David Fincher and Paul Thomas Anderson are both knee deep in noir, or neo-noir with their films at the New York Film Festival, Gone Girl and Inherent Vice. Attendees have just seen Inherent Vice and word is that it’s a trippy, funny, “stoner” noir:
Robie Collin’s full review:
And that, in a hard nutshell, is the experience of watching Inherent Vice – or of watching it for the first time, at least. Underneath the crackpot humour, there’s something else at work; a deep-seated ache of nostalgia for a time when films were allowed to look, sound and move like this, that will surely come into sharper focus on a second viewing, when you aren’t so preoccupied with wolfing down the spaghetti tangle of the plot.
Inherent Vice is very committed California stoner noir. It will yield some interesting critical writing. This tweet is not an example of it.
— Mark Harris (@MarkHarrisNYC) October 4, 2014
Oh wait I can tweet about it. Inherent Vice is nuts and sorry I laughed so loud and frequently folks.
— Matt Prigge (@mattprigge) October 4, 2014
Inherent Vice: PTA pulls off Pynchon. A warm, hazy, funny, sprawling, one-of-a-kind work. #NYFF
— Jordan Raup (@jpraup) October 4, 2014
As confusing as INHERENT VICE is, it hits that perfect sweet spot that lies between LEBOWSKI and THE LONG GOODBYE. #ThatMeansILovedIt
— Tony Dayoub (@TonyDayoub) October 4, 2014
![2025 Oscars: Can a Late-Breaker Still Win Best Picture? [POLL]](https://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/gladiator-350x250.jpg)
You can build roller coasters and log flumes, spinning teacups and pirate ships.
Want to play one of the most beloved retro games for free.
To meet these demands, there are a number of quality websites offering quality free online strategy
games.
According to a report in the Telegraph newspaper there has been a new record
set for the longest kill shot in Afghanistan.
Zox techniques are very known in the society and have been scientifically proven to work.
General Vasquez will begin his escape from the area.
i like this 😀
Of course, my scoring system ONLY works if every movie gets the same number of reviews.
Based on my formula for scoring Metacritic, here are some movies of the last 3 years:
Boyhood – 98
Gravity – 98
12 Years a Slave – 95
Dallas Buyers Club – 94
Inside Llewyn Davis – 94
American Hustle – 93
Captain Phillips – 92
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes – 92
The Grand Budapest Hotel – 92
Zero Dark Thirty – 90
Fruitvale Station – 89
Gone Girl – 88
Her – 88
Nebraska – 88
All Is Lost – 86
Amour – 86
Argo – 86
Looper – 86
Lincoln – 85
Moonrise Kingdom – 84
Beasts of the Southern Wild – 81
Life of Pi – 81
Prisoners – 81
Rush – 80
Silver Linings Playbook – 80
The Dark Knight Rises – 80
The Wolf of Wall Street – 80
Django Unchained – 79
The Master – 79
Philomena – 77
The Butler – 77
Les Miserables – 63
The Maze Runner – 46
The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Them – 44
Whoops I just noticed my own math failure.
A good review gets 2 points
A mixed review gets 1 point
A negative review gets 0 points
Take Ryan’s example
20 – 100s = 40 points
20 – 90s = 40 points
2 – 0s = 0 points
80 points = a score of 80. Remove the percentages.
Oh Metacritic math!! Here’s how I propose to fix those numbers:
A good review gets 2 points
A mixed review gets 1 point
A negative review gets 0 points
Take Ryan’s example
20 – 100s = 20 points
20 – 90s = 20 points
2 – 0s = 0 points
40 points = a score of 40. Remove the percentages.
It really doesn’t matter what the Academy thinks of Inherent Vice. It’s definitely one of the must-see films of the year and I’m looking forward to seeing it again. Took me back to the joys of waiting for the next Altman movies back when he was starting out. I have now doubt the movie will have a following in years to come, whether or not it finds an audience now.
I do wish someone would explain to me if the Shasta scenes were all happening in the past after the first 20 minutes or so. I couldn’t figure that out.
good point, Kane. I would hope that my well-known disdain for Django Unchained wouldn’t cause fans of Django to think we can never agree about anything.
On the other hand, I would think it’s perfectly legitimate if someone were to point to my feelings about Django as evidence that I might not be the most objective person to trust on the topic of Tarantino’s recent career.
On the third hard (which might actually be a cat’s paw), the fact that we are all able to get to know one another as friends here at AD helps make me sound less crazy to anyone whose heard me say many times how much I love and admire Tarantino’s movies from the ’90s.
This I’ll say, I’d trust a review from those who comment regularly on this site, as well as our trusty editors, over a lot of the “critics” RT chooses to feature. A difference of opinion is a difference of opinion. Art is what one makes of it. It’s tough to berate an asshat calling one of my favorites a cinematic sleeping pill when I find plenty of those same faults in some of Sasha’s favorites. It’s truly hard to say “well I’m right and you’re wrong.” That’s why I can say I just cannot agree with this certain “critic”. I don’t want to say he’s wrong unless he let a movie’s aesthetic make him bitter about it.
but some movies need to be sipped like a fine wine that ages over time. If a Kubrick movie was ever expected to be gulped down, well, that somebody would walk away with a headache.
Kane, I hear ya. I myself cannot be exonerated. I recently did a 180 myself on NOVECENTO. From Marxist wankjob to Bertolucci’s second greatest on just a second viewing. Embarrassing.
The same guy who is largely responsible for Inherent Vice standing at 63% on RT had this to say about The Master:
Just what I want to hear from a critic: He needs a nap and a candy bar.
In reference to the discussion on The Master’s biggest theme, I also viewed it as a film about friendship. It’s a bizarre, volatile friendship, but one nonetheless. To Kane’s point, I feel like some films that are as dense and elliptical as The Master or Synecdoche, New York, need to be viewed multiple times and over the course of time.
that’s a reasonable argument, Montan.
(I’ll study how you do that “reasonable” thing. I might try it sometime.)
I’m hot and cold on RT and Metacritic being worthwhile tools. I see the value and failures in both sites, especially in how Metacritic attributes some of their scores to reviews. Nonetheless, I do believe they serve a purpose, at least when it comes to drumming up interest in smaller, idiosyncratic films like The Master. Using digestible scores calls attention to a handful of films that’d otherwise be overlooked. I know my brother, who isn’t entirely adventurous when it comes to cinema, uses it as a road map.
I don’t think we should be using the sites as empirical barometers of quality, but for as faulty as the ratings are, I believe they can introduce people to films they’d likely run from.
“Wasn’t Weinstein the one who made THE MASTER into a “dud”? Het admitted that much…”
The weekend Weinstein chose to open The Master wide was the same weekend of premieres for a Jennifer Lawrence movie, a Clint Eastwood movie and a Jake Gyllenhaal movie. Those three debuts together earned 8x more than The Master earned.
The following weekend Hotel Transylvania and Looper debuted and earned 30x more than The Master earned.
Weinstein threw The Master into a wood chipper that summer. Doofus.
Bryce, The Master is probably my favorite movie since There Will Be Blood and I absolutely felt it was about friendship, the need both of them had for one another. Not to defend critics who shit on a master (pun) but some movies need to be sipped like a fine wine that ages over time. If a Kubrick movie was ever expected to be gulped down, well, that somebody would walk away with a headache.
The Master certainly did not break even; it’s around 5M less than budget, not counting for marketing and Oscar campaigning.
$3 million in DVD/Blu sales helps reduce the loss.
Very true on Megan Ellison. I don’t think that’s quite her net worth
erp, you’re right, KT. I just latched onto the first crazy number I ran across.
Wasn’t Weinstein the one who made THE MASTER into a “dud”? Het admitted that much.
“I probably could have marketed it better,” he said. “I probably should have prepared the audience. We opened up to the highest per screen average ever, but I think the audience had trouble with the movie and needed to be guided and eased into it.” “My attachment to The Master was not the Scientology or religion; it was that in the second world war, people like my dad and other combat veterans came back and were just lost after the war,” “Maybe if I’d explained the movie in those terms, that it was more of a spiritual quest for a veteran who had seen action and got lost, people might have responded differently.” “I’d told Paul that was my attraction. But there were so many themes in the movie and I was also fascinated by the Scientology, the whole idea of the beginning of a religion or a cult. The emotional attachment in that was something else, but maybe people were expecting an exposé and they didn’t get it.”
I hate to link to The Guardian, but here you go: http://bit.ly/1rZ46bZ
And even then, I think most critics were alright. I mean the ones who embraced it. It’s clear now, only 2 years later that the movie will be in a lot of peoples’ best of the decade in 2019. The expectations were so messed with by this honcho that I’m yet to find a decent review that explores friendship as one of the paramount themes on the film. It is in fact on of the greatest portrayals of friendship of the cinema. Is it because it doesn’t nearly sound “cool” enough, “friendship”? Well this is the hipster generation of film criticism, so that might be it. Remember, these folks were taking Kubrick for granted by 1999. Kubrick!! Now all their EYES WIDE SHUT revisionist 180’s are a bliss to read.
Very true on Megan Ellison. I don’t think that’s quite her net worth, but she should be receiving quite a large chunk of that for her inheritance. I hope she does more films along the lines of Last Days and helps that one get seen to make a dent in ivory trafficking. One caveat though: Annapurna Pics is only a production company; they aren’t distributors. So they will still need a studio or mini-studio to jump onboard and distribute the films, and that won’t happen if box office isn’t there. The Master certainly did not break even; it’s around 5M less than budget, not counting for marketing and Oscar campaigning. Harvey Weinstein said he screwed up The Master’s promotion…but did not get on well with Megan Ellison. Not sure if we’ll see the two partner up again. So there are other pieces to the puzzle besides just raising money, but also who will be willing to bank on the film and getting it to audiences.
And the AV Club also has a raving review, giving the film an A.
Drew McWeeny at HitFix has a RAVE up on the film.
Who’s the naked hottie smirking in that photo? I want.
I’m so tired of talking about these numbers. I hate these numbers, I hate these numbers.
But if we must discuss the numbers can at we at least stop acting like a movie that has half its reviews topping off at 100 and an average of 90 is somehow in trouble. Can we please not talk as if a 90 is “bad news” or a sign that the movie isn’t very good?
97 – 12 Years a Slave
90 – American Hustle
83 – Captain Phillips
84 – Dallas
90 – Her
85 – Nebraska
76 – Philomena
75 – Wolf of Wall Street
92 – There Will Be Blood
86 – The Master
85 – Boogie Nights
77 – Magnolia
I hate talking about these numbers.
Cheer up. If Inherent Vice ends up with a low score, Metacritic could let Paul Thomas Anderson shoot some bonus scenes for Extra Credit to raise his grade.
Steve, individual voices are considered and to me they’re much more reliable than the hundreds of other voices out there. We all flock to the consensus now and again when we don’t have the means to view the film ourselves for some time. But again, I am surprised at the score I see but I can see that rising as easily as it can lower.
Never thought Oscars would touch it but at least hoped critics would enjoy it. Seems like a fun/crazy time at the movies anyway.
You know it’s strange…I caught HR’s review and it even said mixed. That Metacritic score for HR is a 70. Overall it is sitting at a 90 with a handful of reviews. It’s my most anticipated movie of the year but I’m withholding judgement until everything comes in and I see it. This does look to be divisive.
Nonsense. I refuse to pass on the current MC score, but I’ll just repeat…nonsense.
Why does everyone run to the peter-meter sites rather than make up their own minds? At least consider the individual source, not the herd consensus.
As a PTA diehard and ardent champion of The Master, I’m more than ready for this. I just hope I can see it before January.
Reviews are starting to pour in and the news isn’t good…
My nom’s for inherent vice
Picture
Actor- Joaquin Phoenix
Supporting actor- josh brolin
Supporting actress- Katherine waterson
Adapted screenplay
Cinematography
This looks to be pta’s most divisive film. At rotten tomatoes, the film is sitting at rotten. More reviews to come, most critics are either loving or hating it.
Ha, Christophe! Must’ve been a non-podcast day unless Craig took the photo.
Comments on Twitter are all over the map, but much more upbeat than they were for TWBB, and judging from Robbie Collin’s wonderful review that Sasha linked, we’re in for one helluva good time.
One person’s stoner-noir is another person’s mother’s milk.
You need to update your furniture Ryan. Or is that Sasha? Loved Gone Girl and I’m looking forward to a funny noir in Inherent Vice….although Gone Girl was also pretty damn funny. Yay for “genre” films with talented filmmakers who don’t look down on the material because they’re “genre oriented”.
Is that Eric Roberts all bleached and buffed in that picture?
I like the featured thumbnail pic’s composition. Though a bit nihilistic, it looks just artistically appealing (sexy).
And on the trailer, also embedded here on AD a few days ago or so, I’m totally diggin’ it. Can’t wait. (Phoenix’s character also looks promising.)
—
Side note: Ryan, didn’t you think there was something robotically going on in one of the earlier comments?
*coughing Zombie blah blah blah Download (Even at first sight, it did read like a spam [excessively generic and seemingly computer-generated, etc.] if you ask me but I might be right or un-wrong, though.)*
I do wonder why you felt the need to illustrate this post with a suggestive picture of you and Ryan?
4chan hacked my phone, srry. I’m not proud of it, but I refuse to be shamed by it.
I don’t care so much for noir or neo-noir, except that it’s a French word, which is a clear sign of good taste, but I do wonder why you felt the need to illustrate this post with a suggestive picture of you and Ryan?
I do not even know how I stopped up right here, but I thought this post was great.
I do not understand who you are however certainly
you are going to a famous blogger when you aren’t already.
Cheers!