darius-azadeh

Thomas Pynchon's novels have never before been adapted for screen. This could either be because of circumstance of simply because they wouldn't function as well as a film. Nevertheless, director Paul Thomas Anderson takes a stab with this 2009 novel, 'Inherent Vice', resulting in what can only be described as 'trippy'.

When his ex-girlfriend reemerges to appeal for his help, hippie P.I Larry 'Doc' Sportello sets off on a quest to find her missing boyfriend, land developer Micky Wolfmann. Set against the kaleidoscopic backdrop of early 70's L.A, drug-fueled madness is sure to ensue along the way.

This is a very curious film; with a lead character who is constantly high and caught in the tangled web of a neo-noir world, its a safe bet that things will be anything but straight forward, even being dubbed 'Incoherent Vice' by Anderson himself. That it certainly is, as the film's plot, much like the book's, requires your intense concentration from the start. For the first half of the film, this doesn't prove to be too difficult; however, as it reaches the halfway point, the story starts to loose it's feet. It then becomes this top-heavy amalgamation of wayward plot lines and drug-crazed hippies. Although this was deliberate on Anderson's part, it creates this sense that some sort of fulfillment is denied regarding the overall outcome.

That's not to say that the film isn't terrifically entertaining. Taking on a much lighter tone that Anderson's most recent endeavors, it boasts wonderful design, brilliant performances and an authentic 70's joy-ride. As usual, Joaquin Pheonix is constantly great throughout, as the bumbling hippy leading the pack. The real stand outs come from the supporting cast, like Josh Brolin, as the flat-top hippy hating cop 'Bigfoot' Bjornsen, who is often butting heads with Doc yet occasionally plays nice. Brolin pins him as like 'a kid in a grocery store who cant get his fruit loops'. He manages pull this off in a brilliantly comedic way, adding to the films constant comic theme.

The humour is one of the most understated elements in the film. Aside from the inevitable 'What's up, Doc?' quips (it is a Warner Bro's picture, after all), the obvious jokes are cleverly placed throughout, to keep you in tune with the madness as it sprawls beyond comprehension. The book itself is the same, and is one of the many ways in which this is a very faithful adaptation. There are even parts that have been completely recreated from the pages, which indeed do work with this level of direction and performance.

Needless to say it looks stunning. The decision to shoot on 35mm (heat damaged, for some sequences) almost seems like a no-brainer. It brings out Robert Elswists saturated cinematography, bringing across a brilliant psychedelic pastiche. Coupled with set design to have the producers of 'Mad Men' sweating under their collars, it echoes as far back to films from the era such as Jacques Tati's 'Playtime', and is equally as fun.

A cult film in the making, this Thomas Pynchon adaptation is not without some substantial problems. Although the plot is meant to be jumbled and complicated, it is intended to be seen through the hazy eyes of our main hero. Although an interesting concept, its not one that holds up for a runtime that is far too long. It wants you to get lost in the plot as much as the neon lit, laid back and saturated world it unfolds in.

Inherent Vice is a mess, yet a thoroughly enjoyable one.

With talents such as Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams and of course Spike Jonze, it's no wonder why this film was not a disappointment. With it's completely original story, superb acting and incredible design, 'Her' is a profound achievement.

The plot, which focuses around Theodore Twombly, a recently divorced and lonely writer, and his newly acquired OS, with whom he eventually fall 'in love' with. Personally, I've never seen a story like this on screen before, unless you class that Big Bang Theory episode where Raj's Siri calls him 'Sexy'. It was one of the main reasons I really wanted to see this film. It's also great because it raised so many interesting questions; How far will humanities' relations with technology go? Do we rely on it too much? How advanced will it eventually become? It also makes you think about what people are really like in relationships; How far can you be 'in love' with no physical contact? When a movie makes you think of this many questions, it's already easy to guess that it's pretty good.

This narrative is brought out with really brilliant acting. I was surprised with Amy Adams initially. Even though I rated 'American Hustle', I didn't think Adams' acting in it was too great. In this, however, I was completely sold. Maybe because her character was written so well. A relatable, understanding friend who's always by your side. She seemed to highlight the human relationship and the joys it can bring, a dynamic that is hard to show in a story like this. Chris Pratt, who is suddenly in everything now, was great too. He brought a sense of comic understanding to the story, and was another example of how you need to be surrounded by love.

Except for Theodore, i found Olivia Wilde's character to be very intriguing. It's a shame that she is never given a name, because she also raises questions for Twombly and the audience. There's a definite charm and maturity that she brings to Theodore, another way of developing his character with wonderful symmetry.

Of course, though, Phoenix's lead was something brilliant, in the writing and performance. What he does with the character is quite incredible, as we see this man who has been through a lot; divorce, loneliness, etc, but is still quite naive. He still doesn't understand certain things, and sometimes sees things and situations in a child-like way. This was beautiful, as again is shows you what people can be like when in love. He also shows humans as relatable. There are some scenes where you're like, 'I do that', or 'yeah, I'd probably do the same'.

The music is something I can't flaw. This soundtrack is just so perfect and works incredibly with the film. It's almost as if it's a mirror to the emotions you feel. There's a wonderful scene where you literally see nothing, but it's acted so well and intertwined with the music so brilliantly that it's as if your seeing everything, and not just a blank screen. Even though there was a slight over use of sequences of Twombly mopeing around the city, the music mixed with it so well that it was more of a feeling that another sequence.

It looks incredible. The production design, the costumes, the locations, everything. It was pretty believable that this is what L.A would be like in the near future (small details would suggest that it's set around 50 years from now). The only problem I had with the design is that some of the technology feature seemed a bit too far fetched and unbelievable. Aside from this, though, the camera was used in a way that appreciated the small things in life. During an emotional scene, the camera would often cut to a dusty carpet or something on the ground, and even though at times this felt incoherent, It just makes you look and reflect, which you need during this kind of thought process. Sad scenes are also shot and written interestingly. On a few occasions, during an upsetting development, the camera would again cut to something funny. This is so subtle, though. It's like Jonze was saying; 'Yeah, there's a joke here. It's up to you whether you find it funny, because this is still a depressing scene'. The film does have a brilliant sense of humour, though. It's so down to earth yet relatable that it feels so smooth.

The fact that it changes the way you see relationships and to an extent, the world, makes this a unique cinema experience. You really feel the need to ask yourself these questions about technology and how it will eventually effect us. Hopefully, you'll come out thinking the same, and reflecting on how reliant you are on technology and how you act when in love, a 'form of socially acceptable insanity'.

It's a shame that January is usually known as 'bad movie month" (e.g Movie 43 last year), because this movie is most certainly not. It really is a unique piece of Scorsese's and DiCaprio's track records.

I've gotta start of with the humour. This movie is so hilariously funny. Like, my jaw was aching when I came out of the theatre. At least every 4 minutes pretty much everyone in there burst out in humongous laughter. There was a guy next to me literally howling with laughter (maybe he thought the 'Wolf' mentioned in the title was literal?). I think the reason it was like that, though, is because it was so effortless. I've got to say, it was funnier than 50% of the comedies I've seen in the past year. It was so effortless because regular comedy movies just try to hit one emotion: Laughter. So they need to really try, because that's it's purpose. This film hit so many other levels of emotions that everything about it felt so organic and the humour was placed so perfectly. Even the scenes where the story got deep were full of so many emotions and were hard to watch. You could feel it. It was obviously down to the script (there are some parts where you can tell the actors are about to crack up), but also the editing. It had such great comic timing, and was so subtle that it felt completely natural.

It's hard to believe that Jonah Hill is that same actor that played the goofy kid in 'Superbad' way back in 2007. It's the best performance of his I think I've seen. It went past the point of seeing Jonah Hill with all his Jonah Hill-isms playing a character that Jonah Hill always plays. For those 3 hours he genuinely was Donny Azoff, and played the role perfectly. He even managed to develop the character through the acting so subtly but so effectively.

You can't not mention DiCaprio when talking about performances in this film. Aside from being the brilliant talent he already is, he worked so hard at the role and it defiantly paid off. The parts where he broke the 4th wall while narrating were so seamless, and when his character fell on hard times, he portrayed it with so many different emotions that his character was becoming so complex it was believable. He could have fallen into so many clichés trying to do that, but seemed to have no trouble side-stepping them. I mean, those scenes where he's 'under the influence' show that this guy is prepared to go above and beyond for his roles. Also, even though he was only in it for a short while, McConaughey deserves a shout. I've only seen him in as trailer for 'Ghosts of Girlfriends Past' as one of the ads on my copy of 'Quantum of Solace' (I think. Anyway, beside the point), so had no idea what to expect. But boy, he can defiantly act. It's because Scorsese knew what he wanted to get out of his actors.

He was definitely the genius behind all of this. His direction is another thing you just can't flaw. Everything little thing added so much to the story or the humour or the characters. His way of making everything so surreally extravagant was an incredible medium into a real life situation. To some it probably seems that the amount of profanity and sex was unnecessary, but I think if there was any less the film wouldn't have been as powerful.

A 3 hour thrill ride of hilarious eccentricity and amazing performances, this is a film to be experienced. You'd think that during 180 minutes the pacing would start to drag, but just when you think it does, it'll suck you right back in with underlying comic genius or subtle character development.

In a way, it felt nostalgic. And in a word, it was incredible.