MovieChat Forums > Inherent Vice (2015) Discussion > OK...so who here actually likes it?

OK...so who here actually likes it?

posted 9 years ago by maxconran
9 replies | jump to latest

I love it, I think its incoherence is testament to how well the book was adapted and its incredible that a movie has been made that actually makes you feel kinda stoned when you watch it. In fact the story is a bit like when you are stoned and need to go somewhere or something, everything just becomes a haze but you end up in some cool little spots doing some funny *beep* and you have no idea exactly how you got there, or at least you don't care to remember. Its all a haze.

[–] Christopher_Smilax 9 years ago

I agree with you 200%. The incoherence (Seemingly incoherent) nature of the movie is a testament to what the movie is about. A stoner detective. Detective stories are usually complicated anyway, but a detective story from the POV of a stoner is probably insane.

As you said, the movie makes you feel stoned, much like the main character. You're stoned, yet you have to wrap your head around a gigantic circle of crime, corruption and conspiracy, you meet all of these people and all do all of these things but you have no idea how you're doing any of that, and it's pretty funny to watch. Even funnier since it's about a quirky guy like Doc.

I love this movie (One of my favorites, Paul's best in my opinion). Though, I do think it suffers from doing its job TOO well unfortunately (i.e. Making the audience feel just as stoned and confused as Doc) and it flew over many peoples' heads 

If you're jivin' me my man, I say to you 

[–] maxconran 9 years ago

so good not to feel alone on these matters, it did indeed fly over peoples' heads. but I think PTA will always have this attitude between fluxing between more experimental artistic movies and other stunning movies that translate to wider audiences, not to say both are in some way equally as good

[–] mini-zappa 9 years ago

I absolutely love it. I've seen it 7 times.

[–] AlfoBet 9 years ago

I loved the film but I don't know that just plain incoherence is its special quality. Had the film been completely incoherent, it would be easy for people just to give up and enjoy it. Likewise, had it been more coherent (or, at least, had more exposition in there), it would have been easier to earnestly derive enjoyment from the plot.

The special quality though - that is present throughout Pynchon's writing and that Anderson managed to capture beautifully - falls between two these stools. It's a feeling of it being almost coherent but there just being one or two vital pieces missing, and if you could just take a nap and clear your head, you would be able to put it all together. The film definitely succeeds in putting the audience in that mindset (which seems like a much harder mindset to create than either total coherence or total incoherence). I think part of the problem that people have with it, though, is that it's an inherently frustrating mindset, where you can't quite give up on the plot making some sort of sense, yet can't just sit back and enjoy that plot, either.

[–] Bobby_vs_Satan 9 years ago

I'm only half way through (taking a break, gotta hit the sack). I'm really enjoying it so far. Some of Doc's reactions to the stories/recollections of folks are just priceless. Joaquin is really doing a great job. Looking forward to finishing it. Jade just cracks me up. Brolin's scene where on the phone he's describing that Shasta's gone was too good.

[–] lukas-sumper 9 years ago

Well its just not as dark as some of his earlier films before, thats why many dislike it. In my opinion its truly great, an original like his others. It just reminds me of David Lynch alot, in my mind thats only positive. I am glad others like it too.

[–] kenny-164 9 years ago

I don't know whether PTA was consciously attempting to mimic David Lynch here, but that someone might mention a connection is at least interesting. Yes, I can see some parallels, especially to Mulholland Drive. But while that film has many admirers, I am not one of them.

Confusion and incoherence to be clear do not in my mind make a film a bad one. Not at all. But they should have a purpose. And even if the details of the narrative are obscure or even not really revealed, that is also not disqualifying. IF some other, perhaps thematic, purpose is served.

Some mentioned here that the film should be seen as a success because it makes the viewer understand what it is like to be stoned. With the focus being on Doc, that would mean getting into the head of a stoner who is also a rather unconventional private detective, who is not only on a case but trying to sort out his feelings for an ex-girlfriend.

But that focus was just not interesting, and said nothing about anything I found relatable. The characters might be somewhat interesting, but they go nowhere as the film proceeds. Rather significantly Doc has sex with Shasta. But what does it really mean? I didn't care.

[–] timebeetlebrannigan679 9 years ago

Best PTA. Makes the others look like Spielberg.

[–] Krustallos 9 years ago

I thought it was the best film of the year, or at least the most enjoyable (that I saw, at least).

The second time I saw it I decided I wanted to go and live in it, if that could somehow be arranged.

The film may look incoherent, but it surely isn't. Sharp as a pin, I'd say.

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.