Which IDIOT greenlit this? And why?

Which IDIOT greenlit this? And why?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=RqOxy7lqq3c
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

What's the meme here? It's an excellent adaptation of a brilliant book.

It was rly boring desu

>IDIOT in all caps so we know he means it
When the normies actually get angry, you know it must really be a great film

I liked it

one of the most boring movies i've ever watched

>movie by one of the most acclaimed contemporary directors adapting one of the most acclaimed authors of the 20th century

gee i wonder

Did you ever consider the fact that you're retarded?

>>movie by one of the most hipster contemporary directors adapting one of the most hipster authors of the 20th century

FTFY

*tips fedora

Whereas you're obviously capable of deep and meaningful discussion that for some reason you're expressing right now on an anonymous image board by calling someone a retard

Wow, how was that last hunger games novel you read, fucking retarded child?

Can someone explain what was good about this? Sorry if I come across as a pleb for expecting movie plot to be coherent

you probably dont like movies

I wasn't making fun of you, I legitimately think you have an intellectual disability.

I dont think coherence is important in a movie, but here it was actually coherent

>It's an excellent adaptation of a no ones heard..
Fixed.

Elaborate

g8 b8 m8

This was a great movie.

Most people here probably haven't seen this, user.

Literally no reason for this to be made because the Big Lebowski came out 26 years back

no plot-holes means coherent plot

>a movie about a completely drugged out hippie PI caught up in a massive conspiracy

>DUDE WHY ISN'T THIS COHERENT

That said, I really do hate what Sup Forums discussion has been reduced to.

dude xD

So what did you like about this movie anyway?

well Sup Forums is still the accepted worse board for a reason

its filled with retards afraid to vocalize anything?

its filled with plebs

You've given no indication you'd understand.

>"At that moment I knew, I truly was an Inherent Vice"
Jesus Christ, seriously?

>turning pinecone into a movie

More like incoherent vice amirite xd

But seriously, this

Plebposting is so 2013

Postmodernism is SO last decade. This movie would have been better if it was released earlier

we should just stop doing non 3D novies

>But seriously, this

SAD

Everyone's saying this is such a great movie but nobody's saying why. Seriously, is this worth watching?

it is terrible fedora core of the worst kind, non likes it, but they pretend they do to look smart
it doesn't even fuckin looks good, 80% of the movie is close up of faces and ping pong talk

You'll never get it

Thomas Pynchon is a household name among the part of American population that does read novels.

only part i remember is that slutty lesbian asian chick with no tits

Pynchons my fav writer for sure because my fav thing in books is goofs, gags, jokes and rambunctious behavior, and his books are full to the brim of it. Every novel is like one of those novelty snake cans, you open the book & POP you get a face fulla snakes and you fall back cackling. The mad mind, the crack genius, to do it! and then you think hmmm whats he gonna do next, this trickster, and you pick the book back up and BZZZZZZZZZZ you get a shock and Hahahahahah you've been pranked again by the old pynchmeister, that card. "Did that Pynch?" he says, laughing yukyukyukyuk. Watch him as he shoves a pair of plastic buck teeth right up into his mouth and displays em for you- left, right, center- "you like dese? Do i look handsome???" Pulls out a mirror. "Ah!" Hand to naughty mouth. And you're on your ass again laughing as he snaps his suspenders, exits stage right, and appears again hauling a huge golden gong.

Because it has the best cinematography of any movie that year, Phoenix's perfomance is top tier, the plot is a deconstruction of the noir genre intermixed with absurdist themes (this is all Pynchon though) and it's a perfect adaptation of a book that seriously cannot be adapted.

I don't want to be that guy but most of the plebes saying it's shit just didn't get it

>Because it has the best cinematography of any movie that year,
it is really not, movie is ugly as a sin, they shoved the camera in the face of the actors

Back to /lit/.

Yo tengo que get the fuck outta aqui

The feel of it in relation to reading a book and what should translate to the screen adaptation. Shit like that

...

Book was total disgusting retard shit. Movie was entertaining and unique.

pleb

>movie is garbage
>people pretend they like it because PTA senpai can't possibly do wrong

MOTTO PANACAKU

>movie is a masterpiece
>people pretend they didn't like it just to fit in Sup Forums

The exact opposite, now go back

To be honest even though i consider myself a "film buff" of some level (simply a product of watching thousands of movies), i didnt get much out of the movie when i went to see it...

That being said it started gnawing away at me so i bought the book and that finally managed to put the movie in some context and later the rewatching experience was infinitely superior and id give it easily 4,5/5.

Inherent Vice just doesnt seem to work very well as a standalone piece and i find it hard to believe anyone who didnt experience the hazy side of 70s/80s would find it compelling... unless you are the kind of person who takes movies as a challenge and loves to seek hidden meanings or overanalyze everything.

film buff my ass, go read some more books

A lot of the shots would jump into the middle of an action already happening, multiple times within a scene.
It allowed a lot of moments to blend in really seamlessly and fluidly, even though the editing was obvious it didn't break the immersion due to the filming style.
It made dialogues where profile shots were used a lot, you know which is what Paul Thomas Anderson does in every fucking move he's ever made, so you can follow the dialogue and keep up with spacial awareness like you were being led by the words on a page.
It flows like it would read, the screen shows what would be in the readers eye and head on a very literal level.
Like the scene where he takes PCP and gets thrown down the stairs. It has a very raw consistency that makes it easy to follow.

I do read books, the days i just rarely have it in me to waste my time to fictitious books... so i mostly read work related technical literature or stuff related to economics in general.

nice

boring

You should watch only the news, and not movies

It really is not, books are just vastly bigger time investment than movies.

Why on earth would i waste my time with watching news? I follow the topics i personally find interesting and couldnt care less for intelligence agency orchestrated propaganda.

dont care boy

the real question is when will gravitys rainbow get filmed? or the crying of lot 49?

>gravitys rainbow

Literally never

>the crying of lot 49

It could be done but I doubt someone will

correct answer.

actually theres a short film on youtube for TCOL49 I haven't watched it though.

This is easily one of the most pretentious, bloated, and overlong movies I've ever seen. Sure, the acting and cinematography were on point, as is standard for PTA's films. But the plot made no fucking sense, the characters weren't really well-defined or interesting, and there were only a couple good scenes in a 2 and a half hour long slog. It's not horrible or anything but to put this film in the top ten of the decade like some are is fucking ludicrous

The weakest out of all PTA movies, easily.

Maybe you're too fucking stupid to understand the plot? Shasta gets Doc to look into something, she goes missing, he's trying to find Mickey, people are giving him all the information he needs, and he goes detecting. And in the process figures out the smuggling of heroin, reunites Coy with his wife and daughter, and helps Bigfoot, his biggest rival. Omg such a hard plot to follow!

> when you saw her on screen

PTA has kino taste

>pretentious

Try to explain how is this movie pretentious without using other buzzwords.

You're right, I would've preferred to watch transformers part 53

It's like the movie was being intentionally confusing for no good reason. I guess it was trying to emulate The Big Lebowski in a way, but that movie had strong characters and was genuinely funny

>I DRINK LE MILKSHAKE xD

PTA is the dictionary definition of entry level cinema. He not only steals from better directors, but he does it without any irony like Tarantino.

I am personally fine with it though. Because through PTA, all these freshmen college students will discover Robert Altman, who was the real deal. They will discover Scorsese, the most important American film director of our time, they will discover Kubrick, and the Coen Bros.

Through Altman, they will discover Renoir, through Kubrick, they will discover Ophuls, Scorsese to Fellini. Suddenly they realize PTA was just a child with no original thoughts in his head, that his films just revolve around quoting better directors while adding epic catch phrases like "I drink your milkshake!" and "Pig fuck!" Really there is no bigger clue in to how meaningless his cinema is when the only thing people discuss when mentioning his movies are 'le epic catch phrases, dude!'

You might say great artist steal, but what Picasso meant by this is that great artists are able to understand what works and manipulate it. PTA merely 'mimics'. This is why it is completely obvious who he is mimicking from film to film.

>intentionally confusing
nigga lil einsteins is more confusing

>>I DRINK LE MILKSHAKE xD

This is a great way to start a pasta, it's so dumb only memesters will keep on reading

t. illiterate

>it was trying to emulate The Big Lebowski

How can someone be this retarded?

that's from there will be blood bro. it's absolutely correct, unironically, but applies more to that specific movie.

Not really. That's the whole vibe the movie was going for. Doc's this big stoner, he's stumbling through this convoluted plot in a haze. And in my opinion it failed to build a solid movie around this vibe, just a long, overcomplicated mess

Why the fuck do I like this movie so much? It's absolutely hypnotic.

90% of the scenes are just two people talking about details about who gives a SHIT, and I completely enjoy it.

I thought that movie was extremely boring. Not even a matter of being incoherent, it was just bland. Especialy the humor, the jokes were painfully unfunny, like they were written by a 15 year old.

Why is PTA praised again?

Ask the easiest possible question the wrong way and people will refuse to give you the answer.

PTA sort of has that magic. The way Magnolia, or the Master, or this film sort of take you from scene to scene is amazing. The dialogue is poetic, in the sense that it flows, the music takes you from one place to another, and the mystery, haze, and the slight sense that something's not right keep you going.

you're a pseudo

Pynchon is one of those authors that people claim to enjoy to sound smart even though his work is literally indecipherable and ridiculously convoluted.

>intentionally

You're assuming you know PTA's goals with this film.

>for no good reason.

You're assuming you know more than PTA in making his own film.


YOU'RE the the pretentious one for assuming you're greater than you actually are.

Both movies involve a stoner trying to make sense of some nonsensical criminal plot and try to get humor out of it. Big Lebowski succeeded, this movie failed

>humor

Why do you assume this is a comedy? Even though there are funny parts, this isn't the Coen brothers.

OK explain what the fucking point of this movie is

youtube.com/watch?v=RqOxy7lqq3c

Well it didn't succeed in any other area in my opinion

you must to be 12 to find this funny

>nonsensical
I've located the flaw in your cognition.

The movie tells you exactly what's going on.

I don't know. That doesn't make it pretentious, though.

The point is that the 60s were ending. The fucking hippie drug culture was evaporating. The CIA, Manson, eventually Nixon and shit was going to take over America. It was a changing time. And here we have Doc, a filthy fucking hippie, who still represents something good. Shasta tells him this in the beginning "You were always true." It's also the reason why he goes back to save Owen Wilson. You'd think the story is over after this Micky Wolfmann thing was solved, but the story here is about him doing this good deed.

hahaha i'm 24 owned

Give some indication you'd understand it.

PTA is seriously the best american director working today because he knows how to integrate his visual style with the narrative of his movies. His movies have some kind of intensity you don't see in most movies, it reminds more of 70s Lumet than Altman, although his hard on for long takes (which is his artistic signature) probably comes from the later.

Also the guy manages to get perfomances that are out of this world. He's one of the best actor's director not only alive but ever.

pleb