← Back to Reviews
in
The Story
We find ourselves in L.A. during the very last convulsions of the psychedelic ‘60s, and the paranoia has slowly taken over the party like a bad trip. We begin in the small fictional town, Gordita Beach, where the enigmatic Shasta Fay Hepworth visits his disillusioned and pot smoking ex-boyfriend, Larry "Doc" Sportello, to reach out for his help. She has recently begun a closed affair with billionaire and businessman, Mickey Wolfmann, and while in the midst of it all, she got herself a lucky little sneak peak of a truly sinister plan, laid out by Wolfmann’s own wife and her new boyfriend. They will kidnap Wolfmann and then get him admitted to a mental hospital, subsequently. With a position as a private detective and a weakness for the coping abilities of his ex-girlfriend, Doc makes the big mistake of actually accepting to investigate the case. Once he takes the first step inside this perplexed and confounding mystery it is utterly impossible to find a way back to the surface again. Doc’s desperate quest for answers only leaves him with even more questions than when he began the investigation, and with every rock being turned there is simply yet another suspicious personality, yet another mysterious affair, and yet another overwhelming wave of problematic pollution, ultimately overclouding his never-ending collection of truly confusing cases.
It ought to be mentioned, almost immediately, that the plot of 'Inherent Vice' almost appears totally clear and competent in the above synopsis, which is quite impressive considering the fact that there really isn’t any – and if I were to pretend there was one, it is virtually developed in real-time as we watch it – and not in any smart or beneficial kind of way, that’s for sure. If the audiences are hungry for a nice and refreshing investigational treat in the vein of a classic detective crime-drama, they will most likely reverse themselves homeward in a state best described as decidedly dramatic disorientation. 'Inherent Vice' is indeed still a film that leaves some kind of impression on its audience – though not exactly in relation to the remarkable or the thoughtful – but rather the feeling that it isn’t the characters on the screen but those in the seats, whom have all been treacherously kidnapped, betrayed, and heavily screwed around with. Perhaps it isn’t exactly pretentious narratively nonsense we are dealing with here, but it is rather irrelevant nonsense from a director, who actually has the tendency to produce a fascinating and controlled curiosity with his audience, in relation to pretty much all of his films. Paul Thomas Anderson is, in my honest opinion, one of the best and most competent directors in the industry right now, and if he sought a renewal, a challenge or perhaps both, I’m not really sure about. However, it is relatively safe to conclude that the subtle and trippy universes found in Thomas Pynchon's novels will continue to remain a piece of “unfilmable fiction”, which is still all too inappropriate for a permanent place on the big screen.
I have great respect for the bold and ambitious attitude, which director Paul Thomas Anderson comes tumbling with, down the hip and hippy-influenced lane of a truly memorable era in time. However, you kind of get the feeling that he executes these delights while under the influence of a heavy dose of “sticky icky wacky tobacky” from the very womb of Mother Nature. But of course, I’m definitely still willing to tip my swanky straw hat out of pure and simple respect, and I will even top that off by smoothly tilting my tacky sunglasses, at just the right angle, to reveal a tiny twinkle in my eye. Yes, the film is somewhat brave, but unfortunately also somewhat unsuccessful. Even after leaving the cinema, your mind is still left in the dark, bewildered and confused over the misleading story of the film; and with a rather stubborn desire to scratch oneself furiously and frustratingly in the sideburns – those of which you have or haven’t – in the end it is simply the symbolic meaning of it that counts! It is quite clear, that there is a need for a little more than a Ph.D. to understand the latest puzzle from PTA, and the almost surreal charm is not enough in itself to keep the film from treading waters. The story simply drowns more and more as it moves forward, and at some point you are so inclined to completely abandon the story, not to mention the actual willpower to get your head around this mental and maddening storyline. Now, I would like to honestly admit that I'm far from an expert on author, Thomas Pynchon, or his supposed storytelling skills, but complex or not, there simply has to be something to grab a hold of, before your interest dissolves completely. Furthermore, I am totally deaf when it comes to the completely ridiculous statements, involving both the film and the book and the supposed entirely deliberate meaninglessness of it all, which lays out the stupid excuse for intentionally not having any control and abruptly makes a muddled movie acceptable and even admirable, all of a sudden, for exactly that. Maybe if the film served as an atmospheric and sensual piece of filmmaking, perhaps then I could surrender to a lack of plot, but the film is simply not wild or vivid enough to live only on the surface.
On the other hand, it is actually very typical for the films of Paul Thomas Anderson to go on and become even better and more competent with each and every viewing. Still, with 'Inherent Vice' it seemed as if Anderson just deliberately spilled the unfinished parts of a plot all over the script pages, and simply began to film whatever mess happened to come out of it. This results not only in what feels like the strangest and most unusual Paul Thomas Anderson film to date, but also a complete detachment from the most important values of filmmaking itself. The script may very well be bathing gloriously in the neon lights of Pynchon's novel, but when the story stands completely naked and alone in the strong colorful spotlight, it all feels a bit too rigid and routine-like for its own good. Occasionally, Anderson's film feels a little too much as a single-minded and multi-surfaced summary of the overall story, rather than a genuine cinematic execution of that same element. I have actually given the film another watch since, and even though I might learn to love it, I still stand by its quirky mess and convoluted messages being way more irritating than enjoyable, which also strengthen my thoughts about Anderson giving up on too many familiar elements – both in relation to his own works and style, as well as filmmaking itself. ‘Inherent Vice’ is heavily in need of something consistent to hold on to or turn against at least a few times throughout, and if it insists of abandoning these elements then it should have been a lot more alive, charismatic, energetic, funny, groovy or perhaps just downright crazy… Unfortunately it only touches slightly on these various elements, and without ever deciding which one to dive deeper into.
The actors in the film are certainly talented people, and their respective characters do seem rather interesting as well, but because you are never invited within this chaotic concept of a film, you simply can’t help but witness it all in a very distant way, and without much interest either. As an audience, you never quite get the chance to settle down among these vivid and fascinating characters, but are instead left behind in a state of total confusion, slowly circulating around in this two and a half hour long game of “musical chairs” in the company of various characters and side plots, existing as some sort of detached irrelevance to it all. You are pretty much just a lonely and uninvited “fly on the wall” at the largest ever stoner party of the early ‘70s, but not even the passive inhaling of heavy green herbs can mesmerize you enough as the helpless little audience member that you really are. It is simply too complex for anyone to grasp, whether being an intentional choice or not, and even if the film ends up being both outstanding and understood during a potential fifth viewing, it is still far from useful knowledge – especially for the "anti-Anderson" moviegoers who wants nothing but a well constructed film, which is at least fascinating during the first and possibly only viewing of what will most likely be remembered as “Incoherent Vice”. Because it is really way too hollow and all over the place to be a truly great film, and even if it does have some shining moments here and there, there is just nothing holding them together, and really there isn’t exactly a beginning, middle or end to it all either. Everything seems coincidental, nothing seems coherent, and you seem to not really care. That is pretty much how it goes…
In danger of delivering the world's most negative and one-sided review, there are actually some charming delights to trace down in Paul Thomas Anderson's mystifying acid trip. The film has periods of truly amusing scenarios, as well as proficient and not the least well-acted scenes throughout. Anderson seems fairly in control of the film he is making, but it is exactly what he has to work with, which ends up pulling him down – something, which he has also brought on himself entirely. 'Inherent Vice' catches a counter-comical atmosphere, which is even periodically recognizable and fairly pleasant to reside in – especially because Anderson doesn’t try to copy all movies existing in the same period in time, but instead delivers his own, as well a Pynchon's version, of a paranoia-filled and unstable life in the early ‘70s. Personally, I expect to give the film a few shots more, but normally even the most incomprehensible Anderson film tend to fascinate in such a sufficient way, that the desire to reunite with the universe quickly occurs. Unfortunately, 'Inherent Vice' just didn’t do that to me. Clearly, this is the most high-flying and far-fetched project from the director’s hand so far, and though it is fairy possible that it has a lot of implicit ideologies within it, they simply lie too well hidden under the huge pile of pretty much anything, going from A-Z and back… Well, at least until one or more watches. But still, during this first filmic investigation of Anderson’s ‘Inherent Vice’, you can’t help but feel bewildered and dizzy when standing in the haze of a massive cloud of smoke, in a concentrated attempt to define what kind of pure madness you have just witnessed. Until then, we must see ourselves float passively around in the open space of unanswered questions and cinematic insecurity.
The Acting
As mentioned earlier, one of the greatest joys of being a witness to the insane assemble of abnormal characters, existing only in places like Anderson’s 'Inherent Vice', is that you can happily jump on the bandwagon and "join" the very same lunatics in their puzzling and offbeat walkabouts. Therefore it doesn’t hurt one bit that the list of actors is both sublime and carefully selected, especially with the amazing Joaquin Phoenix starring as our main character, Larry "Doc" Sportello. He is a truly talented and underrated actor, who undoubtedly should have ran away with the Oscar award for his performance in 2012’s 'The Master’ – a film, which incidentally is also directed by Paul Thomas Anderson. Unfortunately, the Oscar committee bowed under for the typical historical and biographical importance, in the form of a good old-fashioned President philosophy, in Spielberg's 'Lincoln'. Furthermore, it had the pleasure of acting-favorite Daniel Day-Lewis playing the title role. But Oscar statuette or not, Phoenix is still an actor of his own high class, and although his performance doesn’t top the one from 'The Master', he is certainly still quite masterful in 'Inherent Vice'.
In addition to Joaquin Phoenix, we also have talents like Josh Brolin, Reese Witherspoon, Owen Wilson and Benicio Del Toro. It isn’t every one of their respective characters, which are equally dominant in relation to the number of minutes they spend in the film, but virtually the whole team does a fine job with whatever they have to work with. As mentioned previously, the script sometimes seems a little difficult for the actors to deliver in a fluent and believable way, which is both natural and charismatic as well, but ultimately this isn’t really a pinpoint that should be rocked around with all that much. Especially because we pretty much covered it already, or at least why it may be like that.
The Technical Aspect
Paul Thomas Anderson's prominent side step from the digital revolution of filmmaking seems to work relatively well here, since the timeworn but yet so flamboyant ‘70s appear to obtain a look and feel, which is almost completely faultless, with the magic and not the least value of authentic film grain and consistent color balance. However, it is still noticeably far from the most visually stunning film ever made by this director, nor does it seem like there has been thrown much focus into technical eye candy, or sharp and inventive editing; although there are indeed some positive periods here and there. Overall though, it seems as if Anderson mainly wants to let the camera linger in the characteristic and periodic state of mind, without ever overshadowing neither the characters nor story too much. But then again, the story itself does a fine job at living in constant darkness, so personally I wouldn’t mind a little more “flower power” in the visual delicacies.
The Soundscape
Paul Thomas Anderson's films often contain an ambrosial and versatile soundscape with its clear focus set on imperfect and atmospheric elements. It works not only as an independent factor, but also illustrates the tone and pace of the given scene in focus. The soundscape often goes hand in hand with the visuals in a relatively impressive way, and simultaneously pushes the very core of the story to a higher and way more ambitious level of excellence. Unfortunately though, there wasn’t much more than a shadow of this significant technique to be found in 'Inherent Vice', even if it is actually a very protruding factor in almost all his films prior to this.
On a slightly more positive note, instead we get invited into a gorgeous “period appropriate” soundtrack, contributing to what place in time the film tries to recreate for its audience. Although the chosen songs themselves exist in the older end of the musical world, it actually feels like a breath of fresh air when one of many traditional and mood-fitting tracks enters the film in grand style. Though, it must be said, that it doesn’t have quite the same “wow factor” as, say, 'Guardians of the Galaxy' from last year, and it is unfortunately not as impressive or wonderfully effective either. But of course, we have two very different films on our hands here, each with their own vision and style, so a direct comparison would be quite unfair. Ultimately, in its own squared and slightly blundering style, this soundscape is definitely a proper and controlled addition to Paul Thomas Anderson's sophisticated funk-junk, 'Inherent Vice'.
______________________________________________
SHORT SUMMARY // Paul Thomas Anderson and his refined chaos, 'Inherent Vice', is most likely going to give you something to ponder over, but if there are in fact answers to all of your questions is perhaps the greatest mystery of them all. Anderson set out to adapt the impossible, but it seems like Thomas Pynchon's novels will continue to remain in the category titled "outside of adaption". However, it is in many ways a worthy attempt, which unfortunately seems to be more respectful to the book and its author, rather than to cinema and its audience. The film may be commonsensical and coherent on its own insanely ambitious level, but even if you manage to finally understand it all at a second, third or perhaps even fourth watch, it is simply not good enough – it just remains all too frustrating in the long run to be fully convenient, and there are all too few high marks and quirky touches to keep the entire lunacy going, during two and a half lengthy hours, of a truly confused and mostly uninteresting guessing game.
FINAL RATING // -
MovieMeditation presents...
Movie Review: Inherent Vice
written & directed by Paul Thomas Anderson
______________________________________________
"What's up Doc?"
______________________________________________
'Inherent Vice' is based on the crime novel of the same name, written by the acclaimed American postmodernist author, Thomas Pynchon. Many of his works have received an impressive cult following over the years, and they often consist of densely packed and ultra-complex narratives that swiftly crosses in and out between each other, and are almost constantly being presented with lots of nerve and modernity. It is a rather unique style, consisting of chaotic thoughts and controlled coincidences of which all ascend directly from the author's sharp and witty mind. This is also what ultimately makes it so difficult to follow and understand every word and every sentence in Pynchon's works, not to mention the final and very necessary merging of thousands of little threads; all of which have occurred throughout this grand and ambitious narrative presented to us. That is also why we have never seen a director experiment, cinematically, with a respectful adaption of something that is practically impossible to adapt.
...Until now.
______________________________________________
Movie Review: Inherent Vice
written & directed by Paul Thomas Anderson
______________________________________________
"What's up Doc?"
______________________________________________
'Inherent Vice' is based on the crime novel of the same name, written by the acclaimed American postmodernist author, Thomas Pynchon. Many of his works have received an impressive cult following over the years, and they often consist of densely packed and ultra-complex narratives that swiftly crosses in and out between each other, and are almost constantly being presented with lots of nerve and modernity. It is a rather unique style, consisting of chaotic thoughts and controlled coincidences of which all ascend directly from the author's sharp and witty mind. This is also what ultimately makes it so difficult to follow and understand every word and every sentence in Pynchon's works, not to mention the final and very necessary merging of thousands of little threads; all of which have occurred throughout this grand and ambitious narrative presented to us. That is also why we have never seen a director experiment, cinematically, with a respectful adaption of something that is practically impossible to adapt.
...Until now.
______________________________________________
The Story
We find ourselves in L.A. during the very last convulsions of the psychedelic ‘60s, and the paranoia has slowly taken over the party like a bad trip. We begin in the small fictional town, Gordita Beach, where the enigmatic Shasta Fay Hepworth visits his disillusioned and pot smoking ex-boyfriend, Larry "Doc" Sportello, to reach out for his help. She has recently begun a closed affair with billionaire and businessman, Mickey Wolfmann, and while in the midst of it all, she got herself a lucky little sneak peak of a truly sinister plan, laid out by Wolfmann’s own wife and her new boyfriend. They will kidnap Wolfmann and then get him admitted to a mental hospital, subsequently. With a position as a private detective and a weakness for the coping abilities of his ex-girlfriend, Doc makes the big mistake of actually accepting to investigate the case. Once he takes the first step inside this perplexed and confounding mystery it is utterly impossible to find a way back to the surface again. Doc’s desperate quest for answers only leaves him with even more questions than when he began the investigation, and with every rock being turned there is simply yet another suspicious personality, yet another mysterious affair, and yet another overwhelming wave of problematic pollution, ultimately overclouding his never-ending collection of truly confusing cases.
It ought to be mentioned, almost immediately, that the plot of 'Inherent Vice' almost appears totally clear and competent in the above synopsis, which is quite impressive considering the fact that there really isn’t any – and if I were to pretend there was one, it is virtually developed in real-time as we watch it – and not in any smart or beneficial kind of way, that’s for sure. If the audiences are hungry for a nice and refreshing investigational treat in the vein of a classic detective crime-drama, they will most likely reverse themselves homeward in a state best described as decidedly dramatic disorientation. 'Inherent Vice' is indeed still a film that leaves some kind of impression on its audience – though not exactly in relation to the remarkable or the thoughtful – but rather the feeling that it isn’t the characters on the screen but those in the seats, whom have all been treacherously kidnapped, betrayed, and heavily screwed around with. Perhaps it isn’t exactly pretentious narratively nonsense we are dealing with here, but it is rather irrelevant nonsense from a director, who actually has the tendency to produce a fascinating and controlled curiosity with his audience, in relation to pretty much all of his films. Paul Thomas Anderson is, in my honest opinion, one of the best and most competent directors in the industry right now, and if he sought a renewal, a challenge or perhaps both, I’m not really sure about. However, it is relatively safe to conclude that the subtle and trippy universes found in Thomas Pynchon's novels will continue to remain a piece of “unfilmable fiction”, which is still all too inappropriate for a permanent place on the big screen.
I have great respect for the bold and ambitious attitude, which director Paul Thomas Anderson comes tumbling with, down the hip and hippy-influenced lane of a truly memorable era in time. However, you kind of get the feeling that he executes these delights while under the influence of a heavy dose of “sticky icky wacky tobacky” from the very womb of Mother Nature. But of course, I’m definitely still willing to tip my swanky straw hat out of pure and simple respect, and I will even top that off by smoothly tilting my tacky sunglasses, at just the right angle, to reveal a tiny twinkle in my eye. Yes, the film is somewhat brave, but unfortunately also somewhat unsuccessful. Even after leaving the cinema, your mind is still left in the dark, bewildered and confused over the misleading story of the film; and with a rather stubborn desire to scratch oneself furiously and frustratingly in the sideburns – those of which you have or haven’t – in the end it is simply the symbolic meaning of it that counts! It is quite clear, that there is a need for a little more than a Ph.D. to understand the latest puzzle from PTA, and the almost surreal charm is not enough in itself to keep the film from treading waters. The story simply drowns more and more as it moves forward, and at some point you are so inclined to completely abandon the story, not to mention the actual willpower to get your head around this mental and maddening storyline. Now, I would like to honestly admit that I'm far from an expert on author, Thomas Pynchon, or his supposed storytelling skills, but complex or not, there simply has to be something to grab a hold of, before your interest dissolves completely. Furthermore, I am totally deaf when it comes to the completely ridiculous statements, involving both the film and the book and the supposed entirely deliberate meaninglessness of it all, which lays out the stupid excuse for intentionally not having any control and abruptly makes a muddled movie acceptable and even admirable, all of a sudden, for exactly that. Maybe if the film served as an atmospheric and sensual piece of filmmaking, perhaps then I could surrender to a lack of plot, but the film is simply not wild or vivid enough to live only on the surface.
On the other hand, it is actually very typical for the films of Paul Thomas Anderson to go on and become even better and more competent with each and every viewing. Still, with 'Inherent Vice' it seemed as if Anderson just deliberately spilled the unfinished parts of a plot all over the script pages, and simply began to film whatever mess happened to come out of it. This results not only in what feels like the strangest and most unusual Paul Thomas Anderson film to date, but also a complete detachment from the most important values of filmmaking itself. The script may very well be bathing gloriously in the neon lights of Pynchon's novel, but when the story stands completely naked and alone in the strong colorful spotlight, it all feels a bit too rigid and routine-like for its own good. Occasionally, Anderson's film feels a little too much as a single-minded and multi-surfaced summary of the overall story, rather than a genuine cinematic execution of that same element. I have actually given the film another watch since, and even though I might learn to love it, I still stand by its quirky mess and convoluted messages being way more irritating than enjoyable, which also strengthen my thoughts about Anderson giving up on too many familiar elements – both in relation to his own works and style, as well as filmmaking itself. ‘Inherent Vice’ is heavily in need of something consistent to hold on to or turn against at least a few times throughout, and if it insists of abandoning these elements then it should have been a lot more alive, charismatic, energetic, funny, groovy or perhaps just downright crazy… Unfortunately it only touches slightly on these various elements, and without ever deciding which one to dive deeper into.
The actors in the film are certainly talented people, and their respective characters do seem rather interesting as well, but because you are never invited within this chaotic concept of a film, you simply can’t help but witness it all in a very distant way, and without much interest either. As an audience, you never quite get the chance to settle down among these vivid and fascinating characters, but are instead left behind in a state of total confusion, slowly circulating around in this two and a half hour long game of “musical chairs” in the company of various characters and side plots, existing as some sort of detached irrelevance to it all. You are pretty much just a lonely and uninvited “fly on the wall” at the largest ever stoner party of the early ‘70s, but not even the passive inhaling of heavy green herbs can mesmerize you enough as the helpless little audience member that you really are. It is simply too complex for anyone to grasp, whether being an intentional choice or not, and even if the film ends up being both outstanding and understood during a potential fifth viewing, it is still far from useful knowledge – especially for the "anti-Anderson" moviegoers who wants nothing but a well constructed film, which is at least fascinating during the first and possibly only viewing of what will most likely be remembered as “Incoherent Vice”. Because it is really way too hollow and all over the place to be a truly great film, and even if it does have some shining moments here and there, there is just nothing holding them together, and really there isn’t exactly a beginning, middle or end to it all either. Everything seems coincidental, nothing seems coherent, and you seem to not really care. That is pretty much how it goes…
In danger of delivering the world's most negative and one-sided review, there are actually some charming delights to trace down in Paul Thomas Anderson's mystifying acid trip. The film has periods of truly amusing scenarios, as well as proficient and not the least well-acted scenes throughout. Anderson seems fairly in control of the film he is making, but it is exactly what he has to work with, which ends up pulling him down – something, which he has also brought on himself entirely. 'Inherent Vice' catches a counter-comical atmosphere, which is even periodically recognizable and fairly pleasant to reside in – especially because Anderson doesn’t try to copy all movies existing in the same period in time, but instead delivers his own, as well a Pynchon's version, of a paranoia-filled and unstable life in the early ‘70s. Personally, I expect to give the film a few shots more, but normally even the most incomprehensible Anderson film tend to fascinate in such a sufficient way, that the desire to reunite with the universe quickly occurs. Unfortunately, 'Inherent Vice' just didn’t do that to me. Clearly, this is the most high-flying and far-fetched project from the director’s hand so far, and though it is fairy possible that it has a lot of implicit ideologies within it, they simply lie too well hidden under the huge pile of pretty much anything, going from A-Z and back… Well, at least until one or more watches. But still, during this first filmic investigation of Anderson’s ‘Inherent Vice’, you can’t help but feel bewildered and dizzy when standing in the haze of a massive cloud of smoke, in a concentrated attempt to define what kind of pure madness you have just witnessed. Until then, we must see ourselves float passively around in the open space of unanswered questions and cinematic insecurity.
The Acting
As mentioned earlier, one of the greatest joys of being a witness to the insane assemble of abnormal characters, existing only in places like Anderson’s 'Inherent Vice', is that you can happily jump on the bandwagon and "join" the very same lunatics in their puzzling and offbeat walkabouts. Therefore it doesn’t hurt one bit that the list of actors is both sublime and carefully selected, especially with the amazing Joaquin Phoenix starring as our main character, Larry "Doc" Sportello. He is a truly talented and underrated actor, who undoubtedly should have ran away with the Oscar award for his performance in 2012’s 'The Master’ – a film, which incidentally is also directed by Paul Thomas Anderson. Unfortunately, the Oscar committee bowed under for the typical historical and biographical importance, in the form of a good old-fashioned President philosophy, in Spielberg's 'Lincoln'. Furthermore, it had the pleasure of acting-favorite Daniel Day-Lewis playing the title role. But Oscar statuette or not, Phoenix is still an actor of his own high class, and although his performance doesn’t top the one from 'The Master', he is certainly still quite masterful in 'Inherent Vice'.
In addition to Joaquin Phoenix, we also have talents like Josh Brolin, Reese Witherspoon, Owen Wilson and Benicio Del Toro. It isn’t every one of their respective characters, which are equally dominant in relation to the number of minutes they spend in the film, but virtually the whole team does a fine job with whatever they have to work with. As mentioned previously, the script sometimes seems a little difficult for the actors to deliver in a fluent and believable way, which is both natural and charismatic as well, but ultimately this isn’t really a pinpoint that should be rocked around with all that much. Especially because we pretty much covered it already, or at least why it may be like that.
The Technical Aspect
Paul Thomas Anderson's prominent side step from the digital revolution of filmmaking seems to work relatively well here, since the timeworn but yet so flamboyant ‘70s appear to obtain a look and feel, which is almost completely faultless, with the magic and not the least value of authentic film grain and consistent color balance. However, it is still noticeably far from the most visually stunning film ever made by this director, nor does it seem like there has been thrown much focus into technical eye candy, or sharp and inventive editing; although there are indeed some positive periods here and there. Overall though, it seems as if Anderson mainly wants to let the camera linger in the characteristic and periodic state of mind, without ever overshadowing neither the characters nor story too much. But then again, the story itself does a fine job at living in constant darkness, so personally I wouldn’t mind a little more “flower power” in the visual delicacies.
The Soundscape
Paul Thomas Anderson's films often contain an ambrosial and versatile soundscape with its clear focus set on imperfect and atmospheric elements. It works not only as an independent factor, but also illustrates the tone and pace of the given scene in focus. The soundscape often goes hand in hand with the visuals in a relatively impressive way, and simultaneously pushes the very core of the story to a higher and way more ambitious level of excellence. Unfortunately though, there wasn’t much more than a shadow of this significant technique to be found in 'Inherent Vice', even if it is actually a very protruding factor in almost all his films prior to this.
On a slightly more positive note, instead we get invited into a gorgeous “period appropriate” soundtrack, contributing to what place in time the film tries to recreate for its audience. Although the chosen songs themselves exist in the older end of the musical world, it actually feels like a breath of fresh air when one of many traditional and mood-fitting tracks enters the film in grand style. Though, it must be said, that it doesn’t have quite the same “wow factor” as, say, 'Guardians of the Galaxy' from last year, and it is unfortunately not as impressive or wonderfully effective either. But of course, we have two very different films on our hands here, each with their own vision and style, so a direct comparison would be quite unfair. Ultimately, in its own squared and slightly blundering style, this soundscape is definitely a proper and controlled addition to Paul Thomas Anderson's sophisticated funk-junk, 'Inherent Vice'.
______________________________________________
SHORT SUMMARY // Paul Thomas Anderson and his refined chaos, 'Inherent Vice', is most likely going to give you something to ponder over, but if there are in fact answers to all of your questions is perhaps the greatest mystery of them all. Anderson set out to adapt the impossible, but it seems like Thomas Pynchon's novels will continue to remain in the category titled "outside of adaption". However, it is in many ways a worthy attempt, which unfortunately seems to be more respectful to the book and its author, rather than to cinema and its audience. The film may be commonsensical and coherent on its own insanely ambitious level, but even if you manage to finally understand it all at a second, third or perhaps even fourth watch, it is simply not good enough – it just remains all too frustrating in the long run to be fully convenient, and there are all too few high marks and quirky touches to keep the entire lunacy going, during two and a half lengthy hours, of a truly confused and mostly uninteresting guessing game.
FINAL RATING // -