Inherent Vice
- 2014
- Tous publics
- 2h 28min
"En 1970, Larry Sportello dit ""Doc"", un enquêteur privé spécialisé dans le traitement de la toxicomanie à Los Angeles, enquête sur la disparition de son ex-petite amie.""En 1970, Larry Sportello dit ""Doc"", un enquêteur privé spécialisé dans le traitement de la toxicomanie à Los Angeles, enquête sur la disparition de son ex-petite amie.""En 1970, Larry Sportello dit ""Doc"", un enquêteur privé spécialisé dans le traitement de la toxicomanie à Los Angeles, enquête sur la disparition de son ex-petite amie."
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Nommé pour 2 Oscars
- 15 victoires et 99 nominations au total
Avis à la une
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This film tells the story of a private detective in Los Angeles who investigates the disappearance of his former girlfriend and a rich real estate tycoon.
"Inherent Vice" has a super incoherent plot. Not only do I not understanding a thing while watching it, I still don't understand it even when I paused the film and read the plot synopsis regularly. So the detective investigates the case, then somehow the case is completely forgotten because a prostitute tells him about a shipment of heroin. There are just far too many characters in the film, each one of them doing their little bit in the story that does not glue together as a whole. Every subplot gets mentioned them dropped, without any satisfactory resolution. This film is a tremendous waste of time!
"Inherent Vice" has a super incoherent plot. Not only do I not understanding a thing while watching it, I still don't understand it even when I paused the film and read the plot synopsis regularly. So the detective investigates the case, then somehow the case is completely forgotten because a prostitute tells him about a shipment of heroin. There are just far too many characters in the film, each one of them doing their little bit in the story that does not glue together as a whole. Every subplot gets mentioned them dropped, without any satisfactory resolution. This film is a tremendous waste of time!
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesAccording to writer and director Paul Thomas Anderson, Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon "have their own language and short hand" with each other. While their natural rapport helped to show the chemistry between their characters, this led to Anderson having to constantly remind them to stop chatting so that they could film.
- GaffesWhen Doc goes to see Penny at her office she asks if he will let her depone him. While the use of the word "depone" might seem unusual compared to the more common "depose", this should not be regarded as a mistake. Penny's actual line from the source novel is this: "Would you be willing to depone for me?"
- Crédits fousAfter the credits roll, the end caption is the opening inscription from Pynchon's novel, Inherent Vice: "Under the Paving-Stones, the Beach!" - Graffito, Paris, May 1968
- Bandes originalesDreamin' On a Cloud
Written by Heinz Burt (as Burt Heinz)
Performed by The Tornadoes (as The Tornados)
Courtesy of Sanctuary Records Group, Ltd.
By arrangement with BMG Rights Management (US), LLC
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Inherent Vice?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Vicio propio
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 20 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 8 110 975 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 328 184 $US
- 14 déc. 2014
- Montant brut mondial
- 14 810 975 $US
- Durée2 heures 28 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant