Thoughts on this one?

Im PTA fan and I thought this one was going to be shit, I didn't went to the theater but then I watched at home and really enjoyed. Solid 8/10

I hate it because I don't understand the plot. this makes the movie bad. upvote if you agree

Tried to ape The Big Lebowski.

Failed.

>tfw the movie adaptation of pynchons most accessible novel still confounds the pleb

I absolutely loved it, got me to read more too which is nice.

>Tried to ape the Big Lebowski

how so

In all honesty the plot wasn't that hard to follow especially when you consider that its based of a Pynchon novel.

I guess I'm not mature and sophisticated enough to enjoy unnecessarily complex narratives like you guys can

maybe there's a reason its complex? you saying its unnecessary is really telling

Stay pleb.

youtube.com/watch?v=cHl6qQ3V1Mc

It's just so fucking boring, you've got tons of scenes that serve next to no purpose.

name 5

name one

Just enjoy the ride and the beautiful composition then.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ak54sVRY7qc

really enjoyed it, have seen it a few times. wish saunch was in it a bit more and the real estate stuff was pushed a little too far in the background that most people probably mssied it, especially with trillium's vegas adventure and riggs' dome city in the desert plots taken out. a proper full adaptation probably would've been like 4 hours though. having sortilege narrate was a nice touch as well. the fenway drug deal at the end was lulz.

It was fun

Which isn't saying much honestly because the trailer looked like shit

I haven't seen it yet. What's the appeal? Give me non-pleb reasons to watch

Not OP, but please explain

the whole movie is about confusion and longing for a simpler, earlier time when things make more sense, and the past sort of peaking and then descending into a darker, corrupted place

>Watching the wrong trailer:
youtube.com/watch?v=BTRMkQzFYHI

Check out this scene If you don't find appeal in this it's probably not for you.

Total shit, with some funny moments but overall it's a confused film, which is unnecessarily long and dragged out.
Inb4
>DUDE ITS SUPPOSED TO BE CONFUSING AND LONG AND INCOHERENT LMAO

Go back to your meme thread, dummy.

>People too confused with a film based on lite Pynchon

why am I surrounded by plebs wherever I go

Be happy that PTA left out the proto-Internet depicted in the book

The plot is far less confusing than people are inclined to think.

>the end of that scene
kek, I have no idea what's going on there but it looks decent enough

>that little movement when they hit him with the bat

Joaquin is so good

a moody noir about a stoned private detective investigating a powerful california real estate developer who became a full-on hippy & disappeared that ties in with the ending (and subversion of?) 1960s counterculture, that goes from slapstick to wry to serious and back again.

just let it wash over you the first time desu. don't try dissecting the smallest details of the plot, it's actually not that complicated but it's also not entirely the point either.

LOOK OUT SURFERS
HERE COME THE HODADS
LET'S GO

It's a very comfy experience. I've seen it twice now and it was even better the second time.

I might be biased because Joanna Newsom is my eternal waifu

This. The plot isn't central at all. It's all about the flow and the 'vibe' for lack of a better term.

PTA is a hack and this is not a good movie, however I think this is the closest we will ever get to a good film adaptation of Pynchon

Like the book, tb h

boring as fuck
the Coen brs would have made a better adaptation

Here's your (You)

>everything I disagree with is bait

PTA is a hack, there's no way around it

I'd like you to explain how There Will Be Blood is a bad film

it's The Treasure of the Sierra Madre for plebs

Well I'm convinced

That's actually not so true. It's just that most scenes are just a conversation between two people, where they keep repeating information while slowly dolling out new information.

But I still like it. Something to do with the music or the acting, but small scenes are absolutely entrancing.

So who set up this thing with Micky Woolfman? Was it the CIA, the Golden Fang, or his wife?

Maybe if they had this narration actually explaining the film, it'd be good.

why does the cop eat weed at end?
why does Docs gf speak so weirdly?
why they've introduced characters that doesn't really matter?

Doc is still living like he's in the 60's. Stoned off his ass just being pushed from place to place without much interest in what's going on around him other than getting back to Shasta.

Since youre seeing the plot unfold through Doc's eyes its all a hazy mess of paranoia and seemingly unconnected plot points.

Whose feet are those? They look like they need a deep cleaning by my tongue.

wikifeet.com/Katherine_Waterston

>both main characters are stoners!
>they're both set in L.A. !!!
>they must be the same

We're not seeing it through Doc's eyes but why are seeing everything he is seeing since Doc is the mediator in all scenes.
There are two things that tells us we are not experiencing what doc experience.
The first is the narrator that only we can hear, not Doc. The narrator gives us information that Doc might have but also might not have.
Therefore we are at times less in-the-know than Doc is or other times more.

The other thing is the ending when Doc looks straight into the camera when the reflection from his rear view mirror hits him in the eyes

*but we are seeing
sorry about that

If any1 from the thread a few weeks ago is here, I finally found the "Pan go kek Get the fuck out of aqui" line

sortilege is a mental construct of Doc's that was given all the best narrator lines from the book, what are you talking about. Doc hears her and interacts with her, but occasionally ignores her.

we're all here forever.

the fuck line was that shit

I loved it but all the mumbling and whispering drove me to turn on subtitles.

i dug it. it's a fun ride but the humor doesn't stick. PTA's humor, not Pynchon's. apparently there was a lot of improv on set. i don't mind that PTA deviated from the original material, though, as the Sortilege narration was pretty cool and somewhat subverted the typical noir ones. probably invented a genre: the stoner noir.

Lebowski is stoner noir.

you're right. forgot about that one. any others? noir's drug of choice is more alcohol than pot. the switcheroo can result in some comedy gold.

ipneapple express maybe

I liked it. Smiley Face is a similar movie that i recommend seeing, but it's more silly,

never saw that. not a big fan of rogan.

Incredibly hard to follow. I was trying to follow it literally and I felt like a retard. I didn't realize it was meant to be absurdist and deliberately incoherent.