I like Paul Thomas Anderson films; at least I’m pretty sure I do. I like all the characters in this movie, particularly Alana Kane (Alana Haim). I was legitimately entertained. I’m not sure I liked this film, though.
Licorice Pizza unfolds almost episodically, although no hint is ever given that this is intentional. Protagonists Gary Valentine (Cooper Hoffman) and Alana Kane find themselves in one wacky predicament after the other, escape in a comedic way, and come back and do it again next week. The passage of time in this movie is almost irrelevant, except thats it ends up being crucial in its nebulousness during the final act. Like a TV sitcom, it’s never really explained how our characters get from one situation to the next. We just kind of accept it because we enjoy the characters. Trouble is, this is less acceptable in a narrative film. At least three times during the film, I wondered how everyone got where they were and filled in the blanks myself, with both timeline and story.
But…the characters are great. Gary seems off-putting at first, but he grew on me, at about the same rate that he grew on Alana. He’s a hustler, but not a charlatan. He’s a child actor, wealthy, but not born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He’s overconfident, like any 15 year-old would be, but also a try-hard. His ambition is not a turn-off, but an admirable quirk. Alana Kane is one of my favorite female characters I’ve seen in a while; she transforms from a sheltered, slightly insecure, rudderless homebody into the Hollywood Butterfly of cool indie chick who changes the boy for the better. She does this without ever being annoying, which is quite a feat when dealing with this particular trope. Not only was I rooting for her, she inspired a minor crush. Speaking of tropes, Anderson nails the Jewish family trope fairly accurately, without resorting to plucking the low hanging fruit (not a word of yiddish is spoken). The same cannot be said of John Michael Higgins’ Jerry Frick and his Japanese wives. Deeply unfunny, and recurring, at that? A bad choice that falls at the feet of the director. Bradley Cooper and Harriet Sansom Harris are scene-stealers during their “episodes”, and there are not many scenes in any film that are as epic and head-scratching as Sean Penn’s time on screen with Tom Waits. Two renaissance men, indeed.
All of this is true. There is some phenomenal stuff in this movie. I still felt dissatisfied at the end. The plot just isn’t much to get excited about. As fun as the characters are, they never face a situation that demands anything of them, so I didn’t feel very invested in them. Gary has no moment of self-reflection, and faces no adversity that money (which he has plenty of) can’t solve. The whole cast is fun to watch, but I didn’t really care about them.
Oh yeah, and that ending. Are we really meant to root for this? An odd choice. I get that it’s the 1970s. I realize things happened in the 1970s that are frowned upon now, and I even understand portraying things that 21st century sensibilities may be squeamish about in a film, but portraying it in a way that implies I should root for it? Flipping the genders around does not make it more acceptable.
Final score: 5.5 out of 10. I want to give it a 6, but that’s too close to 7.
Now, with Licorice Pizza under my belt, I have viewed the entirety of P.T. Anderson’s film library (not including his early short films like The Dirk Diggler Story). I considered him a favorite director for a long time. I adore Boogie Nights, Magnolia and Punch Drunk Love: absolute cinematic perfection. I’m less crazy about his other work, including a sacrilegious opinion on There Will Be Blood. I didn’t think much of The Master and couldn’t wait for Phantom Thread to end. Inherent Vice is on my list to rewatch, as I feel like I’m not remembering it accurately. Anderson is currently working on another film, due in August of 2025. I’ll watch it, of course. As of now, I’ll say this about PTA’s films: he could use an editor. Keep it to 90-100 minutes.
A Fool Speaks Loudest 