Featured titleKomedya

Inherent Vice

KomedyaKrimenDrama

In 1970, drug-fueled Los Angeles private investigator Larry "Doc" Sportello investigates the disappearance of a former girlfriend.

Taon

2015

Tagal

2h 28m

IMDb

6.6

Panoorin Ngayon

Cast

Paul Thomas Anderson

Director

Joaquin Phoenix

Larry "Doc" Sportello

Josh Brolin

Lt. Det. Christian F. "Bigfoot" Bjornsen

Cast

Paul Thomas Anderson

Director

Joaquin Phoenix

Larry "Doc" Sportello

Josh Brolin

Lt. Det. Christian F. "Bigfoot" Bjornsen

Owen Wilson

Coy Harlingen

Joanna Newsom

Sortilège

Katherine Waterston

Shasta Fay Hepworth

Jordan Christian Hearn

Denis

TB

Taylor Bonin

Ensenada Slim

Jeannie Berlin

Aunt Reet

Eric Roberts

Michael Z. Wolfmann

Serena Scott Thomas

Sloane Wolfmann

Maya Rudolph

Petunia Leeway

Martin Dew

Dr. Buddy Tubeside

Michael Kenneth Williams

Tariq Khalil

Hong Chau

Jade

Shannon Collis

Bambi

Christopher Allen Nelson

Glenn Charlock

Benicio Del Toro

Sauncho Smilax, Esq

Catherine Haena Kim

News Reporter

Paul Thomas Anderson

Writer

Thomas Pynchon

Writer

Trailer

Featured Picks

Naghahanap pa ng mas maraming entertainment? Tuklasin ang aming recommended gaming hub at short-drama destination.

Instant Games

Gamixo

Maglaro ng casual browser games gaya ng puzzles, cards, sports, at quick challenges sa loob lang ng ilang segundo.

Short Drama

VSKIT Drama

Manood ng trending mini-series, romance stories, at mga bagong short drama na may mabilis na daily updates.

Mga Komento

10 Mga Komento

MastewalwendesenMar 13, 2026

AneelValaMay 27, 2024

Good god this movie was a huge disappointment. I would rather see freaking Taken 3 than this abomination of a film. Such a great cast, pretty promising movie from the trailers. Holy hell what a disaster, though. I did laugh occasionally throughout the film, the 70's era and the idea of Phoenix as Doc could have worked so well. There were some funny parts throughout, but other than that, I wanted to leave this movie the entire time. Aside from occasionally laughing, I had far more "what the *'s?" There are so many things going on that it's not even enjoyable to keep track of. So many pointless names and connections that everyone could care less about. It takes multiple viewings to understand what really went on in the movie, but one sitting was painful enough. I wish I could have returned my ticket after watching because I regret contributing any sort of income to this movie where such great actors could have been making much better use of their time. They could have made this movie great, but PTA ruined it for himself. Not trusting his name for a while now. Jesus this movie p*ssed me off.

BlaqBonezMay 23, 2024

When my friends and I went to the cinema just a few days ago, we didn't know what to expect. I, at least, had heard about Pynchon and knew what kind of an author he was, while my friends, on the other hand, had absolutely no way of knowing what they were getting themselves into. The movie started playing, and for a little while we weren't quite sure what to think. It took some time for us to get into the atmosphere and understand what we were actually dealing with here. Once we got it, we just started laughing. We fell silent. We laughed. And we kept on laughing throughout the film. And when I left the cinema and walked out on the street and took the train home and went to bed, I kept laughing to my self in the darkness. What was I laughing at? I'm not sure, but God damn was it funny. The plot, the dialogue, the acting, the music, the endless amount of new characters, everything about this movie makes a lasting impression. It is a movie in which every scene is memorable. And a movie you can keep on quoting again and again and again for ages with your friends, and still laugh about it. Rather elegantly it avoids jokes of poor taste, and focuses instead on a kind of black humor that will remind you of another time and another place, probably long before you were born. It's not for everyone, I'll admit that. Some people may not like it, and that's OK. But I reckon that this movie will be watched for years by a small but dedicated following. I won't be telling anything about the plot. You'll have to experience that for yourself. So all in all. The humor, the wit, the elegance, in my opinion this movie is an instant cult classic.

❖Mʀ᭄Pardeep ࿐😍May 23, 2024

I have never seen such lengthy reviews as we have of this lengthy film. It makes me suspicious. Why all this protestation? Could it be that you're already apologizing for this-- whatever it is? There is a way to sum up this film: It's a mess. Worse, it's a bore. Possible spoiler alert: Yes, there are occasionally amusing moments in it, notably, in the scene at the institution at which almost everyone our private eye has been interested in turns up. And in an earlier one in which a telephoned informant characterizes one of the characters. I hate to think that Pynchon, whose "V" I really prized, wrote what I saw on-screen. As for this director, I shoulda known. I've had more than misgivings about everything I've seen by him, with the exception of "There Will Be Blood." But there are things which seems to appeal to a particular generation, and this film maker and his films seem to do that. It seems to me that to enjoy this movie, three things are necessary. First,in order to keep the lengthy list of characters in mind,you have to be able to recognize all the celebrities that you know from TV, etc. in the minor or evanescent roles. (See cast list, IMDb) Next, you have to have great faith in the abilities of this director (Faith is a gift). Finally, it seems to be a requirement that you've read the book so that you can mentally supply what isn't there on-screen. It would help if you came in loving it.

선미 SUNMIMay 23, 2024

Now the thing about this film is, it's great. I stood in line for over 2hrs just to see this movie and wow what a pay off! This movie does few things movies do these days and that is be itself. It's this semi-ground breaking cinema that shows Paul Thomas Anderson is not scared to have fun and be serious at the same time and doesn't need to play it safe or do what you expect at the movies and neither is the original writer of the book Thomas Pynchon and boy are they a match! Now most people who see this film and those who won't like it are the same people that probably don't like or have even really read Pynchon, so let's forget about them and accept this for what it is a great film based on a good book by an amazing author. Joaquin phoenix is perfect as Larry Doc Sportello a stoner detective looking into the kidnappers of his ex-girls beau and real estate tycoon Mikey Wolfmann they both apparently just go missing and this leads Doc to a very many colorful character semi stereotypes of the 1960-1970's Era which all seem to center around something known as the golden fang what it is couldn't tell you, but what's apparent in this movie is the dying of a culture and all the things that go in between in late capitalism. Once when there was hope and promise once again now there is greed and control,the film is very deep and sad and romantic in this sense and the fact that no one saw it coming because they were all caught up and confused in smoky haze (as we in the audience are) it's sad because they are losing these hopes and promises, "lost sight of" maybe because of certain vices and only have to look forward to a grim future is what makes this films emotional center. The film kinda takes on the same dimensions as Doc's regular weed habits the funny bits are truly great, Phoenix is great at physical comedy him and Brolin are meant for each other and the other cast members just shine the few minutes when they are on screen honorable mention is Martian Short boy is he wild in this one! All in all this is the best I've seen all year this one defiantly takes some time and repeated viewings but like all great films There Will Be Blood included is worth the effort.

Ngwana modimo🌙🐄May 22, 2024

Inheret vice in a marine insurance policy is anything that you can't avoid. Eggs break, chocolate melts, glass shatters. And Doc wondered what that meant when it applied to ex-old ladies. Inherent vice introduces us to drug-fueled, psychedelic, , ever-changing,70's LA and it's many interesting and interconnected characters. The movie has two main themes – the strange disappearance of Mickey Z. Wolfmann, the local real estate big shot, and the never-ending appearance and doings of a mysterious organization known as the golden fang. Now, the first theme has a direct relation to our antagonist, stoner detective Larry 'Doc' Sportello, who's ex-old lady Shasta, who was at that point Mickey's old-lady, had also disappeared. From this point on every new client that comes through Doc's door seems to be somehow connected to the Wolfmann case. Moreover many leads start to be associated with the golden fang, that nobody quite knows anything about. On top of that, Lt. Bigbfoot Bjornssen and the LAPD appear to have a strange stake in the case too. A nod to the dawn of the free spirited lifestyle of the 60's California, Inherent Vice is truly about something one can't avoid. For Doc it's Shasta Fay. With all of his stoner charm he acts as if in a dream, which always ends with Shasta. For Bigfoot it's the death of his partner and revenge. The renaissance detective has carefully navigated Doc in his own interest, starting from staging the disappearance of Mickey and ending with skillfully feeding Doc information about Prussia. For the golden fang – it's something that –they- can't avoid – dominance, with a subtle reference to the rise of big corporations in the 70's. The golden fang is a heroin cartel that takes things full cycle – they produce, transport (through their boat), distribute (Rudy Blatnoyd(s) and Puck Beaverton(s)), and their biggest front is the institution where such addicts (Coy Harlingten) get brainwashed (Japonica) and institutionalized before they can go out on the streets and score some more – the full cycle. The interesting part is to really think about what moves and motivates Doc. Is it Shasta? Is Doc just genuinely a good person? He ends up helping Coy and Hope in the end without keeping any money to himself, neither does he seems to be really angry at Bigfoot. And this is the beautiful mystery of Inherent Vice, it's none of these reasons, it's just the scene, something Doc can't avoid. Like in a spider web the series of events seem to suck Doc in before he even knows it. Most importantly Inherent Vice is about a gradual end of the free-spirited-piece-and-love era that were the 60's. Hippies are becoming increasingly more suspicious and the bureaucracy is slowly taking hold. Law enforcement are constantly thirsty for blood. We are allowed to witness this decline first-hand through a number of hilarious and vivid characters, Doc's doped out eyes and Newsom's cotton voice. With John Greenwood's remarkable, moody soundtrack, PTA beautifully guides us through this inevitable change, which no one can reinforce, much like Inherent Vice itself.

RajChatwaniMay 22, 2024

Joaquin Phoenix stars with Mutton Chop facial hair that makes him look like he escaped from "Planet of the Apes". Josh Brolin talks tough and eats bananas. Another ape homage? Other big name stars were wasted including Owen Wilson, Benicio Del Toro and Reese Witherspon. It's a period detective drama pretending to be a comedy. As comedy is doesn't work because it is not funny. Perhaps the jokes are too subtle like a printed reference to "Gummo Marx Way". As a crime drama, if they were going for "Chinatown" they didn't come close. The clothes, cars and music do reflect the period. At about two and a half hours, the movie is way too long. How much time do you want to spend with period dopers? It is dialogue driven with plenty of two character conversations. In case you get lost there is a narration by one of the minor characters. This is not a good time at the movies. If you watch it on a home platform you'll flip it off.

Toke MakinwaMay 22, 2024

"Inherent Vice" is the first outright comedy that Paul Thomas Anderson has made and it's only the second film he's made based on someone else's work, (in this case Thomas Pynchon, whose dialogue he has faithfully reproduced). Consequently the film has been somewhat side-lined and underrated so while it may not be "Magnolia", "There Will Be Blood" or "The Master" it is still head and shoulders above anything else out there at the moment. The plot may be virtually impenetrable, (but then who gives a toss about plot these days), yet as a snapshot of a drug-fueled LA in 1970 this is close to priceless. If Anderson was Altman in a previous life then this is his "The Long Goodbye" by way of Howard Hawks' "The Big Sleep". When I said the plot was impenetrable I think I should have said it was more or less irrelevant since it is easily summed up in the opening and then conveniently disappears down a rabbit-hole. 'Doc', (a terrific Joaquin Phoenix), is a spaced-out PI 'hired' by former girl-friend Shasta, (newcomer Katherine Waterston), to track down missing billionaire Michael Wolfmann, (Eric Roberts), whom she believes has been kidnapped by his own wife. He isn't very far into the investigation when he wakes up beside a corpse and finds himself surrounded by the fuzz, chief among whom is one Bigfoot Bjornsen, (a never better Josh Brolin). After that you really need to pay very close attention or just go with the flow as more and more characters slip in and out of the frame and an organization called 'The Golden Fang' begins to loom large. Oh, and I did mention this was a comedy and a very funny one, too. It's the kind of surreal, psychedelic comedy movies don't do these days and in that respect it's another throwback to independent Ameriican movie-making in the seventies. As well as Phoenix and Brolin, both at the top of their game, there is Reese Witherspoon as a promiscuous Assistant DA, an amazing Martin Short as a very peculiar dentist, (and on screen for much too short a time), Owen Wilson as some kind of whistle-blower, (at least I guessed that was what he was), not to mention cameos from the likes of Jeannie Berlin and Jefferson Mays. It's a fun film though it might confound Anderson devotees and anyone who thought him incapable of doing anything other than "The Master" or "Magnolia" and, of course, it looks the part. As well as being a great writer, Anderson has always been a great visual stylist and here DoP Robert Elswit imbues the film with a Vilmos Zsigmond hue. Yes, this is a film that isn't just set in 1970 but which could have been made then, too. It may not be Anderson's best work but it is absolutely essential nevertheless.

Mme 2Rayz❤️May 22, 2024

Thomas Pynchon and Paul Thomas Anderson are a match made in filmmaking heaven. Both work on sprawling canvasses with large cohorts of quirky, well-defined characters. Both have used Los Angeles as a setting, and both know its cultural landscape like the backs of their hands. There's a reason why nobody has made a film adaptation of a Pynchon novel until now. Inherent Vice is one of his shorter, more accessible works, but no less creative, incisive or dense than his longer novels. (If anyone wanted to film V, or Gravity's Rainbow, or Mason and Dixon, a mini-series on HBO lasting 20 or 30 hours would probably be the appropriate format these days. His other short novel, The Crying of Lot 49, would be a great follow-up to this film; another tall tale set in the hills and valleys of Southern California, taking in the defense industry, the police, DaVinci code type machinations decades before The Da Vinci Code, and the entertainment machine.) Here, Joaquin Phoenix has to carry the entire film on his stoned, hairy shoulders, and he does not disappoint. Perhaps too easy a comparison, but Jeff Bridges as The Dude in the Big Lebowski just kept popping into my mind. His Doc Sportello has the distinct advantage in his profession of being constantly underestimated by the goons and crooks around him. Josh Brolin as failed actor, LAPD outcast and flatopped frenemy Bigfoot just can't seem to crush Sportello under his giant shoe. So many other great performers populate this film that come and go in a flash. I wanted to see a lot of more of Marty Short, Reese Witherspoon, Benicio Del Toro and Eric Roberts. But leaving the audience wanting more is always a much better stance than the characters overstaying their welcome. To those who complain about there being too little plot, or even, no plot at all, I must say, you didn't really get it. There is a Hero's Journey here. Doc is given a mission, and does go on a quest of Odyssean proportions. On this Journey, he encounters all kinds of monsters and discovers the failures of Hippie idealism, the triumph of cynical capitalism and the destructive exploitation of the naive in the post-Manson, pre-Watergate early 1970's. But he survives, coming out the other side with his humanity intact, based on what he does for Coy Harlingen. What exactly did he do? No spoilers here, other than to say that after it was all over, I was highly satisfied, even if a few story threads were left hanging. If you're a Pynchon fan, I would anticipate that you would enjoy this, with possibly a few small objections, but overall this is a fantastic piece of film making based on a sublime piece of writing.

danoMay 22, 2024

To watch actors dryly deliver page after page of plot that no one comprehends or is interested in while they imitate the acting style of old Hollywood noir films and stoner comedies is not why I go to the movies. Paul Thomas Anderson is a great filmmaker when he uses his own voice, and thankfully this film is the only exception to that. Unless you're a superhuman, you won't have the memory (or attention span) to understand the plot. It's as if it's deliberately convoluted, like Anderson doesn't want us to know what's going on, or at least doesn't want us to care. Yet this is not the case because of the scenes that dwell on nothing else but dialogue whose only purpose is to read plot to us and maybe put us to sleep. There isn't any character beyond caricature. I don't relate to this Doc character beyond the his relationship with his ex-girlfriend which is the only thing that one can possibly invest emotion into, albeit this is not an emotionally driven story. The characters are supposed to be funny but I just found them bizarre. That being said, there is something about the overall tone and production design of the film that sticks. The meandering nature of the era is there and while we've seen many similar films about the 70s this film is just different. It's ambitious in the way that it's so plain but also strange, only many will have a hard time deciphering between art and bullshit. It's bullshit to me because there wasn't anything for me to take from the film. It was more "this is kind of weird" but to no end. I would not recommend this film to anyone unless you are a cinephile, in which case you just have to see it because it's Paul Thomas Anderson. I feel bad for anyone who naively walks into this film looking for something to enjoy and laugh at. Parts got laughs but they were widely dispersed in a film that just felt like it wouldn't end. Being the fan of Anderson's that I am I feel like this film was a waste of time. Even if you end up liking it (which I personally would not understand) you'll see what I mean.