The Rambler

source: The Rambler

Early on I had a pretty good inkling that The Rambler (Dermot Mulroney) of our story was traveling the road to Hell and just didn't know it yet. The film is a series of nightmare visions, recurring static and distorted feedback that links a series of events in the Rambler's misadventures, and even though it seems like he's roaming half the country, he has a way of winding up in the same place and running into the same people, many times getting the crap beat out of him just because he takes things on a dare. The story dynamics turn for the worse in the latter part of the picture when a disjointed road movie turns into full on horror, and some of it is just plain disgusting, with scenes of gory mutilation and a cab driver who can't get enough of the original "Frankenstein" while harboring a penchant for necrophilia. If you're paying attention, The Rambler himself offers the best hint as to what's going on as the film reaches it's finale. If it didn't occur to you throughout the picture, the guy finally nails it when he says "I'm dead".

I'm shocked that a film full of so much senseless and intense shock value can be so boring. Even fast forwarding it I just wanted it to end quickly. Kept falling asleep, there was nothing for my mind to attach to. Annoying and pointless. I got nothing out of this. Once it finished I had to run to the toilet with serious diarrhoea. Thanks movie.

David Lynch is one of my favourite directors. So I am usually up for different or quirky. Not on this occasion. Whilst components of the weirdness may work in isolation, the overall film couldn't provide a suitable reason for this particular reality to exist. So it becomes a bunch or weird for the sake of weird. In the end, disappointing.

Yes I am aware what I chose as summary "line". And as you can see I understand how to use the "" to make a point. Now this movie does not make it a secret that it imitates and likens David Lynch. And while there is a certain quality here (the main actor for example, the framing, the quality of the cinematography), the overall attachment is missing. But maybe that is what makes it great for you. Maybe you can see something in this, that many others can't. I know the phrase has a negative connotation to it, but I mean it without any ill will: good for you. Anyone who can get something out of a movie, cherish that. And while I generally don't talk about the story of a movie, it wouldn't even help in this case. It is not so much about the story, but about the journey ...

I can't picture a single festival screening of Calvin Reeder's The Rambler that wouldn't result in at least half the crowd walking out in revulsion. There's just no way to put it lightly when describing the alienating, severely soul-disturbing kind of sickly atmosphere that hangs over the entire film like a radioactive blanket of surreal dread. The DVD cover barely suggests the beyond Lynchian, out to lunch, bugfvck nuts events which unfold, and instead hints toward a western with vaguely horror themed aspects. Couldn't be more different than that. The conventional elements like plot and the theme of Western are dimly present, shaky railroad tracks for a train that careens straight into the subconscious of bizarro world, some of what we see even too messed up and disassociate for the hardiest of cultist buffs. Few films are able to capture the purely illogical and disjointed feeling of a dream, but this one nails it scarily well. Sentences don't match responses, human behaviour is terrifyingly devoid of inhibitions, events repeat and come out of nowhere, and we really and truly feel lost, removed and detached from any kind of rational thought or action. Now the film doesn't outright announce that it's all a dream, save for a few hints embedded in the story, but it sure felt like one long nightmare to me, evoking psychological feelings which words really can't describe. Dermot Mulroney does a 'Man with no name routine' as a vacant ex con who is released from prison and blows back into his one horse trailer park town. He does indeed have no name, now that I think of it, and is only ever referred to as The Rambler. Upon returning, he finds his volatile girlfriend (Natasha Lyonne) has taken up with another man, and no one seems to want him around anymore. Time to hit the road, he figures, sauntering out into the acrid desolation of the southwest in a dead cool opening credits scene set to Terry Allen's Red Bird, one of my favourite twangy tunes. From there it gets hard to describe, comprehend and stomach. He's off in some John Waters style twilight zone of very unsettling characters, saying and doing things that make little sense and get increasingly shocking and vulgar. A mysterious girl (Lindsay Pulsipher) weaves in and out of the story and seems to be the only one besides him who is remotely coherent. A crackpot doctor (James Cady) shows him an extremely defective device that is supposed to look into people's dreams. There's ugly, misanthropic fiends running all about with nothing to say other than loosely strung together verbal diarrhea, and a constant nauseating film of unease over everything. I've read reviews wailing about how this film has less than nothing to say, and should have shut it's mouth. But that's the point to a nightmare; it doesn't teach, enlighten or otherwise change us in any way other than to give our sense of dread a workout and provoke a cold sweat. Similarly, the film simply is there to scare, to induce the gag reflex and doesn't strive for anything else, and in that sense it's pure, primal and honest about it's intentions. The very definition of not for everyone, this will even put off bands of counter culture cinephiles who scoff at anything mainstream. Deliberately vile, constantly off its rocker and so far beyond the event horizon where bizarre ends and something truly indescribable begins, The Rambler will shake the soul out of anyone who claims to have seen it all. You have been warned.

I thought this movie was amazing. It was mysterious and original with really good gore and great camera work. It was just really stunning visually from beginning to end. I'm not a huge Mulroney fan, but he did an admirable in job bringing depth and humor to a role that didn't have a lot of dialogue to work with, which has to be challenging. And it was fun to see him a role other than some stupid romantic comedy. I hate romcoms. I am not familiar with Lindsay Pulsipher, but she worked well with Mulroney and I'll definitely look for her in other films. She seems worth watching. Great supporting characters too. The mad scientist was horrible and funny at the same time, and the cab driver blathering on about Frankenstein was hysterical. There was actually a surprising amount of humor for a movie that was definitely not a comedy.

I watched this film last night and had no idea what to expect to be honest. I would normally read a review before I watch but I just played it. My thoughts. A lot of previous posters try to understand what the meaning to this film is. To me it's very apparent what the meaning is. You know this at the very start of the film and throughout. This film is very dark in places and although some of the scenes can be regarded as funny they can also be rather disturbing all at the same time. Watch it if you dare that's all I say. And midnight as another poster pointed out is probably the best time.

The Rambler isn't for everyone,and I'm not sure it's for anyone. There's fragments of something more profound within it but it's not an easy movie to enjoy. It is very Lynch-esque...layered and at times beautiful as it strides a limbo length of highway in search of...well, that's the problem for many. What is this movie saying??? Reviewers who trash it because they don't get it are short-changing the metaphorical depth and visceral experience of the movie...and much like a Lynch movie this is a visceral journey. The cinematography is very good, the acting is what it needs to be for this type of movie. It's all very dream like. I admit I don't quite understand "The Rambler" and that subtracts points for me perhaps unfairly. I'm sure a few metaphor champions will crack the code and see the brilliance but for the rest of us there's probably a feeling of confusion. I saw this listed on some best of horror lists for 2013 but it's not a horror movie, not in the conventional at least. It's more of a ramble through subconsciousness and a desire to be free from the "logic" of society. A quest to stay within oneself and live without meaning. Or...maybe not. The meaning might be ambiguous and if that type of thing drives you crazy then stay away. If your feeling adventurous and want something that escapes the typical Hollywood polished package type movie take it for a spin.

Lets get one thing clear, this film doesn't reach new heights in cinematic excellence, far from it but it is interesting. If you liked Eraserhead & Blue Velvet then you'll find some enjoyment in this offering, if you didn't like them then this will stink. At the very least this film will have you talking about it the following day, i've lost count of the films i've watched and instantly forgotten. Its flawed, its disjointed and often ludicrous but still offers something. Don't be too critical and it won't disappoint, expect ground breaking cinema and it will. The IMDb score is probably a touch harsh considering it isn't your run of the mill B movie. Films like this should be applauded for taking a less well trodden path.