Title: Inland Empire Post by: Grimwell on June 13, 2009, 12:30:18 PM I know David Lynch can be a mixed bag of good and WTF? and went into this movie expecting something odd but also quirky and interesting. I've enjoyed his work in the past, I should be able to get something entertaining out of this right?
No. For three fucking hours NO. Don't do it. Don't hang in there hoping for something to drive it all home and bring the quirky value. This is Lynch masturbating in your face for three hours. You are uncomfortable with it, but by the time you get to the end you are just hopeful that he will blow his load and deliver something, anyfuckingthing -- you are so worn out with the act that you aren't even disgusted that it's pointed at you and ready to go. Then he just shoves it in his pants and walks away. No. Waste of time and talent. Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: ashrik on June 14, 2009, 02:20:11 AM This is Lynch masturbating in your faces I saw Mulholland Drive about 17-ish(?), and I arrived at this near irremovable conclusion for all of Lynch's works. I went to the NY film festival with the same friend who introduced me to MD, in order to see Pan's Labyrinth, but declined to go on the day in which Inland Empire was airing. I refused to believe that he was nothing but a pretentious prick for film students and vaguely European people to convince themselves to love. I feel as if I'm somewhat more opened minded at 23, is there anything of his works that I might appreciate?Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: pxib on June 14, 2009, 03:24:06 AM David Lynch and I have the same hair.
Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: schild on June 14, 2009, 03:27:51 AM Twin Peaks is probably one of the greatest TV shows that ever aired. It's trademark David Lynch and I really wish he'd get back to the sort of thing. Mulholland Drive could have been awesome had it been a TV show as originally planned instead of being recut into a feature film.
As for Grimwell, I don't even know why he went to go see a Lynch movie given that his description of this (3 hours of being teased) also describes Eraserhead, Lost Highway, Mulholland Dr., and Blue Velvet. In fact, the only works of his that had any real conclusion are Elephant Man and Twin Peaks. So, yea, I'm not sure what he means when he said he's enjoyed his works in the past. And yes, Lynch is pretty much the definition of art school fodder. Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: HaemishM on June 15, 2009, 10:55:54 AM Don't do it. Don't hang in there hoping for something to drive it all home and bring the quirky value. This is Lynch masturbating in your face for three hours. That pretty much described every bit of work he's done since Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me. There have only been 2 good things to come from Lynch since that time: the soundtrack to Lost Highway (but for fuck's sake not the goddamn movie) and the brain-melting hotness of the Naomi Watts and Laura Harring showing their tatas. Everything else goes in the wankery file. Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: Ard on June 15, 2009, 11:27:43 AM Don't do it. Don't hang in there hoping for something to drive it all home and bring the quirky value. This is Lynch masturbating in your face for three hours. I have to agree with this one also. This is the first one of his movies, and one of the few ever that I've intentionally stopped watching in the middle of. Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: Grimwell on June 15, 2009, 05:00:59 PM Twin Peaks and Blue Velvet Schild. I enjoyed those... call me crazy but two acceptable films from the same guy tends to make me think a third is worth a shot.
Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: schild on June 15, 2009, 05:06:38 PM Twin Peaks and Blue Velvet Schild. I enjoyed those... call me crazy but two acceptable films from the same guy tends to make me think a third is worth a shot. What can I say, you haven't seen enough David Lynch to know that what you got with Inland Empire is actually the norm and the two films you saw are anomaly.Also, I'm surprised you liked Blue Velvet. Everyone likes Twin Peaks though. Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: Grimwell on June 15, 2009, 05:10:01 PM I won't refute you, I probably did see the exceptions for Lynch. That does not make Inland Empire any less shitty in my book. :)
I liked Blue Velvet because in addition to being quirky and out and out strange, it had a plot that could be followed. Perhaps I'm a bit uncultured and pedestrian in my enjoyment of films, but I enjoy the ones with stories that I can follow the most. :) Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: UnSub on June 15, 2009, 07:55:46 PM the brain-melting hotness of the Naomi Watts and Laura Harring showing their tatas. Everything else goes in the wankery file. Naomi Watts and Laura Harding rubbing up and down each other doesn't go in the wankery file? :grin: Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: Broughden on June 15, 2009, 09:43:05 PM Twin Peaks and Blue Velvet Schild. I enjoyed those... call me crazy but two acceptable films from the same guy tends to make me think a third is worth a shot. What can I say, you haven't seen enough David Lynch to know that what you got with Inland Empire is actually the norm and the two films you saw are anomaly.Also, I'm surprised you liked Blue Velvet. Everyone likes Twin Peaks though. I hated Twin Peaks. Even tried watching it stoned and still got bored and hated it. His movies are all shit. Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: Hawkbit on June 15, 2009, 09:50:45 PM iirc, Inland Empire was one of his pieces that he did without a script. I didn't exactly dislike the movie, but I can't say I walked away with some profound meaning.
Frankly, with all the bullshit movies out there, anything different than the same scripts from every other movie made is watchable to me. Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: schild on June 15, 2009, 10:22:16 PM I hated Twin Peaks. Even tried watching it stoned and still got bored and hated it. His movies are all shit. When I say everyone, I mean everyone that isn't a tasteless simpleton. Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: Engels on June 15, 2009, 11:52:44 PM I liked Inland Empire. It wasn't the masterpiece that Mullholland Drive is, but its good if you are into Lynch. That said, Lost Highway is blech. Honestly, although I can see the appeal of Blue Velvet and Twin Peaks, they seem 'young' by comparison to later work.
Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: Broughden on June 16, 2009, 09:20:13 AM I hated Twin Peaks. Even tried watching it stoned and still got bored and hated it. His movies are all shit. When I say everyone, I mean everyone that isn't a tasteless simpleton. You are channeling an art film school fag. :grin: Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: HaemishM on June 16, 2009, 10:48:21 AM the brain-melting hotness of the Naomi Watts and Laura Harring showing their tatas. Everything else goes in the wankery file. Naomi Watts and Laura Harding rubbing up and down each other doesn't go in the wankery file? :grin: No, that shit goes in the VAULT, motherfucker. Only the good stuff goes in the VAULT. Also, Wild at Heart was my favorite Lynch movie. It might have been the last great Nic Cage role. Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: schild on June 16, 2009, 11:06:06 AM I hated Twin Peaks. Even tried watching it stoned and still got bored and hated it. His movies are all shit. When I say everyone, I mean everyone that isn't a tasteless simpleton. Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: Mrbloodworth on June 16, 2009, 11:09:20 AM I hated Twin Peaks. Even tried watching it stoned and still got bored and hated it. His movies are all shit. When I say everyone, I mean everyone that isn't a tasteless simpleton. Your going to have to put this art school fag in the category too, because twin peaks was ass. Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: Ozzu on June 16, 2009, 03:45:33 PM A good movie that he directed, but didn't write:
"The Straight Story" I mean, really good. Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: HaemishM on June 16, 2009, 04:01:02 PM If by "good" you mean "the spot-on cure for insomnia" you'd be right. Otherwise, your statement makes no sense. The Straight Story was more boring then C-Span.
Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: Engels on June 16, 2009, 06:13:28 PM was more boring then C-Span. THAN!!!!!!!!!!!!11!! :mob: Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: Ozzu on June 16, 2009, 06:41:21 PM If by "good" you mean "the spot-on cure for insomnia" you'd be right. Otherwise, your statement makes no sense. The Straight Story was more boring then C-Span. Perhaps I am overly amused by the elderly and that movie is full of them. Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: HaemishM on June 17, 2009, 10:28:45 AM was more boring then C-Span. THAN!!!!!!!!!!!!11!! :mob: I stand corrected. FUCK. Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: Signe on June 17, 2009, 05:39:10 PM I'm sure it was just the accent possessing your fingers!
Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: Engels on June 17, 2009, 08:13:53 PM was more boring then C-Span. THAN!!!!!!!!!!!!11!! :mob: I stand corrected. FUCK. Ya, I wouldn't go all spelling nazi on you if I didn't know it was just a temporary brain fart Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: Falconeer on June 19, 2009, 07:32:47 AM Twin Peaks is probably one of the greatest TV shows that ever aired. I don't expect anyone to agree, but my take on Lynch, and why I think he's great, is he can play with nightmares. He's the only one. He doesn't make movies, he materializes dreams and manipulates a substance no one else can even see. For that, I think he's beyond genius. For that, I love him and loved Inland Empire. But I completely understand those who hate it. Title: Re: Inland Empire Post by: lamaros on June 21, 2009, 06:21:37 AM I watched Lost Highway three times in a row for an essay a few years back. Creepy the first time, but the third one was just horrible. Scary film.
I think Blue Velvet and Lost Highway are great and love Twin Peaks (up to halfway through season 2), but he has a lot of misses too in the other stuff I've seen. Was just watching Dune and golly that's a shit screenplay... |