Customer Discussions > Movie forum

Is it just me, or was David Lynch's "Inland Empire" complete garbage?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-9 of 9 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 20, 2011 8:49:14 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 20, 2011 8:49:55 AM PDT
Ambulocetus says:
I liked the "Twin Peaks" series (first season) and movie, and I enjoyed Mulholland Drive. I'll put up with a lot of incoherence from a David Lynch film, but "Inland Empire. . . ."

Not so much.

There were some VERY interesting visuals in the film, some nice scenes, and Laura Dern did quite well (unlike a woefully underutilized Jeremy Irons and a what-character-am-I-playing? Justin Theroux), but overall, the movie was three hours of WTF moments and Lynch mannerisms.

I don't mind a bit of mystery and some loose ends in a movie, but I DO like to know that I am watching a MOVIE--and not two years of out-takes and recycled "Rabbits" footage stitched together Frankenstein-style.

Any thoughts?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2011 9:13:53 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 20, 2011 9:17:05 AM PDT
Quexos says:
I wouldn't call it complete garbage, but it was definitely too far out there, even by Lynchian standards. I found it very difficult to follow, which in itself wouldn't be an issue as long as the movie itself was enjoyable or thought-provoking (kinda like Mulholland Dr, Eraserhead, and Lost Highway)...but this time it just seemed too dense, as if he had filmed disparate elements and then tried to force them all together without a coherent approach (the Frankenstein-style you mentioned). Of course I could be missing something- but at a running time of 3 hours, I don't think I'll go looking for it anytime soon.

(and on a side note, if you're going to feature Naomi Watts in a movie- even if its for a couple of minutes- please don't obscure her inside a full body rabbit suit)

Posted on Jun 20, 2011 9:17:47 AM PDT
D. Larson says:
Is it just me, or was David Lynch's "Inland Empire" complete garbage?

Nah, it's just you.

Actually, I've never seen it. I don't know anybody who's ever seen it. I have absolutely nothing to contribute to any intelligent conversation about it.

I'm just really bored and waiting for friends to stop by my cuboid and we'll go out for lunch instead of eating microwave in the lunchroom.

And that, I submit, is a truly Lynchian scenario. He could make a movie about just that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2011 9:27:03 AM PDT
Lynch will never top 'Blue Velvet'. Never. 'Mullholland Drive' and the 'Twin Peaks' TV series were both very, very good (and 'Wild at Heart' is OK), but 'Blue Velvet' is a demented masterpiece. Dennis Hopper's performance, as disturbing as it is, is still classic.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2011 10:41:09 AM PDT
It was a complete waste of 15 minutes, which is all I could give it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2011 12:13:13 PM PDT
It blows.

Posted on Jun 20, 2011 12:18:51 PM PDT
You Lie!

It's a great movie, but I saw it in the cinema not on video. I don't think it has the same impact on video, but the last thirty minutes of it terrified me and the audience I watched it with. It's def not Twin Peaks or Blue Velvet though.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2011 11:17:40 AM PDT
Ambulocetus says:
You may have a point. Having to watch it STRAIGHT THROUGH while sitting in a theater must be a very different experience than watching it on video.

I get the sense that the film is kind of like a thinking person's "Green Lantern." People who go to movies for an engaging story, fascinating and complex characters, skilled acting, thought-provoking situations, etc. thought "Green Lantern was an abomination. Those who go to movies for perceptual excitation--explosions, loud noises, cool CGI, etc.--thought it was great.

In the same way, "Inland Empire" works for people who like COGNITIVE pyrotechnics--scenes and situations which trigger complex cascades of ideas about slippery and abstruse topics--but not so much for people who came to see a FILM.

I can go for either kind of pyrotechnics, but at three hours long, I at LEAST expect adequate performances from the supporting cast and SOME kind of coherence, however challenging to find and/or provisional.

Posted on Jun 23, 2011 6:17:47 PM PDT
PlanetHell says:
David Lynch should stop hallucinating and actually make a movie. He hasn't done since his very early days.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  8
Total posts:  9
Initial post:  Jun 20, 2011
Latest post:  Jun 23, 2011

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions