What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Inherent Vice (1 Viewer)

kupcho1

kupcho1

Footballguy
Inherent Vice

Thomas Pynchon novel adapted by Paul Thomas Anderson

Thomas Pynchon may be working with Paul Thomas Anderson on 'Inherent Vice' film

We don't want to get all 12-year-old-girl-at-a-Justin-Bieber-concert, but it looks like Thomas Pynchon may be collaborating with Paul Thomas Anderson on the production of "Inherent Vice," his 2009 Southern California stoner romp, and probably the only Pynchon novel a non-Pynchon freak can/should/may want to read.

This is what Anderson, of "Boogie Nights" and "There Will Be Blood" fame, told The New York Times this week:

His next project, which will take him into another chapter of the century, the late ’60s and early ’70s, is an adaptation of “Inherent Vice,” the 2009 novel by Thomas Pynchon. The book is a stoner private-eye saga, and Mr. Anderson has found an invaluable “research bible,” he said, in the underground comic strip the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers.

This is the first authorized adaptation of a Pynchon work, which suggests that Mr. Pynchon, famously reclusive, is cooperating in some fashion. But Mr. Anderson, a fan of that author since his teenage years, declined to speak on the record about him and seemed loath even to utter his name. “I would get dangerously close to betraying trust,” he said.

While “There Will Be Blood” was inspired by Upton Sinclair’s “Oil!,” this will be a more faithful adaptation — and a new kind of screenwriting challenge — for Mr. Anderson. “It’s more secretarial,” he said. “The credit should be like ‘secretary to the author.’ ” He added that he has “a large stack of pages” and hopes to shoot next year. “But it’s no less fun. In some ways it’s just what the doctor ordered right now for me: being more selfless.”

As always, the idea is to “burrow around” (a phrase he used more than once to describe his process) to find his way into someone’s head. Mr. Anderson said, again without mentioning Mr. Pynchon by name: “It feels really good to be doing that, being a participant in his mind.”

In case your postwar pop culture knowledge isn't up to Pynchon's snuff, the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers were countercultural stoners who first appeared in a comic strip in 1968:

It's also been rumored that Robert Downey Jr. may star as protagonist Doc Sportello. In that case, we urge Mr. Downey to prepare by watching this:
Click to expand...
:excited:
 
this is more of a blackdot than a real reply- but I'm not thinking this is worth it's own thread, so also why the reply...

A movie version of London Fields (Amis) is in post-production with what could be a good cast- Billybob Thornton, Johnny Depp, Amber Heard, Jim Sturgess, Theo James. The director is Matthew Cullen- one of the producers of Pacific Rim... not really a ringing endorsement there.

Amis is given writing credit... but that might be for the original book.

Not quite as exciting as this Pynchon/PT Anderson combo... but if they do the book justice, could be a good one.

 
It's been linked with Altman's The Long Goodbye and the Coen bros. Big Lebowski (I might add Pineapple Express) in the short list of stoner noir genre films.

The Hobbit and Exodus were on my list of big screen films to see, but this looks like it has the potential to be an instant classic. Currently doesn't look like it is being given a major theatrical release (bit surprising, given the director), maybe that will ramp up later, contingent on box office?

 
jdoggydogg said:
I have such a man-crush on this movie already.
Click to expand...
Saw it tonight - went in without reading anything about it. Didn't even know it was nearly 3 hours long, but time flew by.

Hard it rate it but one of the best of the year, if not the best. What I kept thinking during the movie was that I'm watching a bizarro Big Lebowski.

Easily PTA's best movie.

 
This is a very complicated movie, guys. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's.

 
Walking Boot said:
Bob Magaw said:
It's been linked with Altman's The Long Goodbye and the Coen bros. Big Lebowski (I might add Pineapple Express) in the short list of stoner noir genre films.
Click to expand...
Also in this genre I would recommend "The Zero Effect". Stiller's in it, but he's actually good.
Click to expand...
I enjoyed Zero Effect, and I was always disappointed that more people apparently did not. Would have liked to see a sequel. I was further dismayed to learn that it was not based on a book. No further adventures of Daryl Zero.

 
Anyone read the book and see movie? Comments on whether it sticks to book or freelances? Book was all over the place.

 
It seems that PTA could film a good actor taking a dump for 3 hours and it would be referred to as a "cinematic masterpiece".

 
[SIZE=14.3999996185303px]I only recently watched The Grand Budapest Hotel, and I think it's apt to compare these two movies side by side. [/SIZE]

Artists often create work that frames the universe through their own unique lens. Painters paint things that provide a certain order their internal strife. Writers express feelings and thoughts in a way that sometimes feel like draining venom from a snake bite. Wes and PT Anderson both make movies with their own unique stamp. Ultimately, the reason I prefer PT over Wes is that Wes' universe is meticulously OCD, whereas PT's movies are grounded in chaos. This chaos can be disarming to the viewer. However, so many movies are wrapped up tightly with no loose ends or subtext, I love seeing PT's movies because they do not conform to these hoary standards.

Vice is a funny, bizarre journey that reminds me of Cormac McCarthy's No Country For Old Men. Like No Country, the narrative seems cryptic and ripe with subtext. But unlike No Country, Vice is largely a comedy. I could go on and on about how great this movie is. But I can't say anything more eloquent than this: I'm glad there are directors like Wes and PT Anderson, because no one makes movies like they do.

 
jdoggydogg said:
[SIZE=14.3999996185303px]I only recently watched The Grand Budapest Hotel, and I think it's apt to compare these two movies side by side. [/SIZE]

Artists often create work that frames the universe through their own unique lens. Painters paint things that provide a certain order their internal strife. Writers express feelings and thoughts in a way that sometimes feel like draining venom from a snake bite. Wes and PT Anderson both make movies with their own unique stamp. Ultimately, the reason I prefer PT over Wes is that Wes' universe is meticulously OCD, whereas PT's movies are grounded in chaos. This chaos can be disarming to the viewer. However, so many movies are wrapped up tightly with no loose ends or subtext, I love seeing PT's movies because they do not conform to these hoary standards.

Vice is a funny, bizarre journey that reminds me of Cormac McCarthy's No Country For Old Men. Like No Country, the narrative seems cryptic and ripe with subtext. But unlike No Country, Vice is largely a comedy. I could go on and on about how great this movie is. But I can't say anything more eloquent than this: I'm glad there are directors like Wes and PT Anderson, because no one makes movies like they do.
Click to expand...
That's because the underlying material is cryptic and ripe with subtext.

It is Pynchon after all.

 
kupcho1 said:
jdoggydogg said:
[SIZE=14.3999996185303px]I only recently watched The Grand Budapest Hotel, and I think it's apt to compare these two movies side by side. [/SIZE]

Artists often create work that frames the universe through their own unique lens. Painters paint things that provide a certain order their internal strife. Writers express feelings and thoughts in a way that sometimes feel like draining venom from a snake bite. Wes and PT Anderson both make movies with their own unique stamp. Ultimately, the reason I prefer PT over Wes is that Wes' universe is meticulously OCD, whereas PT's movies are grounded in chaos. This chaos can be disarming to the viewer. However, so many movies are wrapped up tightly with no loose ends or subtext, I love seeing PT's movies because they do not conform to these hoary standards.

Vice is a funny, bizarre journey that reminds me of Cormac McCarthy's No Country For Old Men. Like No Country, the narrative seems cryptic and ripe with subtext. But unlike No Country, Vice is largely a comedy. I could go on and on about how great this movie is. But I can't say anything more eloquent than this: I'm glad there are directors like Wes and PT Anderson, because no one makes movies like they do.
Click to expand...
That's because the underlying material is cryptic and ripe with subtext.

It is Pynchon after all.
Click to expand...
:thumbup:

 
Outstanding movie. Pynchon is probably one of the most difficult authors to capture on the screen. Anderson did an amazing job of doing just that.

Can't believe anybody is comparing Inherent Vice to any of the turds that Wes Anderson craps out.

 
Loved it. The narration totally sets and carries the vibe, and I found the movie hilarious, fun, and beautiful.

 
Mr. Mojo said:
El Floppo said:
Mr. Mojo said:
jdoggydogg said:
El Floppo said:
this movie is idiotic and tedious.
Click to expand...
:unfriend:
Click to expand...
At least he watched it. After PTA's last couple movies, I am, already done with him.

I might change my mind though if he could make a movie less than 2 hours in length, that way we won't be depressed for quite so long.
Click to expand...
I never said I watched it, chief.
Click to expand...
Then how do you know how it is?
Click to expand...
oh... I know.

 
Instant classic.

Not sure if it is one of the best movies I've ever seen (need more perspective, but inclined to think could be top 10ish, hard to crack my TOP top, with movies like Blade Runner, Seven Samurai, Clockwork Orange, etc.). Definitely one of the best I've seen in several years.

Not familiar with the Pynchon source material (though I may check it out now). My interest was piqued with the Big Lebowski comparisons. I liked how the connections between the intersecting mysteries were circled around obliquely. A masterfully paced noir. Really liked the understated and evocative score/soundtrack (some obscure Can, Neil Young).

Phoenix, Brolin, Owen Wilson, Benicio Del Torro were all great. I think this will hold up well to multiple viewings (like Lebowski), will definitely see again when it comes out on blu ray/dvd.

 
Bob Magaw said:
Instant classic.

Not sure if it is one of the best movies I've ever seen (need more perspective, but inclined to think could be top 10ish, hard to crack my TOP top, with movies like Blade Runner, Seven Samurai, Clockwork Orange, etc.). Definitely one of the best I've seen in several years.

Not familiar with the Pynchon source material (though I may check it out now). My interest was piqued with the Big Lebowski comparisons. I liked how the connections between the intersecting mysteries were circled around obliquely. A masterfully paced noir. Really liked the understated and evocative score/soundtrack (some obscure Can, Neil Young).

Phoenix, Brolin, Owen Wilson, Benicio Del Torro were all great. I think this will hold up well to multiple viewings (like Lebowski), will definitely see again when it comes out on blu ray/dvd.
Click to expand...
All of this.

 
Wanted to love it... Just wasn't there for me. I appreciate the density and I respect more than words a plot where things are left to subtle shadows as opposed to overt hammering(although the dentist school scene really shoehorns this).

In the end I feel like the end was disjointed. I don't know if it got clipped but the last fifteen minutes felt like a diffeent movie than the one I just invested 130 minutes in. The characters felt diffeent in ways that weren't motivated or explained.

I also think this movie suffers greatly for the "name" talent apart from a well concealed bennecio del toro. It just leads to these "oh here's ______". The world this movie creates and inhabits didn't need these extended cameos unless they somehow Sold the movie.

Will see again. I hope I see more. I want to be in on this.

 
El Floppo said:
Mr. Mojo said:
El Floppo said:
Mr. Mojo said:
jdoggydogg said:
El Floppo said:
this movie is idiotic and tedious.
Click to expand...
:unfriend:
Click to expand...
At least he watched it. After PTA's last couple movies, I am, already done with him.

I might change my mind though if he could make a movie less than 2 hours in length, that way we won't be depressed for quite so long.
Click to expand...
I never said I watched it, chief.
Click to expand...
Then how do you know how it is?
Click to expand...
oh... I know.
Click to expand...
And I think that you are probably right on.

 
Question:

Did anyone else interpret that Doc was either a hallucination from Big Foot or vice versa? Or that they both were the same person that had a mental break down after their partner was murdered. I mean even the nickname big foot is ambiguous as "big foot isn't real" or "is a myth that has only been claimed to be seen rarely". It really kind of occurred to me when they bizarrely said the same thing at the same time at the end of the film. Probably just reading too much into it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kupcho1
One Piece (Netflix live action)
Replies
20
Views
1K
PIK95
PIK95
timschochet
Shogun coming to TV (again)
3 4 5
Replies
225
Views
9K
CletiusMaximus
CletiusMaximus
T
Coming Soon: Ranking Stephen King’s Published Works
Replies
34
Views
529
kupcho1
kupcho1

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top