criterionforum.org

I'm a busy man with lots of film festivals to attend. Could you please put a star rating system at the top so I don't have to read everything that you wrote?

jindianajonz wrote:I'm a busy man with lots of film festivals to attend. Could you please put a star rating system at the top so I don't have to read everything that you wrote?

Was that really so long?

Nah, your write up was great. It tempered my expectations for this film, though I'm still looking forward to it. My comment was just a sarcastic followup to the last guy.

Oh, I didn't even see that. If he read what I wrote and didn't come away with an impression of what I thought of the film, he's got much bigger fish to fry than getting a one-sentence answer from me. It ain't exactly a Thomas Elsaesser essay.

mfunk has a long and storied history of not reading previous pages of threads. You should have known better, jindianajonz.

Some how I skipped the part where you said it was a failure. Even so i'm actually event more intrigued to see it now based on your descriptions.

Is the world's longest tracking shot still in the film? It sounds like it's shot in a more orthodox way than are previous PTA movies. No reviews so far have mentioned that dolly track.

If it is, it certainly wasn't memorable, because I can't recall it. There are some long takes but they're mostly stationary or confined to a couple of characters interacting.

A thoughtful conversation between two Verge writers that I like very much, Chris Plante and Jake Kastrenakes, on the quality level of Inherent Vice. Kastrenakes illuminates some of the issues I had with the film, while Plante makes a compelling case for it.

In70mm.com is reporting a rumour that some premiere runs of Inherent Vice in the USA next month will be 70mm prints. I can't yet find anywhere else corroborating that, but it's interesting if true. The last 35mm-to-70mm blowups released there appear to have been Titanic and Armageddon in 1997/8.

I wonder if London will get one? Since those two above, the most recent 70mm releases there were the reissue of 2001 in 2001, The Master in 2012 and Interstellar starting next week, but these were all films entirely shot, or with a significant amount shot, in 65mm or 15/70 IMAX.

Even a 35mm print would be nice. I can't see Inherent Vice playing at my local DCP-only multiplex unless it gets a Best Picture Oscar nomination.

That's also surprising because the cinematography is far from lush for lush's sake. A lot of washed out colors; very hazy, smoky, sun-drenched stuff.

I saw this at the New York Film Festival last month. I had great expectations for it but was ultimately letdown. The movie can't keep up the same energy level as the trailer, which that may be understandable, which is not to say it's slow it just doesn't always feel like it's moving forward all the time. There's one scene in particular where the film comes to grinding halt to let us indulge in Anderson's pornographic fantasies.

The acting is stellar, the story is coherent, and feels as authentic as a Mad Men episode but for a P.T. Anderson film it was a little underwhelming. Still will probably be in my top 10 list but near the bottom.

GaryC wrote:In70mm.com is reporting a rumour that some premiere runs of Inherent Vice in the USA next month will be 70mm prints. I can't yet find anywhere else corroborating that, but it's interesting if true. The last 35mm-to-70mm blowups released there appear to have been Titanic and Armageddon in 1997/8.

Apparently some 70mm trailers have been sent out to accompany five-perf 70mm screenings of Interstellar, so that bodes well for a 70mm release. That said, In70mm's rumor seems to imply that the limited release will only be in 5/70 ("'Inherent Vice' is being released in 5/70 on Dec 12th, a month before the regular release of Jan 9th"), which sounds extremely unlikely to me. I suspect it's just poorly worded.

As a nit-picky aside, Armageddon didn't get a 70mm release in the U.S., though it did in the UK and some other European countries. Titanic was the last 35-to-70mm blowup to get a commercial run, and that was probably only because Cameron paid for those prints himself. Disney did a 70mm print for the premiere of Mulan a year later, but none for general release.

Saw this last night. Wow. I don't know what to say. This needs to be seen several times.

The things I like about it are... the cast is tremendous, especially Joaquin Phoenix (should win awards), the score and music once again is a standout in a PTA film, the humor (although some gags felt forced) and the PTA mis-en-scene, although less cam movement than in his previous films.

I don't want to say the things I dislike about it because overall I like the film, but my one thing I'm trying to wrap my head around is the story. Following along takes great concentration and that may not be enough. It makes the The Big Sleep's narrative seem like a child's bedtime story.

But I left the screening wondering ...

Spoiler

if the whole narrative is some kind of hallucinatory journey in Doc's mind.

I'm going to have to side with mfunk on this one.

With Inherent Vice, Paul Thomas Anderson seems to have taken a step in the complete opposite direction from his more recent, character-oriented works (There Will Be Blood, The Master). I think the best place to begin with the film is where its most flawed: the plot, which is easily one of the most convoluted and complex story lines I can recall in recent memory. I cannot stress it enough when I claim that it really is incredibly difficult to follow, and it does not help that the majority of the film is dedicated to characters spewing off names, plot developments, and other bits of information to one another, all framed through long, two shots. As soon as the opening voiceover began, followed by an exposition-filled introduction, I knew I was in trouble.

Eventually, the film reaches a point where one no longer really cares about understanding the story perfectly (there isn't anything thematically beneath the surface, so that was never an issue), and it becomes more about the different gags and jokes occurring throughout. And in this regard, the film succeeds in spades, because I really laughed hard and a lot. The cast is great all-around, Joaquin Phoenix unsurprisingly being fantastic and perfectly nailing the stoner persona. Quite often, it's a simple facial expression or gesture acting as a response to another character that was able to garner such a great laugh among the audience.

Josh Brolin's police detective is also one of the film's highlights, and in a more brief, dramatic role as Phoenix's girlfriend, Katherine Waterston. The rest of the cast is really wasted though in small, minute roles that sometimes last for little more than a brief scene (I really wish Martin Short had more to do, because he really killed it in the seven minutes he was around for). This flaw, in part, relates to the complexity issues of the plot, because for all that Anderson is interested in creating this fantastical world of crazy, zany characters, the story is too jam-packed to really give any of these actors their due screen time before having to move to the next development.

While Anderson's early films may have been rather derivative (Boogie Nights owing much to Scorsese, Magnolia to Altman), there was a certain lively aesthetic found in those films that would have been great to revisit here, albeit in a more original, refined manner. Though this is easily one of Anderson's least interesting works on a directorial level, even lacking a memorable score from Jonny Greenwood and the wonderful camerawork that made the introduction to Jack Horner's home so great, or Daniel Plainview's oil fields so haunting.

For all that that is flawed about Inherent Vice, it is definitely not a bad film. Even with the confusing-as-fuck plot, there is something somewhat amusing about reaching this delirious, paranoid state of being completely bewildered about what is going on in the film in a literal sense and really just taking it in on a comical level. This approach is obviously still troubling and indisputably the film's greatest flaw. Though hopefully, things will become less hazy for me on a second viewing.

Having read quite a bit of Pynchon's novel, it sets a really distinct sense of place - but honestly I think this movie is bogged down by its source material, that strikes me as a novel overrated by virtue of who wrote it.

I was under the impression that Inherent Vice was far from his best novel - friends of mine who are much more knowledgeable about his work seem to be much less enamored with it than, say, Gravity's Rainbow.

Jim Hoberman and Jonathan Rosenbaum had polar opposite takes on the film. The former loved it - not as much as Anderson's last two films, but he thought it was "an adroit adaptation of Thomas Pynchon’s most accessible novel" and "remarkably true to Pynchon’s sensibility." The latter thought it was terrible, "apparent proof that Thomas Pynchon, even Pynchon at his worst, is unfilmable, even by a fan."

hearthesilence wrote:I was under the impression that Inherent Vice was far from his best novel - friends of mine who are much more knowledgeable about his work seem to be much less enamored with it than, say, Gravity's Rainbow.

I doubt anyone rates it near the top of his work. Most people seem to treat it as a pleasant or baffling curiosity. I think, generally, it gets coupled with Vineland as a shorter, lighter work that Pynchon put out between his more sprawling and impressive efforts.

hearthesilence wrote:I was under the impression that Inherent Vice was far from his best novel - friends of mine who are much more knowledgeable about his work seem to be much less enamored with it than, say, Gravity's Rainbow.

Jim Hoberman and Jonathan Rosenbaum had polar opposite takes on the film. The former loved it - not as much as Anderson's last two films, but he thought it was "an adroit adaptation of Thomas Pynchon’s most accessible novel" and "remarkably true to Pynchon’s sensibility." The latter thought it was terrible, "apparent proof that Thomas Pynchon, even Pynchon at his worst, is unfilmable, even by a fan."

This is why I'm willing to give PT Anderson a pass when it comes to his streak of masterworks ending based on the "unfilmable" source material. But it wouldn't surprise me if this film grows in stature once it's been viewed several times and has the benefit of years behind it.

Tickets to the Arclight Hollywood's 70mm presentation of it are for sale

hearthesilence wrote:Jim Hoberman and Jonathan Rosenbaum had polar opposite takes on the film. The former loved it - not as much as Anderson's last two films, but he thought it was "an adroit adaptation of Thomas Pynchon’s most accessible novel" and "remarkably true to Pynchon’s sensibility." The latter thought it was terrible, "apparent proof that Thomas Pynchon, even Pynchon at his worst, is unfilmable, even by a fan."

Would you mind linking to these comments by Hoberman/Rosenbaum? Couldn't find Rosenbaum's review anywhere.

Ha, Rosenbaum was at the screening we were at @ NYFF, standing in line and gawking at the press photos being taken like the rest of us schlubs. Though I still wonder what the heck anyone means by "unfilmable" - the material is relatively straightforward, it's just not very good. This isn't The Metamorphosis or something that can only truly exist successfully on the page, it's about as faithful of an adaptation as one can expect, it's just not that compelling (to me, of course - some folks are really digging it).