1 9 70 में, ड्रग-ईंधन लॉस एंजिल्स निजी अन्वेषक लैरी "डॉक्टर" स्पोर्टेलो ने एक पूर्व प्रेमिका के लापता होने की जांच की थी.1 9 70 में, ड्रग-ईंधन लॉस एंजिल्स निजी अन्वेषक लैरी "डॉक्टर" स्पोर्टेलो ने एक पूर्व प्रेमिका के लापता होने की जांच की थी.1 9 70 में, ड्रग-ईंधन लॉस एंजिल्स निजी अन्वेषक लैरी "डॉक्टर" स्पोर्टेलो ने एक पूर्व प्रेमिका के लापता होने की जांच की थी.
- निर्देशक
- लेखक
- स्टार
- 2 ऑस्कर के लिए नामांकित
- 15 जीत और कुल 99 नामांकन
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
In 1970, drug-fueled Los Angeles detective Larry "Doc" Sportello (Joaquin Phoenix) investigates the disappearance of a former girlfriend.
Whether or not Los Angeles was like this in 1970 does not matter. For the sake of the story, this is the world Doc Sportello lives in, and it is one crazy place: drug cartels, ouija boards, crooked cops and hippie cults.
The problem with this film, and what seems to turn most people off, is the very complex plot. Following in the same vein as "The Long Goodbye" or "The Big Lebowski", this is a world where many seemingly unrelated worlds intersect. And it is brilliant. Unfortunately, it is very hard to follow and that will ruin it for many people. Or, at best, it will make them want to watch it two or three times until it all starts to click.
Whether or not Los Angeles was like this in 1970 does not matter. For the sake of the story, this is the world Doc Sportello lives in, and it is one crazy place: drug cartels, ouija boards, crooked cops and hippie cults.
The problem with this film, and what seems to turn most people off, is the very complex plot. Following in the same vein as "The Long Goodbye" or "The Big Lebowski", this is a world where many seemingly unrelated worlds intersect. And it is brilliant. Unfortunately, it is very hard to follow and that will ruin it for many people. Or, at best, it will make them want to watch it two or three times until it all starts to click.
Great mood and cinematography, memorable characters, and bizarre situations. I know that the plot is purposely nonsensical and convoluted, but the trippy atmosphere was not enough to keep me interested until the end. Trimming some extra fat would help. The absolute highlight for me was Bigfoot's character and his relationship with Doc.
I loved this film. A lot of people don't like this film because the plot is very confusing and hard to follow but the whole message of the film is that sometimes life doesn't wrap things up in a nice little bow and sometimes everything doesn't come together in the end. I've seen this film a few times now and I like it more everytime I see it. The first time I didn't really like it because I was trying to keep up and get my head around the plot but after I became enlightened to the theme, then I was just able to sit back and experience the journey. It is a great character study. Joaquín pheonix is fantastic and his character is great, all the characters and performances in this film are great and fun, Josh Brolin works really well and had great chemistry with Pheonix, and Martin Short was hilarious when he came into the film he was amazing. There were so many great moments and great lines scattered about like when he visits the golden fang institute. The dialogue on the whole is inconsistent as a lot of it is exposition for the plot but when it isn't that it was fantastic. This is one of the most enjoyable films because you don't need to worry about understanding the plot because you're not supposed to understand it and instead just sit back and relax. The directing is great as always from PTA, the film is really well made. My only criticisms are the film gets weaker in the last 20 mins or so and probably should've ended earlier and that some of the dialogue is just exposition. However I love this film on the whole, I love the soundtrack and the unsatisfying ending reflects the whole film, it reflects the character and how really he gets nothing done in the whole film. And it also reflects life, and how in life often things don't have satisfying endings.
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.
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!
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाAccording 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.
- गूफ़When 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?"
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटAfter 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
- साउंडट्रैकDreamin' 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
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Inherent Vice?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइटें
- भाषाएं
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Vicio propio
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $2,00,00,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $81,10,975
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $3,28,184
- 14 दिस॰ 2014
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $1,48,10,975
- चलने की अवधि
- 2 घं 28 मि(148 min)
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.85 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें