Inland Empire

It wasn't my idea to watch INLAND EMPIRE . I kind of got talked into by some very nice people who I respect very much . I respect them so much I will not embarrass them by giving out their names but they know who they are and they're going to the cinema to see Nuri Bilge Ceylan's IKHIMLER next week and because of their taste in film I think I'll stay at home because in my humble opinion INLAND EMPIRE is one of the worst pieces of dung ever committed to celluloid I'm not a great Lynch fan but I did enjoy THE ELEPHANT MAN and WILD AT HEART had its moments as did ERASERHEAD despite - or because of - its bizarre atmosphere . If you liked these movies you will hate INLAND EMPIRE . If you disliked these movies you will absolutely despise INLAND EMPIRE . If you loved these movies you will possibly only merely dislike INLAND EMPIRE !!!!! SLIGHT SPOILERS !!!!! The problem with the movie is that it feels like it's being made up as it goes along . That's because the movie is being made up as it goes along ! We start off with a man and woman their faces obscured speaking a Slavonic language about to have sex . We then cut to a situation comedy starring what can only be described as " Rabbit people " which is being watched by a weeping woman . The story then cuts to movie star Nikki Grace being cast in a film that was previously abandoned during the production stage because the male and female lead were murdered " Hey Theo I think I know where this might be heading . Nikki finds herself caught up in a dangerous situation ala classic Hitchcock " Yeah well that's where I thought it was heading but then .... well I don't know what happened because everything started going haywire . Nikki finds herself caught up in a kind of metaphysical universe with another visit to the rabbit people I thought I'd missed something so popped out of the cinema for a cigarette just to see if my confusion was caused by a lack of nicotine . I returned and instantly thought I'd walked into the wrong screening because the story now involved whores dancing around to a pumping soundtrack of Little Eva . More cuts to Nikki in a metaphysical universe , more cuts to the rabbit people sit-com . After two hours of this esoteric crap I decided that I'd had enough and decided to catch the last bus home . Sure as hell I wasn't going to endure a very long walk or an expensive taxi ride in order to catch the end of this vanity project And I made the correct decision because when we discussed the movie the next day everyone agreed on one thing - None of us knew WTF it was about . It's never revealed who the rabbit people were or who the weeping woman was , though I would hazard a guess it was possibly someone who spent £4.20 for a ticket to watch this garbage which I can honestly say is the worst movie I have ever seen in a cinema . I wasn't all that keen on the last movie I saw in a cinema - OUTLAW but at least it had a story no matter how contrived and underdeveloped Nick Love's screenplay was INLAND EMPIRE may work as a drug movie ( The audience were suspiciously quiet as in they might have been smoking a certain brand of tobacco that can't be bought in shops ) or as irony in that the writer /director is called Lynch which is exactly what I wanted to do with anyone who financed this rubbish . People may defend the movie by saying it's an enigma wrapped up in a mystery but take it from me it's excrement wrapped up in manure

I am a fan of Lynch, I have a book of interviews on him, and a book he wrote about creativity. I thought Mulholland Dr was a masterpiece, and yet INLAND EMPIRE disappointed me. Its not that INLAND EMPIRE is bad, its just that after all the praise its received I felt that it should have been better. This is basically a Lynch experiment, not a Lynch film. He seems to be utterly fascinated by all the new "gizmos" involved with digital film-making, and thus instead of a story we get a 3 hour film of Lynch having a good time with the new digital era. For a short while, INLAND EMPIRE almost ALMOST has a plot. Laura Dern plays a washed up actress, Jeremy Irons is a film director, and they set about making a haunted film. I have to wonder, knowing Lynch's style, if this isn't just some joke on his part. Releasing an incomprehensible film and seeing just how many snooty film critics will proclaim it as a masterpiece. Ultimately I can't shake that feeling that this is just Lynch getting sloppy, rather than making a coherent film (which takes work) he instead opts to make an incoherent film (which takes absolutely no work). Considering I had to wait five years for the next Lynch film it is understandable that I was underwhelmed. Still I think Lynch is very interesting and I will be first in line for his next film, because when he gets it right, he gets it VERY right.

At least it could have been worse ... but only if it had lasted even more than 3 hours ;-). Let me get a few things out of the way first: I am a great admirer of David Lynch's early work, up to and including Lost Highway. I like movies that are not straightforward, that make you think and that leave space for your imagination and interpretation. And I consider myself to be open-minded and willing to wander off the beaten track ... Having covered this, I must say that this was one of the rare occasions where I was dying for the movie to (finally) end - I left the theater thinking "what the f***?" and quite honestly if I had to put a headline to the whole thing I would call it intellectual *. Maybe Lynch is just having a laugh, viewing Inland Empire as an experiment to see how far he can go with audiences - or it is a revolutionary new concept in cinema where the director just supervises shooting and the audience explains what this is about in forums like this. One of my spontaneous thoughts after watching this was: had this been the debut film of a rookie director fresh out of film school, my guess would be that he/she would be continuing his/her career making movies at children's birthday parties or silver wedding anniversaries. Then on the other hand, maybe I belong to the minority of dim-wits who just don't get it - I can not rule this out. However, looking at the majority of raving reviews here, there is one thing that I would really like to find out: how many of those reviews are based on a genuine appreciation of the movie, and how many were written because it's just so en vogue to celebrate Lynch films and you better not admit that you came out of the theater thinking "geez - I didn't get it ..." I would love to do an experiment: show 3 hours of CCTV or traffic cam material, taken randomly from a department store, office building or a traffic light on a deserted road, and add some opening titles stating "Directed by David Lynch" - my bet would be this film would earn an average vote of 7.8 here and lots of interpretations/explanations, all starting with the statement how great the lack of narrative helps the deeper meaning of the movie. But maybe this finally is the ultimate Alan Smithee film - and I must admit that it left a deep impression in urging me to write this long comment ;-)

Let me start by saying I've admired every single Lynch film to date, and I've seen all his feature films—not only all the original work, but also the non-auteur stuff (like "Elephant man," "Straight Story," and "Dune") as well. Moreover, "Mulholland Drive" is on my short list for best movie of all time—a hands down perfect piece of art. And I really liked "Lost Highway" and even found "Eraserhead" engaging. However, I must say the first 90 minutes of "Inland Empire" ranks as some of the most boring and pretentious film making in the short history of the art. I can't speak for the rest of the movie--as 90 minutes of unrelieved murky shots of Laura Dern looking distressed, while the dialogue-obscuring sound track of a B-movie organ drone desperately tries to create some kind of suspense--was all I could stand. Lynch's images have always been arresting, sometimes even pretty. But he seems to want to play against that here, creating choppy, grainy, bad-home-video-style visuals that just beat down the viewer trying to let them flow. Hey! art should require its audience to work for its pleasure and meaning; but the effort required here is just too much for me. I think film should tell a story with pictures—hopefully a complex story with emotionally and intellectually engaging pictures. But this film is just ugly chaos.

Fact # 1: Lynch is a genius and one of the very few filmmakers who have reached the point of image-perfection (others include Terence Malick, Kim Ki-Duk, Herzog, but also Wong Kar- Wai and maybe Nic Roeg) Fact # 2: I found Mulholland Drive completely comprehensible; in fact it is my all time favourite film (together with Kim's Bin-Jip), with Blue Velvet close on its heels and Lost Highway a bit further down the top 30. I saw MD 5 times the week it came out. Fact # 3: I *never* walk out on a film *ever*, but watch the thing till the very last closing caption. Fact # 4: After a considerable time of viewing Inland Empire, I glanced at my watch (bad sign in itself), saw we were 2 hours in and so had 1 more hour to go. I didn't hesitate, but got up and out of the theatre. Tons have been written about this film, so I'll keep it short: Rabbits dates from 2002. What do I mean by that: 1 - The fact that it's utterly incomprehensible (well, maybe not totally, but hey) does not bother me, nor the fact that it's artsy - even though I think Lynch should stop meditating. 2 - What *does* bother me is that he does not seem to be able to choose. He discovered the hand-held camera. Cool. He's created the most cut-up story ever. Cool. But (a) somehow he doesn't seem to be able to combine the two; (b) he seems to have little confidence in it himself. Some of the shots work, like the dancing scene. Some shots work with the hand- held. But sometimes he uses his old filmic language with the hand-held, and it DOES NOT WORK. It gives the impression that what you're seeing is actually the evolution that Lynch's style has undergone in the past 5 years, without him being able to take position. Emblematic to that problem is the fact that Rabbits-parts are included, which include Mulholland Dr actors, and which dates from 4 (four!) years earlier, filmed in his "moving painting" style. In short: I had the impression that Lynch has evolved, and that this would have been a great film if he'd been honest to himself and keep only the radically new bits, instead of keeping everything in, leading to an inconsistent hodgepodge. Maybe it's telling that in last year's DVD-issues of Lost Highway (or was it MDr?) he actually *explains* part of his storytelling technique. For a master of the non-explaining, this is an omen. Lynch should burn his old pellicule and start from scratch. Try to amaze himself with something he doesn't already understand.

First off, this is easily the most confusing and bizarre of all of David Lynch's films, even more so than Lost Highway. I think it's also the most bizarre film I have ever seen. The film is harrowing and creepy and Laura Dern is incredible in her performance. I never thought she was capable it. Fans of Lynch will love it, especially those who think Mulholland Drive and Lost Highway were his best. Average filmgoers will most likely be bored (it's 3 hours long) or think it is Artsy crap. Lost Highway is probably his most comparable film based on structure, technique, and bizarre elements, although it would not be entirely fair to use Lost Highway as a basis for judgment. One of the only things that keeps me from giving it a higher rating is that there are a couple scenes which seemed to drag on a little longer than necessary. Inland Empire at first is reminiscent of some of Lynch's older short films because of the way it is filmed. It is gritty, shaky, and even gives a documentary feel at first. While it is still not his best, it's among them and it's what Lynch fans have come to expect and love.

I just saw the NY premier of Inland Empire, and it was so refreshing to once again be transported in a way only David Lynch can transport somebody. Inland Empire is Lynch at his best - funny, thoughtful, eerie, beautiful, dark, deeply disturbing, and terrifying in a way that few horror films have ever affected me. The film is a slow burn, taking its time (about 3 hours), leaping through realities and bizarre encounters, continually keeping the audience asking themselves what reality they are experiencing, and what that reality means. Laura Dern gives an outstanding performance as the tagline's "girl in trouble." She goes to places I don't ever remember seeing her go, from the naive to the terrifying, truly exposed. I've heard Lynch is campaigning for an Oscar nod for Ms. Dern, so maybe this is the one. She really blew me away. This film - like all of Lynch's endeavors - is certainly not for everyone. It's vague, bizarre, jumps all over the place, and at times is deeply frightening (one of the few films in a long time to actually give me nightmares), but in my opinion it's also truly beautiful, almost serene. If you like a linear, clear-cut story, then don't see this film. If you appreciate non-linear, surreal drama/horror, however, then by all means go see it. Lynch is independently producing this, so I know he's banking on a lot of word of mouth for Inland Empire to be successful. Help him out. It's a fantastic film.

source: Inland Empire

INLAND EMPIRE exemplifies everything I hate about cult films. It's a shining example of the 'Emperor's new clothes' syndrome, a lengthy, supposedly artistic production that ends up being absolutely worthless on account of its obscure plotting and almost entire lack of reason, sense or purpose. It's a truth that when it comes to writing books, it's very easy to write something that only you yourself understand and identify with. Getting something to appeal to the masses is a lot tougher. Well, the same principle can be applied to film, with the result that David Lynch makes films that appeal to him and others in his little group of right-minded friends. To be honest, I'm flabbergasted that he found funding for such a pretentious outing. Laura Dern plays an actress who finds herself becoming mixed up in the alternate reality of the movie she's appearing in. Or something like that, anyway. There's lots of wandering about in dimly lit rooms, sub-plots and sequences that seem to have little bearing on the supposed plot, and a whole lot of boredom. In fact, this is one of the most boring films I've had the misfortune to sit through. It's as if Lynch goes out of his way to alienate most of his viewers. I certainly won't be in a hurry to watch any more of his work - aside from THE ELEPHANT MAN, which I remember being very good.

Inland Empire is an interesting premise with an absolutely horrible execution. I've liked some of David Lynch's movies: Mulholland Drive was brilliant, Blue Velvet was good, Eraserhead was okay, and I've seen a couple of other of his movies that were not bad. I was eager to see Inland Empire but by the time I saw it I was disappointed and quite frankly bored to tears. As I interpreted the story (if one wants to call it a story) it was about an attempted remake of an unfinished Polish film which allegedly was cursed, and the new leading lady now gets to the point where she can't discern the difference between her life and what is being filmed for the movie and what happened in the unfinished Polish film- and we, the viewers, are not intended to know the difference either. But that interesting premise is watered down to nothing in its ungodly three hour running time, good acting notwithstanding. There are too many non sequiturs (the rabbits from an earlier project, the girls dancing while the Locomotion or what ever the hell it was was blasting, the seedy alleyway conversations behind the AXXON N door, the lengthy scenes of people brewing coffee, far too many close ups of ugly people whispering to each other, and on and on like that for three hours) to honestly say that there was any point to any of it. The camera work looked like something out of a direct to video horror movie filmed on a $100 digital camera, which doesn't help matters. Eraserhead looked good because of its low budget filming, it added to the atmosphere, not so in Inland Empire. Lynch overuses the quiet whisper immediately followed by screaming or loud musical score to the point of absurdity here. When that gimmick is used in every other scene, it loses its effectiveness, and merely becomes annoying. Almost all of the characters meander through bizarre living rooms, Hollywood sound stages and crumbling Polish factories, without anything to draw the viewer into what is taking place. Lynch's 'Mulholland Drive' was brilliant: it had suspense and was intentionally funny, often times simultaneously (Winkie's anyone?) with great acting by all involved, and well photographed on the streets of Hollywood. Despite not making sense on first viewing, there is a somewhat discernible plot which only becomes apparent in time and after watching it repeatedly, and it also leaves many things to think about afterward, and makes the viewer want to go back and watch it again. Inland Empire had none of these. Mulholland Drive starts off almost making sense, but then two thirds of the way into it, Lynch pulled the rug out from under the audience's feet, to perfect effect. Inland Empire never gives anyone a chance to grasp at any thread of a plot, it never gives the viewer anything more than badly photographed images. No suspense, no humour, nothing. Initially, I didn't understand Mulholland Drive but it stuck in my mind and I wanted to go back and watch it again to figure it out. I don't understand Inland Empire and don't want to understand it either. I don't have too much of a life, but still, I can't talk myself into sitting through this three hours of digital vomit again, just to try and figure out *if* there is anything to it. I feel like I should take another shower after having watched Inland Empire, and then watch Mulholland Drive again. * out of ****