Inherent Vice

I am writing this review after my second try: this time I went a little more far in but, once again, I had to give up.

What a wasted potential, in my opinion!

A superb cast and a great director trying to serve a never-ending elements additions to a random story, which already has nothing really original.

As many other people wrote here, the plot is too intricate, as well as the amount of character who pop up every scene after the other.

Imagine yourself tryng to write The Big Lebowski in a Tarantinian style, with a thousand characters in a hundred sub-plots connected to some other (but not to each other) and doing your best to not lose your mind over it.

Someone said this was meant to be, they wanted to recreate the structure and the mood of its source material: I get it but, still, was it the best choice? In my opinion, it wasn't.

When a story is that complicated, it kicks me off the movie; and when that happens, you have a half of a movie.

I like and respect PTA but I think this film is the Moby Dick of filmmaking: you know it's something valuable but you just can't keep up with it!

Let's start this off with a reward offering. I'll pay anyone $20 if they can explain to me, in detail, the full plot and synopsis of "Inherent Vice," front to back. That's a good place to start, eh?

The New York Film Festival press and audiences given the gift of a first look at Paul Thomas Anderson's hotly anticipated "Inherent Vice" starring Joaquin Phoenix and an all-star cast. Based on the novel by Thomas Pynchon, rumors flew about for months that the novel is a tough read and that the translation from book to film could be confusing in the hands of an auteur filmmaker like Anderson. Well, to a certain extent, they are absolutely correct. "Inherent Vice" is such a mind trip, one that will probably make you want to enroll in drug rehab by the end credits. What's amazing about it is even though you, nor I will probably "get it," and there's way more questions than answers at the moment, I cannot wait to revisit it again to start seeking those things out. You can see a little of Anderson's entire filmography.

Our "basic synopsis" is the story of Larry "Doc" Sportello, who in the 1970's, begins to search for his missing former girlfriend. The other things that accompany those facts, is a hallucination of laughs, satire, and magnificent filmmaking abilities.

Let's start with thanking the good Lord for Paul Thomas Anderson and his love of 35mm. Even though the screening did not show the film in that quality (the public screening however did), there's a charm that's still embedded within all of Anderson's film that pays homage to all the classic films of history. This is also partly thanks to Academy Award winning DP Robert Elswit, who can frame a scene to tension and success. Much like his past efforts such as "The Master," "There Will Be Blood," and "Boogie Nights," there's a magnitude of a visual master's exercises on display. He crafts provocative and engaging players that fully mesmerize you for its duration.

On the top of his game, once again is the genius that is Joaquin Phoenix. He's hilarious, and nothing like "The Dude" as many will compare him. He's a three-dimensional character with layers, fully invested in the story, and best of all, utterly believable. In a quirky, detective mystery such as this, you expect some outrageous behavior that can sometimes run false. Call me crazy, I believed nearly all. Phoenix is pure, ludicrous, and keeps you fixated entirely. You couldn't ask for a more dependable thespian at this time in cinema. There's even a weird but obvious comparison to Freddie Quell, as if Freddie's illegitimate child got into drugs and missed out on the alcoholism.

The supporting players are as rich as any Anderson creation before. Finally back to large ensembles, where he has shined time and time again in films like "Magnolia," he assembles one of the strongest casts seen in 2014. Like a rock and roll star, Josh Brolin owns the stage with a savage and vicious dedication to his character, he stands out as one of the finest performances of the year. I adored him, and it might be his finest outing yet, and something that could ring him some much deserved awards attention.

If you don't know her name yet, Katherine Waterston will be on the tongues of many for years to come. As Shasta Fay Hepworth, you'll find an enigmatic character with an entrancing and sensual aura. At times, feeling like a mixture of Rollergirl from "Boogie Nights" and Claudia Wilson Gator from "Magnolia," Waterston is one of engrossing and compelling characters of the year. It's an awards worthy performance, baring the soul of a performer that understands her purpose, Waterston is plain magnificent.

You will get big chuckles from Benicio del Toro, Owen Wilson, and Martin Short, all of which make their mark. In one strong scene, Jena Malone leaves her mark while Michael Kenneth Williams could have set the screen on fire with more time than what he was given. Sasha Pieterse (fabulous as always), Reese Witherspoon (reminding us why we loved Johnny and June Cash together so much), Eric Roberts (yearning for a larger role at this time in his career), Joanna Newsom (our new female Morgan Freeman of this generation's narrators), and Maya Rudolph (who needs to team up with hubby more often), all shine.

Why the world isn't recognizing Jonny Greenwood as one of the most innovative and talented composers yet is beyond me. Once again, everything on-screen is elevated by his eerie composition and whimsical take on the 70's aura. Not to mention, the soundtrack may be THE album of the year. You can't tell me that you won't have that on repeat seconds after viewing. You also get a richly realized costume design by Mark Bridges and honest sets by David Crank and Amy Wells. It's a technical masterpiece for sure.

"Inherent Vice" is such a strange demon. Hard to say you love, if you don't comprehend it all yet, but with enough magic to keep coming back for more. It's one of the best offbeat and pecuilar monsters seen on screen this year, and you just might fall for its potent nature.

Inherent Vice is certainly one of the most bizarre movies I've seen in a long, long time. Paul Thomas Anderson demonstrates his love of Thomas Pynchon by creating a movie that in every way feels Pynchon-esque. The film is a faithful adaption of Pynchon's late 00s novel but with a few minor sub-plots (such as the Las Vegas trip and the bets/claims) removed, not that they mattered really.

Joaquin Phoenix is one of my favourite actors and this movie - much like his previous one with PTA, The Master - is reason why. Phoenix plays a buffoonish caricature that sometimes makes us wonder if he was smoking actual pot during filming. Josh Brolin also provides a fine performance. There are a handful of women in the film but it's sad to say that they don't get enough attention in the film.

The dialogue is incoherent. You may not understand what's happening in the film at any certain time. You may ask: "what are they talking about?" "wait, what just happened?" Best reasoning I can provide is that this movie - much like its leading character - is high and rambles aimlessly here and there.

We can't criticize the incomprehensible nature of the movie because it was intentionally written that way to capture the tone of the novel. Eventhough I personally couldn't enjoy this movie, I completely understand why other people like it. I understand what they were going for but I couldn't connect with it personally. All the performances, especially by Phoenix and Brolin were top notch. Both those characters were written extremely well. There were some genuinely funny sequences too. However there are several instances where Doc relies on coincidences and conveniences to uncover the cases. This aspect felt like lazy writing.

I don't dislike this movie but I can't like it either. I have such a complicated opinion on this movie. PTA is one of the best directors working today. But I couldn't appreciate this movie like I did with his other movies like The Master, There will be blood etc.

Glad not to be a professional film critic - I would not know what to say. Great casting. Fun costumes. Some scenes give you the feeling of other scenes you might have seen somewhere else. Kind of like an instant classic rehash. Do not make the mistake to follow the plot. There is a higher chaos beneath us all. Probably good material to test the effects of various psychoactive substances on people who make an effort of connecting dots when watching movies. You do not need substances though. There are dots all right but there is no coherent picture that is good for everybody. Any connection you draw is fine. Maybe that is the message.

I usually follow the guidance of amazon (I believe it to be the owner of this site) and try to give points between one and ten. Impossible here. I consider that the film's quality.