Inherent Vice (2014) film review

Year: 2014
Running Time: 148 minutes
Director: Paul Thomas Anderson
Writers: Thomas Pynchon (novel), Paul Thomas Anderson (screenplay)
Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Josh Brolin, Owen Wilson, Katherne Waterston, Jena Malone, Reese Witherspoon, Joanna Newsom, Eric Roberts, Bencio Del Toro, Maya Rudolph
Inherent Vice is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed in Australia by Roadshow Films.

Based on the novel of the same name by Thomas Pynchon, Inherent Vice is a wonderfully unique and nostalgic journey back to the very early days of the 1970's when Los Angeles was experiencing a change in identity. Larry "Doc" Sportello (Joaquin Phoenix) is a detective living the hippy lifestyle who the officials, including Lt. Det. Christian "Bigfoot" Bjornsen (Josh Brolin) ridicule and his friends rely on. When he is visited by ex-girlfriend, Shasta (Katherine Waterston), he becomes caught up in a web of illegal activities and cover ups in a world where everyone he meets is somehow connected. However, when Shasta goes missing, it all turns personal for Doc.

Paul Thomas Anderson's adaptation of Thomas Pynchon's novel is a fine one. Anyone who has read the book will find that the film mirrors the book in the best of ways and Anderson has overcome the features of the book that may have been problematic in the process of adaption with style. However, the novel "Inherent Vice" is one that has divided opinions which inevitably leads to the film being quite the same way. Many people enjoyed the novel for it's nostalgic and vivid imagery, but Pynchon's writing style and method of storytelling can be troublesome for others. Those who are troubled by the latter will find that the screenplay is much like the book and therefore will not understand the attraction that others feel to it as they will feel that there is too much going on with too many characters. The psychedelic drug fuelled and sexual nature of the film will also take away from the enjoyment of other viewers. Yet with an open mind, Inherent Vice is a lot of fun and rather hilarious. The script is incredibly witty with colourful dialogue and there are plenty of laugh out loud moments.

However, Inherent Vice lacks the thing that one has come to expect from an Anderson film as such and that is the presence of impressive cinematography with amazing visuals. The film is nostalgic and very atmospheric of the times, but the one thing that is missed in the film as opposed to the book is the love felt for the Los Angeles landscape. It feels as though an opportunity is missed in this respect, as Pynchon's book lovingly created these vivid pictures of Doc's home beside the sea. These lingering shots of the featured locations are missed, but the nostalgia is created by the costumes and production design which add to the overall atmosphere of the film. The soundtrack is also completely fitting for the year of 1970 and is unique in the way that it isn't a compilation of over played songs from that era.

While Inherent Vice provides a visually nostalgic imprint of Los Angeles in the year of 1970, it is also a snapshot of the times with a focus on a type of prejudice that was brand new. Throughout the film, the character of Doc is continuously ridiculed and insulted for being a hippy and living the lifestyle associated with being a hippy. The two girls of his life, Penny and Shasta were both once part of the hippy lifestyle, but they have both cleaned themselves up to seem more respectable in society and Penny in particular makes it no secret that she has conformed. This hippy hate in Los Angeles was the doing of Charles Manson and his band of followers known as The Manson Family. When the murders that shook Los Angeles were committed by this group of free spirits under Manson's spell, hippies were no longer seen as the innocent members of society they once were, but as sinister and a mark on society. Of course we see in Inherent Vice that this was not true of all hippies as there is nothing sinister about Doc and the movie does a fine job at demonstrating society's view on this sub-culture at this point in time.

The colourful characters and their wonderful dialogue are brought to life by way of perfect casting and fine performances. Joaquin Phoenix is truly brilliant as Doc Sportello. Phoenix brings a very natural comedic style to the role which is neither forced nor dull and it is a style which is perfect for the character. His character of Doc is incredibly likable and despite how much verbal abuse he receives throughout the film from almost everyone, remains so laid back (whether that be with some support) and harmless. It is a role which one can imagine Phoenix would have had a great deal of fun with as he is a real treat to watch.

Josh Brolin is also tremendously entertaining as tough talking cop, Bigfoot Bjornsen. Brolin's memorable character arguably gets some of the best lines in the film and is truly hilarious. Joanna Newsom, who's character Sortilege acts as narrator, does a wonderful job of holding her own in the film and is the personification of the typical carefree Californian girl of 1970. Benicio Del Toro and Owen Wilson are also very funny and entertaining.

Inherent Vice is not your average comedy and is completely unique. This uniqueness will be too quirky for some, but an open mind will lead to a rather fun experience at the hands of Paul Thomas Anderson.

7/10

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

 

Year: 2013

Running Time: 146 minutes

Director: Francis Lawrence
Writers: Suzanne Collins (book), Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt (screenplay)
Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Elizabeth Banks, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Stanley Tucci, Lenny Kravitz, Willow Shields, Sam Claflin, Jena Malone

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is now showing in Australian cinemas and is distributed by Roadshow Films. Opening in the UK on the 21st of November and in the USA on the 22nd of November 2013.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is without a doubt one of the most highly anticipated films of the year. Fans of "The Hunger Games" book trilogy by Suzanne Collins and 2012's The Hunger Games have been anxious to see whether Francis Lawrence's direction do the second instalment to The Hunger Games the justice it deserves.

Everyone can breathe a sigh of relief. Catching Fire is a wonderful follow up to the first film and in many ways actually better. Francis Lawrence has done a great job directing a very well adapted screenplay by Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt and has created a suspenseful and very emotional at times film. Jennifer Lawrence shines in her second venture as Katniss Everdeen and is surrounded by a number of intriguingly well-rounded characters.

After winning the 74th Hunger Games, District 12's victors, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) are about the embark on their victor's tour of the districts. Although the two are still carrying on their love affair for the cameras in order to stay alive, Katniss is confused about whether she does have feelings for Peeta outside the arena, or if she is meant to be with her long time best friend, Gale (Liam Hemsworth). However, Katniss has more pressing matters than her love life at the present time. President Snow (Donald Sutherland) has his eye on her every move as his citizens see her as a beacon of hope and her actions have inched the districts closer to a rebellion. With the 75th Hunger Games approaching, Snow does the unthinkable and announces that the pool of tributes will consist of past Hunger Games victors, which means that Katniss is definitely heading back into the lethal world which haunts her dreams every night.

With an influx of young adult book series being made into films and not all of those adaptations praise-worthy, Catching Fire is in a class of it's own. Not only is it a wonderful adapted screenplay, but it is one of the rare second films that may well be better than the first. Lawrence was a perfect choice for director for the second film as he has brought out the best in his actors and by doing so has made the characters personalities stronger by showing their raw emotions in a more powerful way than what we saw in The Hunger Games.

A lot happens in Catching Fire's 146 minutes. Such a running time would normally seem like an eternity in a movie theatre, but every scene is essential and contributes to the greater picture. In addition to that, every scene is intriguing and creates some sort of emotion. There is also a great deal more tension and suspense leading up to the finale than in the first film. The ending is done absolutely perfectly as you feel you are at the very height of suspense, and it leaves you wanting more and wanting the third film, Mockingjay Part 1 to be released sooner rather than later. It is an incredible thing for a film to be two and a half hours long and to leave you wanting more.

There are a great deal of close-up camera shots of the characters throughout the film, particularly of Katniss. These close-ups allow the audience to grasp every bit of emotion the character is feeling and you are able to tell so much by looking closer. There are also some very fast camera movements whilst in the Hunger Games arena. Although these can be a tad dizzying at times, it feels as though they were employed to represent the mayhem that the Hunger Games arena creates and the sense of always being on the look out and on edge. The actual landscape shots of the Hunger Games arena are also quite stunning.

The centre and heart of the film is absolutely Jennifer Lawrence. From the very first shot, Lawrence is perfection. When we first see her sitting beside the lake, we understand so much just by looking at her. Just from seeing her facial expression, we can tell that she is psychologically exhausted and still very much recovering from her time in the arena. Her performance packs a bigger punch than that of the first film and is much more emotionally charged. She is truly brilliant and the perfect heroine. What is so great about her Katniss is that she is effortlessly strong and a beacon of hope by being the person she is. It would be so easy to seem corny when acting as a symbol of strength, but there is absolutely nothing corny about this performance at all. Lawrence is just a powerhouse from beginning to end and her last scene is a perfect example of this strength.

Josh Hutcherson does well as Peeta, and continues to be such a likable character. Liam Hemsworth has a greater role as Gale than in the first film, and he also does very well with what he has been given. Both Woody Harrelson and Elizabeth Banks, as Haymitch and Effie are both full of character and are a pleasure to watch. Donald Sutherland is particularly terrifying in such a subtle way, and it is the subtlety that makes him so unsettling as President Snow. Lenny Kravitz is an audience favourite as Cinna. His performance, like Sutherland's, is subtle rather than over the top, but his loyalty and love he shows for Katniss is so endearing. Jena Malone is also wonderful as tribute, Johanna Mason. Johanna was again a character that could have been made to seem corny, but Malone is so natural and real in this role and her obvious anger actually makes her very likable.

While Catching Fire is a wonderful film, it is still not a stand alone film and it is absolutely crucial that you see the first film before you see this one. That shouldn't come as a huge surprise as this is part of a trilogy, not a sequel so it can hardly be seen as a negative aspect of the film. For those who love The Hunger Games movie or books, there is no disappointment to be had here.

8.5/10



You may have also seen Jennifer Lawrence in.....
Silver Linings Playbook as Tiffany
X Men: First Class as Mystique

You may have also seen Liam Hemsworth in.....
Paranoia as Adam Cassidy

Sucker Punch

Sucker Punch
Year: 2011
Director: Zack Snyder
Cast: Emily Browning, Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone, Vanessa Hudgens, Jamie Chung, Carla Gugino, Jon Hamm

In My Own Words
Before I go any further, I would just like to clarify a few things about what I write on here. I've lately had a few people become confused with what "In My Own Words" is about. First and foremost, Movie Critical is a movie review site, but what distinguishes Movie Critical from other websites is "In My Own Words". "In My Own Words" is exactly as the name suggests, a place where I can talk about whatever I want that has anything to do with the movie I am about to review. I may want to talk about the actors and what they do outside their acting roles, I may want to talk about the location of the film or I may want to talk about my personal experiences with the film.  It is not the review itself. The "Review" section is where I critically evaluate the film and I focus only on what is featured in the film. So Movie Critical is two things, it is an honest and personal opinion on anything I feel like talking about which has anything to do with the film I am reviewing and it is also a critical film review. I don't think it's the right thing to do to talk about such things as what goes in the cinema or what type of cinema I go to in a movie review, and it isn't right to talk about the actors personality or personal life in a review where you should only by talking about their performance in that movie.

Now that we've got that all cleared up, here is my review for a movie which I was really looking forward to, but.......

Review
"Sucker Punch". The film that is a public relations dream. If you haven't seen the anime styled posters with images of "Sucker Punch's" leading ladies in battle all over your city, you must have been living under a rock for the past month. An action film with entrancing computer generated images crossed with the theme of freedom against oppression with some of the hottest young female stars in Hollywood today. You would love to do the marketing for this movie as there is so much you could do and it opens the action genre up to another target audience of young females. So much marketing potential, so much potential as a film. A film that before it's release date was hailed to be Zack Snyder's "Inception". So what happenned? Both too much and not enough. "Sucker Punch" lacks in the areas that matter and has too much going on at the same time.The concept is great and it could have been a masterpiece, but Snyder has just got too caught up in what he could do rather than what he should do.
"Sucker Punch" opens with a music video like montage  of the recent events in Baby Doll's (Emily Browning) life involving the death of her mother and the accidental shooting of her younger sister which have landed her in Lennox Hall Institute for the Mentally Insane. Baby Doll overhears the head of the institution, Blue Jones (Oscar Isaac) tell her stepfather (Gerard Plunkett) that the High Roller will come in a few days to perform a lobotomy on her. She plans to escape from the institution before the High Roller comes and in doing so, creates an alternate battleground in her mind in a world where dragons, ogres and samuari giants fight with her and her fellow inmates Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), Rocket (Jena Malone), Amber (Jamie Chung) and Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens) to seek out their freedom.

"Sucker Punch" could have well been a cult classic. The visuals, the action sequences,  the soundtrack and the five " no nonsense" lead females have everything that a cult classic would. The first area that "Sucker Punch" fails in is the script. It contains several bouts of surrealism in which Baby Doll creates parallel universes in her mind. She imagines that the institution is a brothel and her and the other girls are it's star dancers and from here she imagines the battleground inside her head. On paper, the idea isn't so bad, but played out on the screen it just doesn't work. It can be downright confusing at times. Even when you finally get a grasp of what is going on, there is no real feeling of suspense or urgency. The jumping back and forwards between the universes in Baby Doll's mind makes the film seem uneven and too jumpy. There is no smooth flow at all through the film which makes it just feel like a big mess. Of course, the film does have it's impressive graphics and action sequences going for it. The most impressive being that of Baby Doll's first venture into her imaginary battleground where she arrives in a Japanese temple setting in the middle of a snowfall, which is really quite beautiful. The soundtrack of the film is also fitting to every scene.

As for the acting, weren't these girls supposed to be in an institution for the mentally insane? Yes, Baby Doll's mind transforms the institution into a brothel, but shouldn't these girls have more eccentric personalities either way? They just all seem a little too much like your average teenage girls, with the exception of the first scene when Baby Doll first arrives at the instituation and we see the theatre for what it really is. The characters would have definately been more interesting if they had contained some of the characteristics from the girls we had seen in the first seen. Otherwise, they really don't have much character at all. The only two actresses who give performances which are noteworthy are Abbie Cornish and Jena Malone, who play sisters Sweet Pea and Rocket. They don't go the full haul with their characters and take them to the limit so that you can really feel connected to them, but they still have more character than the others. Abbie Cornish could have been a bit stronger in the scenes where she is trying to show her power over Baby Doll, but in two particular scenes (which cannot be given away as they will spoil the film for those who want to see it) she is superb. Jena Malone is also very good in the role as the younger and somewhat positive sister. Emily Browning is just dull in her lead role. She does not change her facial expression throughout the whole film and it is confusing to see how such a weak character in personality could be such an influence to these other girls. Vanessa Hudgens doesn't do too badly in this film when you compare her to her "High School Musical" days. She certainly has grown up and has shown she can do more than sing and dance and can hold her own without Zac Efron on her arm. Yet, her character really doesn't have much to it and we really have no idea who Blondie is. The same can be said for Jamie Chung's character, who is Amber?

We could sit here and talk about what "Sucker Punch" could have been all day, but the fact is that it wasn't. It is flat and messy. Action fans may enjoy it for Baby Doll's war sequences and young teenage boys may enjoy it for seeing the girls in short skirts. One of the year's biggest disappointments, if not the biggest.
4/10