A psychologically troubled novelty supplier is nudged towards a romance with an English woman, all the while being extorted by a phone-sex line run by a crooked mattress salesman, and purchasing stunning amounts of pudding.
Paul Thomas Anderson
Philip Seymour Hoffman
The greatest Olympic Wrestling Champion brother team joins Team Foxcatcher led by multimillionaire sponsor John E. du Pont as they train for the 1988 games in Seoul - a union that leads to unlikely circumstances.
John has lost all his money. He sits outside a diner in the desert when Sydney happens along, buys him coffee, then takes him to Reno and shows him how to get a free room without losing ... See full summary »
Paul Thomas Anderson
Philip Baker Hall,
John C. Reilly,
In a Russian coastal town, Kolya is forced to fight the corrupt mayor when he is told that his house will be demolished. He recruits a lawyer friend to help, but the man's arrival brings further misfortune for Kolya and his family.
When Lou Bloom, a driven man desperate for work, muscles into the world of L.A. crime journalism, he blurs the line between observer and participant to become the star of his own story. Aiding him in his effort is Nina, a TV-news veteran.
During the psychedelic 60s and 70s Larry "Doc" Sportello is surprised by his former girlfriend and her plot for her billionaire boyfriend, his wife, and her boyfriend. A plan for kidnapping gets shaken up by the oddball characters entangled in this groovy kidnapping romp based upon the novel by Thomas Pynchon. Written by
With this film (which features a flashback set in the 1960's), Paul Thomas Anderson has depicted every single decade of the 20th century except for the 1930's (There Will Be Blood covers the 1890's-1920's, The Master covers the 1940's and 1950's, Inherent Vice the 1960's and 1970's, Boogie Nights the 1970's and 1980's, and Hard Eight & Magnolia each depict the 1990's). See more »
In the map of Los Angeles County shown on screen, it shows the 105 Freeway, which did not exist until the mid-1990s. See more »
Well Mornin' Sam, like a bad luck planet in today's horoscope, here's the old hippie-hating mad dog himself in the flesh: Lieutenant Detective Christian F. "Bigfoot" Bjornsen. SAG member, John Wayne walk, flat top of Flintstone proportions and that evil, little shit-twinkle in his eye that says Civil Rights Violations.
See more »
After 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 See more »
To watch actors dryly deliver page after page of plot that no one comprehends or is interested in while they imitate the acting style of old Hollywood noir films and stoner comedies is not why I go to the movies. Paul Thomas Anderson is a great filmmaker when he uses his own voice, and thankfully this film is the only exception to that.
Unless you're a superhuman, you won't have the memory (or attention span) to understand the plot. It's as if it's deliberately convoluted, like Anderson doesn't want us to know what's going on, or at least doesn't want us to care. Yet this is not the case because of the scenes that dwell on nothing else but dialogue whose only purpose is to read plot to us and maybe put us to sleep.
There isn't any character beyond caricature. I don't relate to this Doc character beyond the his relationship with his ex-girlfriend which is the only thing that one can possibly invest emotion into, albeit this is not an emotionally driven story. The characters are supposed to be funny but I just found them bizarre.
That being said, there is something about the overall tone and production design of the film that sticks. The meandering nature of the era is there and while we've seen many similar films about the 70s this film is just different. It's ambitious in the way that it's so plain but also strange, only many will have a hard time deciphering between art and bullshit. It's bullshit to me because there wasn't anything for me to take from the film. It was more "this is kind of weird" but to no end.
I would not recommend this film to anyone unless you are a cinephile, in which case you just have to see it because it's Paul Thomas Anderson. I feel bad for anyone who naively walks into this film looking for something to enjoy and laugh at. Parts got laughs but they were widely dispersed in a film that just felt like it wouldn't end. Being the fan of Anderson's that I am I feel like this film was a waste of time. Even if you end up liking it (which I personally would not understand) you'll see what I mean.
260 of 417 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?