dissapointing

[Mark Thibodeau]

I didn't much care for it on first view, but I will give it another shot.

I love Joaquin Phoenix as a performer - he's top notch - but he didn't feel
right for Doc to me. In fact, I think another one of the film's stars -
Owen Wilson - would have been better suited to the role.

It all seemed a tad slow and mumbly, not sharp at all - with a few scenes
being exceptions to that rule. I thought Martin Short was great, and the
scene at the Triscelladon (sp?) was well constructed. I kind of missed the
Vegas detour.

I think part of the problem is that the film suffers from a lot of the same
flaws as the novel - the too-on-the-nose coincidences that are supposed to
seem like paranoia coming to life, but which feel like... well, a bunch of
dumb luck coincidences.

In my estimation, IV is Pynchon's lesser work (I prefer Bleeding Edge by a
smidge). So there's that, too, coloring my view.

Jerky

On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Dave Monroe <against.the.dave at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I would have written the equation thus: The Long Goodbye + The Big
> Lebowski = ....
>
> .... until I saw the film.
>
> Nonetheless, I've seen it three times now, and it FEELS like the novel to
> me.
>
> Or, @ any rate, I ha the same feeling reading the novel as I did
> watching the film.
>
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Toby Levy <tobyglevy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes it was great to see the novel in graphic display on a big screen,
> but as
> > a discreet work of art, the film fails on all levels that I measure
> movies.
> > If any objective viewer was to view The Big Lebowski, The Long Goodbye
> and
> > Inherent Vice in short order would know exactly what I am talking about.
> >
> > Toby
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20150111/1eb22659/attachment.html>