an object of worship that you lash out at anyone who doesn't conform to your goals of making sure all cinema lovers tow the line on your misguided idolatry.
You PTA fanboys are the most insecure lot I've come across. You seem so desperate to make sure this director is an object of worship that you lash out at anyone who doesn't conform to your goals of making sure all cinema lovers tow the line on your misguided idolatry.
So I take it that you stand by your comment that Loomis79 is "stupid" for not bothering to seek out further works of a director who has bored him with his latest output?
Ditching a director they "love" because of one movie? Yes. That's stupid. Is a filmmaker not supposed to take risks? Are they supposed to do the same dog and pony show for the rest of their career? Give me a break.
shareOk. I will let your comments stand in response to Loomis79's comment "If he continues down this path, I won't bother watching his future films as will a lot of other people." You think all such people who hold this sentiment to be "stupid". Duly noted.
So not only did you mischaracterize what he said (since there is no reference to "boycotting" or passing any final judgement after only one film), but it obviously confirms you own insecurity which all rational and civil people will able to see for themselves.
And by the way, if you need to tell yourself that making Inherent Vice was somehow a big "risk" on the director's part in order for you to rationalize what a failure it is, go right ahead. It's just further proof of your need to delude yourself in order to prop up your desperate need for auteur hero worship.
Please feel free to keep responding to me, as it will help keep the "Literally the most boring film I have ever seen" headline to the top of the chat list. It's important that more people be able to see that as the first thing they encounter when discussing Inherent Vice.
Who said IV was a failure?
shareI did. As did thousands of others who saw it.
Here is just a small sample:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1791528/reviews?filter=hate
(Naturally, that's leaving aside the dismal box office performance which doesn't always correspond with artistic failure, but that happens to be the case in this instance -
Budget: $20,000,000 (estimated)
Gross: $11,110,975 (Worldwide) (26 April 2015) )
Do you know how many great films had underwhelming box office receipts? We're talking artistic merit. I loved IV, I'm not saying everyone has to. Look at the critical reviews, man. Definitely not what I'd call a "failure". It's people like you who are to blame for the mindless barrage of superhero movies. You know there was a time when smart, adult movies were the biggest thing at the box office?
shareIt doesn't surprise me that you ignored my own caveat that box office doesn't always correspond with artistic failure and completely ignored the list of scores of people who trashed the film in their reviews. Just like you ignored my calling you out on labeling Loomis79 as "stupid" by trying to change the subject and argue that this film was somehow an artistic success.
Yes - there was indeed a time when smart, adult movies were the biggest thing at the box office. But since Inherent Vice is neither "smart" nor "adult", I don't see how that statement is relevant. Just because something isn't a mindless superhero movie doesn't make it smart or adult. The fact that you yearn for such films to return doesn't justify praising such a shallow film like this one.
Most PTA fans are adolescent boys anyway - not adults. Check the IMDB demographics on all of his films and you will see that his biggest fan base (who rates his films higher than a 7) are all males under 30. Males under 18 consistently rate his films the highest out of any demographic group - not adults. I'd be surprised if you are over 30 yourself.
Other genuinely intelligent critics have pointed out the fact that you PT Anderson fan-boys are unable to distinguish genuinely deep and groundbreaking films from those that merely ape them on a surface level with no real substance behind them (as Anderson consistently does).
This intelligent critic has it spot on:
http://hubreview.blogspot.com/2012/10/in-which-i-call-bullsh*t-on-paul-thomas.html [change the asterisk to an 'i' in the url. IMDB wont allow a posting of that word otherwise.]
I will leave it up to others to determine if your own screeds on this forum measure up to the quality of criticism Mr. Garvey has written in the link provided.
But here is a real test for you: Which would you characterize as the more intelligent, adult and a better film all around? Inherent Vice or Ex Machina? I think its important for all people to see for themselves just how deluded you PTA fan-boys are.
Why do you keep getting hung up on this fanboy angle? I'm not a fanboy of anything. I follow no one blindly. You're right, I don't feel like responding to all your points - I have better things to do with my day. You sound like a bitter old turd who feels threatened by a different sensibility/humor that's maybe not in your wavelength. That's fine. Just don't come on here, create an inflammatory user name, and spew filth from your mouth. Because I liked the movie I must be an immature, under-30 fanboy? Get lost. Don't expect another response.
shareI'm not the one who called a poster "stupid" for merely stating that if a director keeps making films that aren't engaging, that he/she will spend time seeking out other directors instead. So who is being provocative here? I called you out on your nonsense and you obviously can't take it when someone pushes back after challenging you on your bullying.
I also noticed that you didn't bother to respond to my Inherent Vice vs. Ex Machina challenge in terms of ascertaining how you define "intelligent" and "adult" films. That too is hardly surprising for obvious reasons.
I am perfectly content to let others read our exchanges here and make up their own minds as to who is more sincere and has the better argument.
I dunno which is worse. Fanboys or trolls who make accounts to piss off fanboys.
You mean Norman Bates Jr. is the baby daddy?
I think so too
my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings
I agree it's boring, but I don't agree it's a film I have ever seen.
shareI agree, dull and boring, and way too long; nice photography and rich ambientation, great casting too.
The only PTA movie I did not enjoy.
I'm sorry but, I have to agree this was boring. And I'm saying "sorry" to the obvious fans of the movie and the author on here. We all have different tastes.
I just couldn't get into this movie at all. They were whispering the entire time and it was all over the place...and there was no pay off really. I didn't care about the characters. I felt like they never really revealed what was going on, and, by the end, I didn't care...I just wanted it to be over. Maybe that's part of the point, there is so much out there that was over the lead character's head, kind of in a Chinatown type way...but not an enjoyable experience for me as the viewer.
Maybe it is better on a second viewing, but, I'm not about to do that because it was so boring to get through the first time. I considered just turning it off but felt like I should stick through it.
I'm pretty confident in my "movie comprehension" skills...and this one was just so vague, hidden, obscure...lots of whispering, random characters who are all somewhat connected, drugs, money, informants, Communism...okay... I got that much...but you had to do mental gymnastics to try to keep up and even when you did...again, no pay off. (I say pay off as opposed to something like Muholland Drive, which I love...that was confusing as f-- the first time around, but in the end you clearly learn what's really going on and it makes repeat viewings awesome).
It really was just like the lead character got roped into a bunch of confusing *beep* for no purpose. He went around trying to connect the dots, and we were dragged with him, but...why? no point, really. the only thing he accomplished was finding out Owen Wilson's character's existence and reuniting him with his wife. Yay. And I don't even get what Shasta wanted from him in the first place.
Overall. Yes it had a cool atmosphere, film noir of the 70s. By the end I thought, okay, I'm just here to appreciate the overall "vibe" I guess because for me the story had no interesting substance. Except Bigfoot's character, he was a little intruiging to me.
And at least Joaquin is easy on the eyes....?
You know what they say about Inherent Vice
"If you only watched Inherent Vice once, you haven't seen it."
Even though you probably won't, Inherent Vice is honestly one of those movies you just gotta watch again. The first time is always the weirdest. I love the movie now but when I saw it for the first time, I was also like "Wtf is this?" And this is coming from someone who read the book beforehand.
You mean Norman Bates Jr. is the baby daddy?
You know what they say about Inherent Vice
"If you only watched Inherent Vice once, you haven't seen it."
You mean that's what YOU say. Your handle gives you away as a shill, btw.
That's extreme, don't you think? Considering:
1. My comment was a play on "If you remember the 60s, then you weren't there." Bit of a stretch sure, but it is what it is.
2. My comment is honest. Inherent Vice is considered to be a film where subsequent viewings are highly recommended, so no, that logic is not only something I came up with.
If you're jivin' me my man, I say to you