Vizio di forma

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.

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!

"I never remember the plots of movies. I remember how they make me feel."

• Paul Thomas Anderson, 10/5/2014, "On Cinema Masterclass", New York Film Festival

It's nearly impossible to talk about Inherent Vice, PTA's new stoner noir, without providing some context.

It's crucial to know, for example, that the film is an adaptation of Thomas Pynchon's 2009 novel. It's also crucial to understand the novel's subject matter and setting: a sprawling conspiracy, which may or may not exist, that involves a real estate mogul, hippies, the LAPD, and a heroin cartel named the Golden Fang, all against the backdrop of Southern California in 1970, the year after the Manson Family Massacre. Some familiarity with Pynchon's literary output–both his prose style and unique narrative structure–is helpful as well, almost required. Finally, to really grasp Inherent Vice, it'd be useful to know PTA's relationship with plot, which can best be understood by reading the quote above and thinking about the trajectory of his career (a career marked by films that have become more and more "plotless").

So, when we put all of this together, what do we get? To a large degree, we get exactly what we should have expected: a filmmaker creating a nearly-flawless adaptation of a nearly-impossible-to-adapt author. Wacky humor, a never ending stream of new characters (some of whom are neither introduced nor explained thoroughly), dialogue that sometimes feels like it's written in code, abrupt jumps between characters and scenes, unapologetically deep cultural references, long and wordy voice-overs, seemingly random occurrences that don't tie together, and a continual sense of paranoia that grows from the viewer (or reader's) inability to decipher what's real and what's imagined. Make no mistake, at the center of Inherent Vice is PTA's unyielding dedication to Pynchon's vision and his desire to put that vision, in full, on screen.

But, PTA's decision to remain so faithful to Pynchon's imagination comes with its faults. The only character we really feel invested in is Doc, the stoner, private eye protagonist played by Joaquin Phoenix (Phoenix is in almost every scene and deserves another Oscar nomination for his fantastic work). The other characters end up feeling peripheral, almost like they exist only to drive forward the narrative of Doc's detective search rather than exist as individual characters we should care about. Even Doc's love interest, Sashta, who shows up at Doc's house in the first scene and asks for a favor that sets in motion the goose chase at the heart of the film, is difficult to care about. Her presence in the film, while strong in certain moments, doesn't seem to stick because it's so ephemeral, dreamy, and enigmatic.

This is a flaw sometimes overlooked in novels (see DeLillo or Foster Wallace in addition to Pynchon), but it often distances viewers when done in films. More importantly, it's a criticism totally inapplicable to PTA's previous films. Boogie Nights and Magnolia also centered around ensemble casts, but in those films the viewer deeply cared about each and every character, whether it was Quiz Kid Donnie or pornographer-turned-speaker- salesmen Buck. The difference: PTA creating his own characters from scratch versus PTA capturing another artist's vision in uncompromising fashion.

It's also important to remember that many of Inherent Vice's viewers haven't read the book. I can't imagine how wild of a ride Inherent Vice will be for them. It'll certainly be a confusing experience, somewhere between trippy and surreal, almost Lynchian in its opaqueness and lack of narrative continuity. Perhaps it can best be summed up by the words of a girl who sat behind me at PTA's "On Cinema" talk at the New York Film Festival the day after Inherent Vice's world premiere: "It was good, but don't ask me to tell you what happened." This confusion and general inaccessibility will turn people off, much like The Master left some people enamored and others disappointed and unfulfilled.

Another important piece of context surrounding Inherent Vice, as always with highly anticipated films, is the prism of expectation. Many people predicted (and, I think, hoped) that Inherent Vice would be a return to form for PTA, a Boogie Nights Redux of some sort. They anticipated that the similarities between the films–1970's content, drugs, an ensemble cast–would unlock a time machine that catapulted us back to the earlier stages of PTA's career. Others, myself included, thought the film would split the difference between The Big Lebowski and L.A. Confidential, perfectly balancing the stoner laughs with tense and mystery-driven drama. These expectations were only furthered by Warner Brothers' decision to release a late and deceptively cut trailer, which I can only assume was a marketing decision made in reaction to The Master losing money at the box office.

But, the simple reality of PTA's films is that they are so good and so unique precisely because they can't be predicted. In that sense, Inherent Vice is no different. It's a ludicrously ambitious film crafted by a director who appears more interested in challenging himself as a filmmaker than anything else. It's a film that's long on dialogue but short on plot (shortest on plot of all PTA's films, which may shock some people, especially those who weren't fond of The Master). It's a film that, for two and a half hours, takes its viewer on a journey, leisurely meandering through a certain time and place, all while fluctuating in tone from romantic to paranoid to stoned. While Inherent Vice is neither what some thought it would be nor what many wanted it to be, it's exactly what it is, and more importantly, perhaps it's exactly what it had to be.

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.