Customer Reviews

David Lynch's Inland Empire (Limited Edition Two-Disc Set)

5 star:		(89)
4 star:		(26)
3 star:		(20)
2 star:		(19)
1 star:		(20)

 

 

`Inland Empire' is full of surprises. Convoluted and suspenseful we follow the story lines of successful actress Nikki (Laura Dern) who is waiting for the results of a tryout for a new Hollywood movie, `On High in Blue Tomorrows`. Soon she is visited by her new Polish immigrant neighbor. In her nosey way she pries information, but also intensely warns her of bad omens. She foretells that Nikki will obtain the part she has tried out for, but the story, is a remake and a murder will take place. She intensely relates folk tales, including one about a girl at the marketplace in an alley behind the palace who loses her memory. "Forgetfulness happens to us all," she relates. She also incessantly speaks of "unpaid bills" in a scathing fashion. Rebuffing the neighbor's pointed comments, the actress asks the suspicious elderly woman to leave.

The movie fast-forwards to the next day as the woman foretells in the narration. The gypsy fades out with a vengeance. Nikki gets the part, and on the set we meet Devon (Justin Theroux), her dashing, handsome co-star. The director (Jeremy Irons) facilitates a script reading where he relates that the film is indeed a remake; one where a murder took place and was allegedly cursed from the start.

From here the movie weaves its way through many scenes. Nikki's husband warns the young co-star of the consequences of sneaking out with his actress wife. Some feature Southern characters Billy and Sue in the movie, but they are so closely connected to their actual lives that we begin to lose our own grip on reality. Eerily suspenseful scenes show (Nikki or Sue) walking through a house in bewildered trepidation. Then, we are transported to the lives of the screen couple in the backyard. Next, we find them in Poland during the dead of winter. In one scene the actors are having an affair; in another the characters are. To spice things up, we get a play with actors in rabbit costumes performing an absurdist comedy. At certain points, just when we feel grounded, a woman is watching all the drama on television in her dark apartment.

The developments of `Inland Empire' are intriguing. Like `French Lieutenant's Woman' (significantly also with Jeremy Irons) there's a movie story mixed within a real story. Unlike `FLW' it isn't easy to tell where one story ends and the other begins. In ways like Altman's `The Player,' we have to decide what components are real and which are not. One finds oneself asking many questions while watching the movie. Which parts are from the movie? Which parts are real life? Are the scenes in Poland real or are they components of the original film? Is this all seen through a viewer's eyes or is it all part of the movie? Is she crazy or is her character crazy? Surely, the theme of misogyny is at the forefront as we come across prostitutes and male abuse. Not to mention the claustrophobic fishbowl existence of celebrity life. One thing is for certain, the movie is assembled expertly. It comes across like a mansion full of mirrors--like a fun/haunted house. Not everyone will like the exit strategy (Afterall, who likes hitting the pavement after a funhouse?) but it certainly provides a strange and intense experience.

With Inland Empire, (and I must add Mulholland Drive too), David Lynch, I suspect, has begun to turn inward, most likely mirroring the bizarre twisted view he has of Hollywood. He shows the Hollywood sign almost right away. I am sure to some extent he sees this word on a day to day basis, meeting big phony types, muscle with money, burnt out old stars, pretty boys, nymphs, foreigners, empty sound stages, lame lunch meetings, half baked projects, empty mansions with nothing going on, and all the horrid, strange people met and absorbed on that filthy rich littered landscape. Take all this, and twist it up, pull it, heat it, and mirror it upon itself, upside down and backwards through the Lynch mind and you have Inland Empire.

To say it was either good or bad would be doing the film an injustice. David Lynch's films have become so enigmatic, this one in particular, that to give a yay or nay nod to the film would be to feign some sort of rudimentary understanding of it. I suspect Lynch himself knows no more what he is doing than any of us do, say, when we are asleep, deep in dreams, floating in the abyss of our minds collective soup. This is not a bad thing it's just become surrealism, pure and simple. This is a surrealist film. It cannot be judged as most films are. It stands, pretty much, outside the scope of what I mostly see. I enjoy the change I assure you. Yet the film does not register with me as most films do. This film floats.

One part even seems culled from an old Abbot & Costello routine with Irons telling Bucky to move it down while Bucky comically moves it up.

Other parts, with actors from his other films seem almost as if they have spilled right out of those Lynch movies as real/imagined actors moving on to appear in Inland Empire, as fictional versions of themselves. The recognizable faces such as Dern & Irons only help to remind me I am watching a made up film. I found it hard to lose myself in this. This is often the case with recognizable talent where little or nothing is done to make their People Magazine, normal, every day faces look different. I suspect this was intentional. Still anyone's guess is as good as mine. Lynch has just become so esoteric that reviewing this film on acid would probably get one better results.

It's worth seeing, and more than once for sure. Is it worth loving? For me, the verdict is still out. Sometimes films need a few decades to cook in my mind before they gel into something my unconscious starts to desire all on its own.

I strongly disagree with the person who says this movie has no plot. I just think it takes mental effort to stay focused and understand it. I have only seen it once so far, and quite frankly I was fading out during the last hour, so I def. need to watch it again, but it did make a lot of sense to me. I'm sure it will make sense in a different way to someone else.

The movie is pretty staightforward until the scene where Laura is having a romantic moment with her movie costar. She tells him "This is just like a scene from the movie." and then realizes that the cameras are rolling, and gets disoriented. At this point the move really breaks from the reality thus far, which I appreciated since that moment was so awkward and tense.

The rest is very dreamlike. I have always thought that Eraserhead is the closest representation to my dreams than anything else in real life, and this picks up on that a bit. We see some of Nikki's dreams, where I believe she is dreaming about her lover's old flings all in one room. Her story runs parallel to the actors who tried to film this movie in Poland and died during filming, and their story is shown a bit. The male actor dies later on, which I had been anticipating. We also see the story that the woman told in the beginning panning out.

It is confusing and I need to watch it again. I highly recommend watching it in the theatre first since Mr. Lynch is aware of his theatre audience and plays of off this. There are points of it that may never make sense to me, and some storylines that I don't quite see how they fit in. But I figure if I can anticipate events before they occur then it can't make no sense. This is a movie I feel I could talk about for hours, if only someone was willing to talk about it with me. It is quite an experience, I love the cinematography, the intense close-ups, the dark colors, the actors. I enjoy taking something to think about away from it.

A great movie.

Some very interesting theories in the Discussions Section on this film. Which is what prompted this review.

Finally, for me at least, a cohesive and coherent Lynch film.

**************SPOILER**************

Detailed metaphors, symbols, and Mcguffins (or my lack of catching all the symbolism) aside, here's what I took away from this film upon my initial viewing: The film is simply about a woman forced to relive her brutal murder over and over again under the theory of eternal recurrence for her egotistical karma and harmful infidelities. (Eternal recurrence is an archaic and Nietzschean concept. Woody Allen made a joke about this theory in HANNAH AND HER SISTERS. "Great, now I'll have to sit through the Ice Capades again.")

Allow me to preface my theory about this film by saying: from what we have learned from ancient Eastern thought and physics, time is not a linear event. The concept of time is temporal and subjective. It is possible that multiple timelines may co-exist as a singular event. In "eternal recurrence," the same existence or life is played out over and over again thru time. In Hindu religions it's expressed as the Wheel of Time. Nikki Grace is trapped by her karma or by The Karmic Wheel of Time. According to Eastern doctrines, we all are. Birth, death, and rebirth. Samsara. The only escape according to some Eastern philosophies is thru enlightenment, by paying for that karma ("a past-due bill"), or by altering it. Or, by some other Lynchean shift in consciousness. The Phantom, or Crimp, represents Nikki's "animus" (The masculine inner personality of a female in Jungian psychology.) or her evil karma. Nikki is warned of her Phantom personality or karma by the old gypsy woman at the beginning, "evil was born and followed the boy." Only when Nikki finally kills the Phantom, or her adulterous evil twin, can she free herself from her eternal karma. Free herself from the endless cycle of birth and death. Become enlightened. The Crying Girl (credited as The Lost Girl) represents Nikki in her latest incarnation on The Karmic Wheel of Time, watching her karma and her numerous nightmare lives unfold on TV right before her eyes. The death of The Phantom, or the cleansing of her filthy karma, frees Nikki from the trappings of time and ego, while also freeing Nikki in her current incarnation as The Crying Girl. She has broken her evil karma which allows her, as The Crying Girl, to finally achieve marital bliss, children, and karmic happiness. By the end, Nikki has changed her karma. That's it, in a Lynchean nutshell.

(During my second viewing of the film, I realized that Nikki initiates her evil karma in a past life by murdering her husband and his lover, for which she must suffer karmic payment for her own infidelities by being murdered in a similar fashion during future incarnations.)

********************************

Certainly valid, if one considers Lynch's adherence to Eastern Vedic thought, philosophy, and meditation. Lynch even quotes the Upanishads in the DVD extras.

The Rabbits are the coolest concept Lynch has come up with in a very long time. Awesome and hypnotic. Like a Magritte painting. Mind blowing to say the least. Would love to see this flick on shrooms. To me, the Rabbits represent the karmic materialistic trappings of ego. Samsara. Or, eternal Hell on Earth. If only Lynch had had the temerity to linger on the static images of them for a much longer time in the film. They are macabre. (You can find some 6 to 8 minute episodes on YouTube. Unfortunately, they were not included on the Bonus Disc.) Everyone else's interpretation about this film and the Rabbits is wholly valid. What a cool flick. My hope is that, after spending more time with it, I may see it as a Masterpiece.

Not being a fan of MD or LH by any means, I had given up on Lynch. (The only reason I rented IE is because I was intrigued by the trailer.) So, I have no idea how this narrative is applied to MD. In my opinion this is his best film since WAH and FWWM.

Even though I understand the aesthetic that Lynch was going for with this piece, I only wish he would have used real film, maybe a better digital camera, or brought the film more into focus. I also wish he had used better ambient lighting in certain shots. This film was far too dark in places when it wasn't necessary. The soft dirty focus, vignetting, and fisheyed close-ups were a distraction at times, and played a large part in almost annihilating my full enjoyment of this film. IMO, this was an unnecessary device to exhibit Lynchean dreamtime. However, I may change my opinions about this after subsequent viewings. My theory is that the entire narrative takes place in dreamtime. (Parts of the film were too grounded in reality for dream narrative. I actually wish it had been a little bit more cryptic.) For the entire film to be in soft focus to simulate dreamtime, puts a very big demand upon a modern viewer. I feel that his use of music and his Lynchean set pieces are all that are ever needed to present his inner dreamworlds. However, it is his painting, not mine. (The scratchy phonograph needle that was used to represent one of Nikki's past lives was a nice touch.) I do love the raw grainy look of old film. It's like dragging a dry oil paint brush across a canvas so that the texture of the painting surface shows thru. But, I feel that it's very easy to get carried away with the newer medium of digital tape. Unfortunately, Lynch says he'll never use real film again. Too bad. :(

Aside from being a dreamscape, comparisons to ERASERHEAD are baffling to me. This piece wasn't quite on the same level as ERASERHEAD (is anything?), but it is a very fine Lynch film, none the less. Past reviewers that complained about the "editorial sloppiness" are way off base about this film. IMO, every scene is crucial to the narrative. Nothing was extraneous. (As a matter of fact, I felt that a few scenes adding more clues about The Phantom were needed.) The film is ponderous at times for the average viewer, but the 3 hour running time moved by very quickly for me.

All of the music cues Lynch utilized for this piece were excellent, including his own compositions. I'm especially partial to his ambient music and The Rabbits' theme. Most excellent.

Everything you've heard is right on the money, Laura Dern IS truly amazing in this. A very giving performance. (In some of her scenes, she looks so much like her mother Diane Ladd, it's eerie.)

INLAND EMPIRE indeed.

The DVD extras are great. Over an hour of extra footage, most of which was not necessary to the narrative and was rightly cut. His interview is shorter than the one on the ERASERHEAD DVD, but he seemed more prepared and relaxed in this interview. I love his thoughts on music and the importance of proper theater and home theater equipment for the purpose of achieving the full intent of the artist's vision during playback. (One of my pet peeves are friends that insist on watching films on computer monitors.) Lynch goes off on people that watch films on computers and cell phones. He gets angry and very sad by the use of technology and its trend towards the "putrification" of this artform. (Lynch, I feel your pain, man.) Watching him work behind the scenes was very cool. Because his signature technique is mood, I've always had the feeling that Lynch was very meticulous and demanding in his direction to his actors, and it shows here. "Anyone need some Fixall?" Great stuff!

Now, if we could just get Lynch to film a true biography on Francis Bacon, everything would be right with the world. Or, at least right with the Lynchean Universe.

Signed,

An ex-Lynchead that is intrigued by Lynch again.

I managed to catch this film just before it finished its brief run at a local theater here in Chicago, and I'm so glad I made the trip. I can't say that I know what the movie is about, and I have to be honest: I don't care (though I enjoy reading the different perspectives among filmgoers who DO have their ideas on what it's really about). If the purpose of a good film or piece of music is to provoke an emotional response out of the viewer/listener, then "Inland Empire" achieved this in spades, and this makes it a terrific film in my view. I was fully riveted for all three hours and was not bored for one single minute. And it's unlike any film I've ever seen before.

I'll concede right away it's not for everyone - but I truly believe it to be something special and really love it. Laura Dern's performance is something else, and I can't think of another well-known American actress who would be bold enough to approach a role like this (though Julianne Moore comes to mind), much less put their trust in Lynch as Dern does here, and has done so before.

And though this is in digital video, I still found it to be filmed in a rich kind of way. Not sumptuous like "Mulholland Drive" (probably my favorite Lynch film of all), but still with the same care I believe Lynch puts into any of his films. The use of sound is great too. Also, though I read in a local film review about one scene where "you'll want to scream...you probably will", I was still not prepared for the impact. I actually thought I'd already seen the moment in question, but was I ever wrong! When it did happen, I was frozen in my seat - a really frightening combination of sound and image that's hard to get out of your head.

I still think about this movie every day or so - it really stays with you. Again, not for everybody, not by a longshot. But so glad I saw it and look forward to viewing it again at home.

Plot: This is the wrong idea to start from as it's possible to write a thesis on the various interpretations of the film. Anyway here's my take on it.

Like Mulholland Drive this is a dreamscape told symbolically via Hollywood, with all of the attendant illusion and memory. A projector leads us to the inland empire (the internal world of the mind--here a sleeping mind very much as in Finnegans Wake) to replay incidents from the life and violently derailed marriage of a woman seen from different angles as she sleeps. She's a whore, a killer, a betrayer, a wreck, a liar, and an `actress' both haunting and berating herself. On the way Lynch plays with coded themes--the Axxon N references (axons in the brain with the added X and N mathematical symbols for multiplication and factoring, i.e., the endlessly complex mind dividing ceaselessly back into itself), the carefully buried yet clearly evident sexuality of the human-form rabbits (as in "breeding like rabbits") in their weird stilted sit-com with their secrets and problems of identity, the stories within stories that smack of the imagination, the dislocations of time and space which do the same, the artifice/uncertainty of the settings, the need to defeat an illusive `phantom' and the probing camera (the restless eye more as an I) which is always there just behind the scenes. Finally there is the symbolic death and self-reconciliation which seem to have become key Lynchian themes, plus the big clunking subconscious-heavy reference (sawing wood as the cliché for snoring/dreaming) as a tip-off in case you didn't get it.

On a second viewing I felt like setting-up a help group for the people who were probably wrong about Lynch's artistic motivations for creating this movie--before promptly signing myself into it. In any case, noting that the relatively straightforward Mulholland Drive had puzzled much of its audience, I think any group of that kind would oversubscribe in seconds.

Inland Empire is deliberately irrational and determinedly non-linear so if you're not prepared to give it enough time, and spend some effort spinning theories, then just don't bother. You'll probably hate it with a passion.

Cast: A welcome return for some of Lynch's regulars and semi-regulars, along with brilliant character portraits from first timers. There is no doubt this is Laura Dern's best performance and the film would be a complete mess without her.

Imagery: The most striking in all of his work. Although the lack of polished 35mm sometimes counts against him, Lynch has turned the digital process into something uniquely beautiful and/or terrifying. The scenes in which people fade-in or suddenly disappear, as if in a dream, are magnificent. The sudden bursts of colour are equally dazzling and some of the computer manipulations are 18-cert disturbing.

Lynchisms: The entire film is one long Lynchian carnival. If you know his cinema then you'll be busy spotting references to Blue Velvet, Twin Peaks, Mulholland Drive, Wild At Heart, Eraserhead, The Straight Story and (sadly) Lost Highway. For real Lynch aficionados there are also the above mentioned inclusions of Rabbits and references to Axxon N, which were previously limited to online subscription. Likewise the dialogue is Pinter via Days Of Our Lives and the shifting timeframe is pure 2001--there's even the same kind of Louis XVI furniture and bits of a very popular Kubrick horror score.

Rating: Inland Empire is not Lynch's best film. It suffers from a lack of editorial control and is at times sloppy and self-indulgent. In a similarly negative vein, the entire project wobbles dangerously close to being weird and difficult just for the sake of it. As Lynch had already done this with his clunker Lost Highway, the hope was that he'd learned his lesson. IMO at least the Straight Story and Mulholland Drive seemed to show that he'd regained the disciplined mind of an artist and not that of an over coddled ego let loose to create a mess. Plus there is quite a bit of Transcendental Meditation in here, and despite what Lynch says he is fronting for a cult.

The plus sides, however, are thoroughly rewarding and Inland Empire should not be missed. For three solid hours it plays as one of the most disorientating, hallucinogenic experiences that you'll ever see. It's so honestly mentally invasive that you'll end-up dreaming sections of it...I just hope they're the pleasant ones. I never want to relive that endless house again. Nor do I want to cross the backdrop of an empty soundstage while ripping the sheets off my bed looking for an exit.

In summary: If Lynch has decided to go hell-for-leather after his own brand of weird visions then good for him--even if it turns out to be a mistake and his career closes with Lost Highway 10. If that's what he finally shuffles away with then I'll still respect the man as he's earned my loyalty.

My only concern is the inclusion of increasing references to TM in Lynch's work, as it has the kind of dark reputation which befits its brand of pseudo-scientific nonsense. My advice is to take a meme inoculation before accepting Lynch's PR role and look instead to his artistic foundations. You probably came for those anyway, and not for some deluded sales pitch on behalf of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

The thing I don't understand about most people is that they say the films of David Lynch are impossible to understand. If you watch and pay attention, not everything is going to necessarily make perfect sense, but you're going to get the jist of what he's trying to do.

In this brilliant new film (certainly as good as, if not better, than "Mulholland Drive" in many ways), Laura Dern gives on the most terrifying performances I have ever seen as promising, beautiful actress Nikki Grace/ a low income, degraded, hideous woman who has nowhere to go.
If you want an idea of the kind of non-linear, angst-ridden surreality you're in for, here's an example:

about a half an hour of the film is devoted to Susan, not Nikki's, plight with a group of prostitutes, some looking like Hollywood stars and others
like crack addicts. She is stabbed by her Polish husband in the cursed film. Bleeding to death on the Hollywood strip all over the "stars", a homeless black woman says: "You're dyin', lady". Then a Japanese girl speaks in her native language--while Dern's schizoid character is dying--about a bus going to somewhere else in Hollywood. This takes about five minutes. Then the black woman holds up a lighter and says to Dern: "Sometimes we die, is all. Here. You see this light? You won't see no blue when you wake up." Then Jeremy Irons bursts in with his megaphone screaming "Bravo! Smashing cut!"

Either Nikki was never Nikki or she was Nikki and became Susan once she prostituted herself for Devon. Or Susan fantasized about being Nikki. In any case, this is schizoid identity crisis in the extreme, but more than that a very nicely placed punch on the nose of Hollywood itself: as in "MH", he portrays most actors and actresses as elitist snobs who are amazingly empty and superficial apart from their roles, wrought with hanger ons and arrogant directors. I don't know if this is Lynch's conspiratorial, paranoid fantasy about Hollywood or how it actually is. This movie is brilliant, exciting, terrifying, and simply enjoyable all the way around. Art. Lynch continues to transcend himself.

Watch out for the Polish lady!

"We are like the spider.
We weave our life and then move along in it.
We are like the dreamer
who dreams and then lives in the dream.
This is true for the entire universe."

These were the opening words that Lynch spoke during his introduction for INLAND EMPIRE at various theaters around the county in early 2007. If we are willing to trust Lynch's choice of words, this quote from the Upanishads opens a small window into the world of this film. Admiring any artists' work, requires a certain amount of trust in the artist. Their job is to ask questions (through their work) and our job is to verify what is true for ourselves. But that process is not necessarily a linear or an intellectual one. Such is the case with INLAND EMPIRE's complex meta-physical web. I consider this film to be a 21st century Alice in (a) wonderland (of hell). And in this film, hungry ghosts abound.

Having read the Amazon reviews, I wanted to take mine in a slight different direction. Not since Eraserhead has Lynch had the artistic license and freedom to create a film so free of typical constraints. In this sense, this is his most "uncompromising" film yet. Having evolved further as a filmmaker, he has established his own distinct palette of colors from which to work. There is a good deal of continuity from one project to another and these qualities can be a clue as to the enigma that is INLAND EMPIRE. Lynch has described that some ideas for this latest endeavor had been with him for several years. This would suggest that there is a definite bridge between this and MULHOLLAND DRIVE. There are striking similarities.

Despite our human nature to try to make sense of unfamiliar territory, Lynch is not only aware of this natural tendency, but not interested in explanations. His job is to create something very visceral within the narrative of a story infused by the world of ideals. This is what makes his work so damn challenging - we are so busy hanging on to "rationality," we undervalue intuition and our ability to sense what we experience. It is also a testament to the many levels on which Lynch's films work. Rather than grasping at any "meaning" that may (or may not) be there, it is interesting to see how far we, as viewers, can allow ourselves to be absorbed into what we are seeing and experiencing. Lynch's ability to lay out very effective ground rules is what elevates his work into the realm of Hitchcock, Bunuel, Fellini, and others. And like a Buddhist sand mandala, what appears to be a flat one dimensional thing, turns out to be multi-dimensional house of many mansions. Lynch films are not for the passive.

I would have to echo the sentiment that Lynch's work, does not have a "center" or a set "reality," in a typical sense. Not taking this into account and trying to "figure out" meaning, if not fun for some, will be very frustrating for others. As is often the case, it is here that much unjustified criticism is leveled at Lynch ("weird for weirds sake") - which totally ignores the extraordinary thing he his doing cinematically. There are deep places he wishes to take the audience and therefore it is important to understand that in a Lynch film, the only reality is the fact that he made a film and that there is an audience in the theater watching it. Beyond that, as in the dream world, you are on your own.

When I first saw INLAND EMPIRE, I knew it was going to be a long movie, and I accepted the fact that I was about to pay money and, as if I was attending a carnival, going to be taken on a little ride (in tandem with a few thousand companions). Before I knew it, the ride was over and I found myself walking out of the theater, a little disoriented and wondering what the hell I just experienced. Woman in trouble, indeed. Amazing film. As Lynch has said: "...there is the story and then there is the way a story is told..."

Uncharacteristically, there are about 40 DVD "chapter stops," throughout the feature - though there is no menu nor are these stops named. Perhaps it was done because the film is almost 3 hours in duration, but Lynch addresses this issue during one of the interviews on the second disc. It seems that he has shifted his position on the matter and in doing so created these "stops" in the least obnoxious way possible. Also interesting to note is that there are at least 3 different cover artwork designs available. Just what we need: more doppelgangers! And some editions of the DVD come with a reproduction of the black and white INLAND EMPIRE movie poster.

While premiering INLAND EMPIRE, Lynch spoke about what we could expect in terms of a DVD release mentioning that it was going to be fun and include some really great things. This is certainly the case!

Extra features include an additional 211 minutes:
"Lynch 2" - behind the scenes w/Lynch directing INLAND EMPIRE,
Short film titled "Ballerina,"
Additional character experiences titled "More Things That Happened" which seems to be "deleted" or extra scenes - total duration: 74 minutes,
Three theatrical trailers,
Lynch sharing a few "Stories,"
A 73 photo stills gallery,
and Lynch demonstrating his very own quinoa recipe!

Beautiful.

Oh yes - on a lighter note and contributing one of the films more hilarious scenes, look for Lynch voicing the inept stage hand "Bucky."
Vintage Lynch humor.

In an 1817 letter, John Keats coined the term negative capability, referring to "when man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts without any irritable reaching after fact & reason." David Lynch's films have always espoused this idea--part of what makes his work distinctive is that it always leaves something to the imagination of the audience--but not since 1977's Eraserhead has one of his films embodied it so fully. At the end of its epic three hour running time, INLAND EMPIRE will either leave one in complete awe or utterly confused, depending on the viewer's particular temperament.

The first hour of the film centers around an actress named Nikki Grace (Laura Dern), who's just landed a role opposite hearthrob Devon Berk (Justin Theroux) in what director Kingsly (Jeremy Irons) assures them will be a star-maker. Things begin to go awry when Kingsly's assistant Freddy (Harry Dean Stanton) discovers that their film is a remake of a Polish production that was never finished--its leads were brutally murdered as part of a curse on the story's origins in gypsy folklore. As filming progresses, lines blur further and further between Nikki herself and Sue, the unfaithful woman she plays, until all hold on reality is lost and Nikki (along with the audience) is plunged into a nightmarish multiple reality. Throw in some anthropomorphic rabbits, a gaggle of prostitutes, a group of circus performers, and a man with mysterious hypnotic powers, and one starts to get an idea of how far this is from conventional cinema.

In many ways, IE seems a kind of evil twin to its predecessor, 2001's Mulholland Drive; both films center on troubled actresses, shifting identities and the fractured nature of the Hollywood dream machine. However, the approach between the two is starkly different. MD's dreamlike world is a function of its puzzle-box mystery plotline, intricately designed to unlock itself once the viewer uncovers the correct keys. IE, on the other hand, stands as more of a web of vignettes interconnected by characters and themes and operating on a more instinctual rather than intellectual level to reveal itself. This contrast is largely a function of the way the two films present themselves; MD explored the lush, stylized flavor of noir filmmaking, where IE, with its handheld camera movements, lower-quality digital video and jumpy sound design (this movie plays the quiet-loud game very effectively) delves into the grittier, more visceral aspects of the genre.

Lynch's flights of style are balanced out by Laura Dern's performance, which helps anchor the vague dreaminess of the film. She embodies at least three different characters, or different identities of the same character perhaps, with masterful ability, flowing from naive to horrified to vicious (among many other modes) with an unrivaled smoothness. Even if one can't get past the director's oddities, it's not hard to understand why he campaigned (with a cow, no less) for an Oscar nomination for his lead actress. Although none of the other actors have the range or screen time she's afforded here, the rest of the cast tackles their roles with aplomb also, eg: Irons's slightly smug undertone beneath his character's enthusiastic affability, or the low-key brattiness Theroux invests into his character(s) perfectly.

Of course, that all still leaves open the question of whether or not INLAND EMPIRE is a good movie. Reviews and reactions have been clearly divisive--this is a "love it or hate it" movie if there ever was one--however, I would have to answer yes. I'm comfortable saying that for two main reasons. First, because of the arresting imagery; the transposed face on the mysterious phantom, or the jealous "Smithy's" burning blue eyes in the dark (just two of many examples) are some of the most disturbing and vivid moments in 21st century cinema. Second, because IE walks a fine line by requiring something from the audience while still giving back a certain amount of credit. There's enough within the film that it does hold together in an abstract way, rather than being a pointless exercise in avant-garde elitism, yet it's also a challenging, often frustrating endeavor, with gaps left to be filled in by the viewer's reactions, emotions and questions.

If one is comfortable with that negative space, IE comes highly recommended. If not, there's never a dearth of more mainstream, approachable films out there.

More David Lynch dreamlike incomprehensibility, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Not everything, after all, has to be approached or understood on a rational, "mainstream narrative" basis. But unlike Mr. Lynch's "Mulholland Drive", which had two beautiful actresses, occasional stretches of regular storytelling, and (let's be honest) generous amounts of firing-on-all-cylinders erotic content to make all the surrealism go down easier, "Inland Empire" offers only murky cinematography, dreary eastern European locales, and yet another repeat of that old Lynch stand-by, the ol' "one character all of a sudden becoming another character" thing. And it's all wrapped in a whopping-long running time of two hours and fifty-nine minutes.

The movie isn't worthless. It's laced with intense acting, effective moments of creepiness, and the kind of weirdness only David Lynch could create (the sitcom rabbit people take the cake here on that score). But, in the end, the movie is just too long and too dull, at least for my tastes. I can take anything as long as it isn't boring, and alas, too many long stretches of "Inland Empire" are boring.

The DVD is not un-generous, however. Disc two redeems the proceedings a bit. While the ample deleted scenes ("more things that happened") did nothing for me, I enjoyed the various features highlighting Mr. Lynch himself: he tells stories, runs around on the set of "Inland Empire" interacting with his cast and crew, and even shares with us a recipe for one of his favorite quick meals. All fun, all engaging, and- most importantly- decidedly NOT boring.

I'd give the DVD as a whole a "soft recommendation", but only if one has a, well... soft spot for David Lynch. But the movie itself barely gets the two-star rating I selected. I'll say it again: there's no worse sin in the world of arts & entertainment than being boring!