|
Few years back I read the book, and even checking with a guide to keep the characters straight and thinking that, for the most part, I understood it, the last half immediately backed out of my memory because I couldn't make heads or tails out of it. Even when I watched the film I was surprised by the events in the last half because I just could not remember it at all. Somehow though, watching the movie, the plot seemed to make more sense to me, but my reading is so balls-out whacky that I need someone to either confirm that I'm not crazy or that I am crazy and that I need to stop thinking this crazy stuff. My understanding is that the movie is saying that the hippie age failed because the government ensures that basically anyone who is part of the establishment and starts to go "hippie" is brainwashed back into straightworld. Like Wolfmann, the big real estate conglomerate, who had a "bad hippie dream" or however he puts it, is brainwashed out of it, which is alluded to by whichever blacklisted-turned-anti-commie actor Doc and his lawyer were talking about in the diner. It seems that in the actor's case this brainwashing happened on the Golden Fang boat itself, butwith Wolfmann it was in a psychiatric ward run by the Golden Fang. Obviously, the government is involved because the FBI was watching over Wolfmann and was fully aware of where he was while everyone else was still running around looking for him. The only thing I couldn't put together is why the Golden Fang would work with the government in doing so, and my only thought is that if the government goes hippie, then drugs won't be illegal anymore, and the international drug cartel essentially disintegrates. I get that there's a lot more going on in this movie, but this is basically the only way I can arrange the plot into making sense. Or is it just not supposed to make sense at all?
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 07:24 |
|
|
Actually, I can probably review this using the exact same review I used for Snowpiercer: This is easily the director's worst film, but if this is your worst film, you're a pretty drat good director. Although this will likely benefit on a rewatch, assuming that you either catch the plot the 2nd time around or stop trying entirely. I'm more disappointed in how stale the film feels visually at times - it looks good, but I'm surprised Anderson went for such a static look on what should be one of his zanier movies. A busy camera would've improved the film immeasurably. Admittedly, it would've made it harder for people to follow the plot and dialogue - but that's a lost cause anyways.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
Blisster posted:I've heard the Big Lebowski comparison a few times (and it's definitely apt), but was anyone else reminded of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas? It's got the same drug-addled viewpoint thing going on, and Fear and Loathing is also about the failures of the hippie movement. I don't see what Inherent Vice has to do with some film where Benecio Del Toro plays an insane lawyer.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
harpomarxist posted:This is going to be very very snobby but I don't want crystal clear Inherent Vice It's not going to be more HD or smoothed out than the theatrical if that's what you're getting at, and the theatrical had a nice grain to it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 17:06
|
|