Premier Rock Forum

I can't see any midgets in the trailer.

I am therefore going to abstain

Mr. Chimp wrote:

sphincter wrote:

Mr. Chimp wrote:

sphincter wrote:Apart from the Twin Peaks series and Eraserhead David Lynch is a constant stream of crumby, false 'odd but deep' hollywood bullshit.

The amount of people swindled by his shallow crap is unbelievable.

As one of those people swindled by his shallow crap time and time again, your elaboration would be edifying.


Do tell.

It's just my opinion, I'm not sure what you want me to elaborate on exactly so just ask but just so you know- this is not a personal attack on you, just my opinion of his work and I'm happy to admit that I like a lot of crap too, I'm a huge Bill Murray fan, I loved Lost In Translation.

I never took it as a personal attack, my curiousity gets stoked when it is suggested that a bunch of people who like DL are merely shallow for being tricked by a false huckster (my paraphrase).

Just trying to open a conversation, as your turns of phrase suggested an opinion contrary to most that I know, but without any sort of ".....WTF happened in Lost Highway" or "Twin Peaks was shit for these reasons" or whatever.

That is all. Am still interested.

I just think all his work is style over content. I think Mullholland drive was just a sly dig at the hollywood half assed arthouse and arthouse in general that nobody really got because everyone was just like 'oh wow, homosexual cowboys, derranged homeless man, breasts on lesbians chests, ooo how cryptic and strange'

To be honest I could pull any of that out of my ass, I wish someone would give me a bunch of money to make a 'cryptic' movie. I'd definitly include lesbians too.

Still, I love Twin Peaks and some of his early movies before he became a californian hippy.

I finally saw A History of Violence last night, now that was a good movie.

Just to note; let's pre-empt the pulling a homosexual cowboy out of my ass jokes with this comment.

Yeah, I like Bill Murray too, but most people I know hate him and his movies and think I have no taste for liking him. Apparently he's been repeating his non-acting formula he used in Rushmore ever since and 'just stands there'.

My favourite thing he's been in from the past few years is Life Aquatic, that film is brilliant.

sphincter wrote:To be honest I could pull any of that out of my ass

And yet, you didn't.

This is an important difference between you and David Lynch.

sphincter wrote:I just think all his work is style over content. I think Mullholland drive was just a sly dig at the hollywood half assed arthouse and arthouse in general that nobody really got because everyone was just like 'oh wow, homosexual cowboys, derranged homeless man, breasts on lesbians chests, ooo how cryptic and strange'

BIT OF A SPOILER TO AVOID

You see, I don't think this at all. It is a film about Hollywood, I agree, but it is a lot darker than you suggest, more of a collision of the dream of Hollywood (and Hollywood is a dream itself, to the rest of us) and a more sordid reality. It is a brutal collision at that. The last scene is the closest to a genuine nightmare that I've seen on screen.

I was fixated on this film for a while, to the extent of seeing it more than once in the cinema. It rewards repeated viewings and made a lot more sense to me according to the interpretation above. The construction is superb (it flows extremely well between tones - mystery/fantasy/comedy/seediness/parody/horror).

I finally saw A History of Violence last night, now that was a good movie.

I liked this film a lot as well. Good fun, and again there was a lot going on beneath the ostensible narrative.

sparky wrote:

sphincter wrote:I just think all his work is style over content. I think Mullholland drive was just a sly dig at the hollywood half assed arthouse and arthouse in general that nobody really got because everyone was just like 'oh wow, homosexual cowboys, derranged homeless man, breasts on lesbians chests, ooo how cryptic and strange'

BIT OF A SPOILER TO AVOID

You see, I don't think this at all. It is a film about Hollywood, I agree, but it is a lot darker than you suggest, more of a collision of the dream of Hollywood (and Hollywood is a dream itself, to the rest of us) and a more sordid reality. It is a brutal collision at that. The last scene is the closest to a genuine nightmare that I've seen on screen.

I was fixated on this film for a while, to the extent of seeing it more than once in the cinema. It rewards repeated viewings and made a lot more sense to me according to the interpretation above. The construction is superb (it flows extremely well between tones - mystery/fantasy/comedy/seediness/parody/horror).

I finally saw A History of Violence last night, now that was a good movie.

I liked this film a lot as well. Good fun, and again there was a lot going on beneath the ostensible narrative.

Fair dues. I still stand by my opinion though.

who's going tonight?? i have tix for the 8pm showing, and i'm worried there will be a line HOURS ahead of time... anyone else??

Saw the Sunday matinee.

There's not really much I can say about it, except that it's still stuck with me. To borrow from Ebert's review, I feel like I'm still watching it.

So, is this a movie I should see in the theatre? Or is waiting for the dvd release a good option? Would I lose a lot of impact seeing it on a small (42") screen?

Mark Hansen wrote:So, is this a movie I should see in the theatre? Or is waiting for the dvd release a good option? Would I lose a lot of impact seeing it on a small (42") screen?

Funny, because despite the fact that it's shot on grainy DV video - I'd say you would miss out by not seeing it at an old theater like the Music Box. I don't want to spoil anything, but there's a scene where the theater you're sitting in plays a part in the story. I can't imagine it translating to a home viewing experience.