Printable version of thread

Click here to view this topic in its original format

BuzzJack Music Forum _ Movies and Theatre _ Inherent Vice

Posted by: J▲hq 24th January 2015, 11:35 PM

wZfs22E7JmI

This looks totally bonkers and it stars Reese Witherspoon. I'm in.

Posted by: Ultraviolence1989 25th January 2015, 04:00 PM

I saw the trailer for this with The Theory Of Everything and it looked quite good, I might check it out
And Reese is in it

Posted by: Davidson 25th January 2015, 08:45 PM

Joaquin never fails to impress me. Definitely need to see this.

Posted by: Joe. 4th February 2015, 09:06 AM

Really, really hated this. One of my favourite directors has disappointed me with his second film in a row.
It was self-indulgent and VERY long. Where can I get those 10 hours of my life back?

Posted by: ♡ Heezus Froot ♡ 4th February 2015, 09:13 AM

I'm reading the book for my book club! Much looking forward to watching the film too.

Posted by: J▲hq 4th February 2015, 08:34 PM

I barely understood an ounce of what was going on or who any of the characters were.

Reese was only in it for all of three scenes too.

Such a dip after seeing the brilliance that are both "Kingsman" and "Big Hero 6" in the past few days. It made "American Sniper" seem enjoyable. Endured it so that I didn't become one of the numerous people to walk out before it finished.

Posted by: Jonjo 5th February 2015, 03:04 AM

I've heard pretty shocking things from people about this film. It's really killed all hype I had for it, which is a shame. Oh Joaquin!

Posted by: Davidson 10th February 2015, 11:27 PM

I really enjoyed it. If you go in looking for a logical and easily spelled out plot then it's the wrong film for you. You kind of need to leave your logic at the door and just go with it, it is meant to be a bit of a stoner movie, spaced out and more about the actual feeling than what is going on (that's how I took it anyway). It has a great fun vibe and made me laugh an awful lot, you just have to embrace it's silliness.

Posted by: ♡ Heezus Froot ♡ 4th March 2015, 11:14 AM

Didn't like the book, so there's no point in watching this. What's worse is that the majority of my book club loved this They did say that the movie would make no sense if you haven't read the book, though.

Posted by: Insomnio 20th May 2015, 11:46 AM

"Inherent Vice" was released in my city's cinemas over two months ago. It was nominated for a Golden Globe in the category for "Best Actor in a Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy" and was nominated for two Oscars, including "Best Adapted Screenplay" and "Best Costumes"! Although it did not win an award in these two events, it received mostly positive reviews for its good performances. Honestly, I had nowhere seen the official trailer anywhere, but reading a few lines for the plot, it seemed like it had quite an interesting script. Besides, it deals with a case of disappearance and this issue was at the forefront of openness in my country's TV news three months ago.
"Inherent Vice" is based on the homonymous novel by Thomas Pynchon. It takes place in Los Angeles in the 60's and the central figure of the film is the private detective Larry "Doc" Sportello. The latter would undertake an unusual case of disappearancing, which concerns his ex-girlfriend and her new lover, and it will lead to dangerous and complex paths. While reading the plot, you are sure that you will see a mystery film, but "Inherent Vice" is far from the standards of the genre. The private detective Larry "Doc" Sportello, which happens to be a hippy, is a peculiar personality like most characters in the film. "Inherent Vice" contains many surreal scenes, which you can not be sure if they actually happen, since the protagonist is constantly stoned. However, the most typical and important component of the film were the countless and ceaseless dialogues and also many names that rang a bell in the movie, without knowing which was their role in the story. This result had an effect that tired us at times because we were trying to contain all these names but unfortunately the rapid evolution of the plot does not help us at all. I felt as if we participated in some experimental research without of course nobody informing us initially. Nevertheless, I can not say that I did not like what I saw in total since it had good directing, good enough interpretations, well-written dialogues and many funny scenes. Of course, some of them were coarsely but at least made us laugh many times in the movie theater. It is the most pleasant story of director/ screenwriter Paul Thomas Anderson, who previously has dealt only with social dramas and stories. Having seen most of the movies from his filmography, such as "Boogie Nights", "Magnolia", "Punch-Drunk Love" and "Master", I found that his performance is always descent. However, with "Inherent Vice", it made essentially the difference. I think that it is one of the most unique films I've ever seen in the last five years and it held my interest till the end. That being said, I will not ignore the fact that I had a headache with the seamless information.
"Inherent Vice" was a very special film with positive and negative elements. It was not a commercial movie after failing to overcome its low budget ($20.000.000) and its total receipts are quite disapponting. However, it is a film about a very specific audience and certainly will disappoint a large portion of the unsuspecting viewers. For this reason, it has received an average score in IMDb of 6,8. Personally, it's not far from my own assessment. I'd say that it's a pretty crazy case of vanishing that requires every second of viewer's attention and patience, after it lasts 148 minutes.

Posted by: ♡ Heezus Froot ♡ 20th May 2015, 11:55 AM

Thomas Pynchon isn't a detective, surely.

Anyway, I did end up watching the movie and it was just as messy as the book.

Posted by: Insomnio 20th May 2015, 12:13 PM

He could be with this talent..