this is coming to Australia around June.
very excited...

I'm a big fan of David Lynch, I've seen all of them except Dune. That's why it's particularly distressing to report that I was immensely dissapointed w/ Inland Empire.

The first half was pretty good, you start to really get sucked in to the story. I loved the idea that the movie-within-the movie was plagued by this Polish gypsy curse. Unfortunately, I think that's the only idea that DL had, and after that it became a free-for-all (as mentioned earlier) of typical Lynchisms: oldies soundtrack, women being treated like meat, etc etc.

There were parts that were simply excruciating to watch. The whole Hollywood Blvd. scene was tedious, and it reminded me of how much I hate L.A. (the Slint show I saw a few years back was in the area where it was filmed, at the Avalon on Vine).

Just finished watching it and of course my head is spinning. It's a much more difficult film than mulholland dr. unlike mulholland dr., I'm not trying to figure out the movie at the end, yet, I was still riveted throughout. There were some truly scary moments. They weren't cheap at all. it was like he told you it was coming, gave you a good look at a safe distance, then brought it up real fucking close to scare the shit out of you.

I'll probably watch it again, but I do feel like I just ran a marathon.

I liked it a lot, but thought it was very boring. Took me two nights to get through the whole thing, and haven't managed to get through it again.

Am I the only one that didn't like this movie at all? It was so boring. At least if you didn't "get" Mulholland Drive your first viewing it was aesthetically interesting.

chrisc wrote:I liked it a lot, but thought it was very boring. Took me two nights to get through the whole thing, and haven't managed to get through it again.

How does that qualify as liking it a lot?

AAAAAAAARGH wrote:Am I the only one that didn't like this movie at all? It was so boring. At least if you didn't "get" Mulholland Drive your first viewing it was aesthetically interesting.

chrisc wrote:I liked it a lot, but thought it was very boring. Took me two nights to get through the whole thing, and haven't managed to get through it again.

How does that qualify as liking it a lot?

I liked the story I got out of it and the imagery. While slightly annoying, it was kind of fun figuring out which character the same person was playing at certain times. With most of his stuff I love specific scenes, but then it just drags on and on between them.

AAAAAAAARGH wrote:Am I the only one that didn't like this movie at all? It was so boring. At least if you didn't "get" Mulholland Drive your first viewing it was aesthetically interesting.

chrisc wrote:I liked it a lot, but thought it was very boring. Took me two nights to get through the whole thing, and haven't managed to get through it again.

How does that qualify as liking it a lot?

This movie thrives primarily on being aesthetically interesting. Mulholland Dr. was fairly medium-paced whilst Inland Empire is a fucking sludge trudge. You feel the middle hour of that movie like a strangulation. That's what's awesome about it. The leaps around in the story, the empty holes, beautiful and dark Poland. Creepy. It ultimately has resolve, which at the end of the three hours is the most welcome resolve of any Lynch movie.

It is not a hard movie to "get." It is a hard movie to watch. Only for more-than-a-little-bit fans of art cinema and/or Lynch.

It can only be viewed in a dark room in one sitting. Breaking up ANY film with a concrete running time is dumb. Totally missing the point and disregarding editing and ambience. CRAP ON THAT!

Inland Empire got better for me the more I watched it. Really should have been straight to DVD though. The DV looks fine on a normal television, but in the theater, the shots were washed out and blurry.

And the 2nd disc is basically a Part 2. A friend of mine (and devoted fanatic) is re-editing the film into a 5.2 hour cut with the deleted scenes added. Un-real.

Steve V. wrote:Inland Empire got better for me the more I watched it. Really should have been straight to DVD though. The DV looks fine on a normal television, but in the theater, the shots were washed out and blurry.

That was intentional, as lynch chose lower quality digital cameras for the movie.

madlee wrote:

Steve V. wrote:Inland Empire got better for me the more I watched it. Really should have been straight to DVD though. The DV looks fine on a normal television, but in the theater, the shots were washed out and blurry.

That was intentional, as lynch chose lower quality digital cameras for the movie.

I thought the Sony cam he used was pretty top at the time he bought it?

If it was intentional to make it look crummy on the big screen...that's kind of odd. Wacky wacky Lynch.

As someone who proudly grew up in the Inland Empire region of southern California, I take offence that this so called "documentary" in no way recognizes the cultural contributions of the area.

The world today would indeed be a sadder place without the Hell's Angels and McDonalds. The City of San Bernardino has a crime rate that is near or equal to twice the national average. The village of Devore has been the focal point of Ozzfest for more than a decade, served as the lauching pad for the Duran Duran reunion tour, and the last public performance of the entire Wu Tang Clan. The town of Fontucky hosts not just one but two NASCAR races a year.

Maybe do a little research before you make a movie next time you art fag poser.