5/10

The newest film from acclaimed director Paul Thomas Anderson is a tough film to recommend to people. This might be one of those cases where i didn’t like or hate the film based on my first time seeing it, and might require another viewing. There have been films like this before. The one that comes to mind is 2006’s “Southland Tales”, in which i hated it the first time i saw it, but then grew to enjoy it when i started solving the metaphorical mysteries of the film. “Inherent Vice” is the big screen adaptation of the Thomas Pyncheon novel of the same name. It follows a private eye named Doc Sportello (Joaquin Phoenix) living in 1969 Southern California. Sportello’s ex-old lady suddenly out of nowhere shows up with a story about her current billionaire land developer boyfriend whom she just happens to be in love with, and a plot by his wife and her boyfriend to kidnap that billionaire and throw him in a looney bin. If this plot is enough to have you shaking your head, it’s only one of the many developing plots and characters that the film has to offer. With a running time of 2 hours and 23 minutes, Vice feels too crowded and often times stretched out. With the exception of a ten minute scene during the third act, the movie is mostly long scene expositional dialogue, and if that isn’t your kind of film, this is NOT the movie for you. Don’t be rushed to judge this film just based on my rating however, the movie does a lot of things well. For anyone familiar with Anderson’s films, the man is a guru when it comes to stylized shots. His framing work in particular in this film is what gives it the PTA signature touch with trippy lighting, and a soundtrack that is a tribute to mid 60’s pop wave B-sides. The acting is done exceptionally well with Phoenix leading the way. When it comes to character acting, there are very few actors today who give everything to a role like Joaquin. His stoner vibes give this movie the right touches of comedy to keep the audience from ever getting bored. I think the film warrants a second viewing based on the background facial reactions of him, alone. Many accolades also go to Josh Brolin, Katherine Waterston, and even Martin Short. The film’s entire cast ensemble is miles long, and this kind of works to the film’s disadvantage with many characters disappearing for the better part of 90 minutes before reappearing. My biggest problem with the film would probably be in the story itself. My issues are pretty subjective, but i found myself very un-invested during the first act of the film. There was nothing that dragged me in and got me to care about the characters, and there were too many interlocking storylines to keep me informed at where the story was at. It was a little disjointed, but i feel that it was set up that way. I’m not too pretentious of a film critic to even pretend like i knew everything that was going on in the film. I think Anderson’s idea was to create a tribute to 1960’s stoner paranoia with everything from Law tampering to interchanging lovers. It’s just one of those famous Oscar bait films that i feel has too much praise. Is it a great film? NO. Is it an OK film? Yes. I just wish there was more memorable about a movie with such a huge time investment. Some storylines get wrapped up, but some are left hanging to wonder how long the Director’s Cut of this film was. Maybe if i read the novel, i would feel more in on the inside joke feel that i was left with by the credits. Overall, i will recommend the film to Anderson fans, but i would wait until it comes out on DVD. There just isn’t enough here to warrant paying $10 at the theater.