Inherent Vice *

Ever tried reading a Thomas Pynchon novel?  Good luck.  It’s a bit like wading through a bog in a fog with a bunch of ambivalent strangers. Does it really need to be so difficult slow and dense - and why does everything seem the same and why does change come so slowly?  And why are these people talking so long about so little? And why don’t they talk like anyone I have ever met?  No wonder no one tries to turn them into films.  

But Paul Thomas Anderson is an adventurous fellow and always up for a challenge and lo and behold he has come up with an extraordinarily accurate reflection of a Thomas Pynchon novel.  It’s like wading through a bog with a bunch of ambivalent strangers. It's slow difficult and dense and everything seems the same - and why does change come so slowly?  And why are these people talking so long about so little? And why don’t they talk like anyone I have ever met? I’m disappointed. I like Paul Thomas Anderson's’ work - The Master, There Will Be Blood, Boogie Nights were all great. Inherent Vice, looks fantastic. It is beautifully shot and the period is exact. The acting is great - inasmuch as they are coping with dialogue that comes out the head of a recluse (Tom Pynchon you really need to get out more - people don't talk like that). The characters are annoying or as unbelievable as the shit they talk, and the plot is almost incomprehensible. It has no drive save for the last 20 minutes of a 150 minute film. It's like listening to an idiot trying to relate a simple story but constantly getting distracted and taking for ever to tell it. Basically Joaquin Phoenix plays a stoner detective, California, 1970. His ex girlfriend has got caught up with some rich Realtor whose family want to shaft him by throwing him in the loony bin. Then there are a stack of useless subplots and secondary characters given far too much to say.