[Ghostchase]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

He watched Inland Empire 32 times this week.

Ahh.. that guys is psychotic, lock him up and throw away the key! To watch Lynch's worst film 32 times! If he watched Mulholland Dr. 32 that would be okay thou.

[Derek]

You'd consider INLAND EMPIRE to be worse than Dune?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Derek

You'd consider INLAND EMPIRE to be worse than Dune?

i don't know what he considers, but damn, that is a tough call.

even though dune is a sloppily put together movie (the novel suits better the miniseries format than a feature film), lynch did some awesome shit in terms of imagery and visual style.

i recently rewatched the movie (it sucked), and re-read the novel, and realized the difficulties of making a movie out of it, and noticed that the changes made to the story were perhaps necessary and not completely terrible. even though a lot of shit has to be hurried via narration.

inland empire on the other hand looks like shit, has no story, and is a completely self-involved load of wank. i haven't watched it since it came out (no reason to get burned twice), and i wouldn't watch it again.

yes, yes, he's a "genius" and his turds are to be eaten like the dalai lama's, but a turd is a turd even if it's holy.

[Rob Instigator]

DUNE rules.

It is exactly as freaky as it needs to be, and while it makes no sense since they cut so much due to the length of the book, I love the damn thing. Have seen it at least 32 times.

the latest cut of it is fucking awesome. I like it because it really creates another world. It is like the Lynchian version for adults of the kiddie Star Wars flicks. It deals with heavy issues whereas star wars deals with fantasy entertainment.

[Rob Instigator]

I also think the DUNE movie is one of the few that is enjoyable to those who read the book first, since so much exposition is left unspoken, and the people who like the book fill it in in their head anyways.

that's my issue with the boring harry potter movies. they try to put in everything, and the films suffer badly.

plus they hired kid actors who looked the parts at age 12 but who have grown up to be HORRID actors.

[Derek]

I enjoyed INLAND EMPIRE for how INSANE it was. Honestly, it looks like shit, has no story and is a complete self-involved load of wank but that just added to how crazy the movie was.

[Rob Instigator]

the only films I have enjoyed as much as the source books are Dune, Fear & Loathing In Las vegas, Mother Night, and the Shining.

most films made from books I have read let me down very severely.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Derek

I enjoyed INLAND EMPIRE for how INSANE it was. Honestly, it looks like shit, has no story and is a complete self-involved load of wank but that just added to how crazy the movie was.

oh, "weird for the sake of weird"-- like moe's bar's "PoMo" remodeling in the simpsons. as the years pass, the gimmick will lose its charm, and maybe you'll find some truly mind-blowing shit. you know, like stuff that makes you look at the world differently, rather than snooping into someone else's private dreams-- although i can see the appeal when it's "genius" dreams and one is tempted to interpret them as meaningful.

[static-harmony]

Dr. Strangelove.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

I also think the DUNE movie is one of the few that is enjoyable to those who read the book first, since so much exposition is left unspoken, and the people who like the book fill it in in their head anyways.

i read the book first, then watched the movie, then watched it again years later, then reread the book, and the plots actually differ, e.g., jessica is not suspect of treason in the movie, a lot of the desert action is skipped over, the "sound weapons" are completely made up, count fenring the almost-kwiszat haderach is absent, as is feyd rautha's gladiator shit, and all the reflections on power or ecology that make the movie so enthralling are completely absent.

the problem with the movie is the time alloted to tell a HUGE story-- it's impossible and it has to be chopped up and abbreviated (the sound weapons are the way the movie explains leto's potential rise to power rather than his planned alliance with the fremen which is a mirror of the emperor's sardaukar).

i wish it had been a longass movie or a 2 or 3 part movie (like lord of the ringworms) and it would have been great, because lynch's touch was great, although the movie as it stands does not work for me.

by the way, i don't know if you've ever read anything by russell banks, but the movie AFFLICTION is really great.

[Ghostchase]

To me Inland Empire is an extreme example of self-parody.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Ghostchase

To me Inland Empire is an extreme example of self-parody.

i doubt that. lynch has always flirted with dreams and incorporated them into his movies. the problem here is that he went overboard.

i think it was aldous huxley in doors of perception/heaven & hell who said that everyone dreams but art is really about translation. he wasn't a great artist but that doesn't mean he didn't have the right idea.

by forgoing the translation process and showing us the raw materials of his mind lynch can fascinate some people and alienate others. i dream plenty, i have no need to borrow other people's unprocessed nightmares.

maybe if he had made it a lot shorter i would have enjoyed more some of the elements of the thing, because there were some wonderful shots/moments/elements/scenes but unfortunately they floated in the middle of a dull ocean of pointless dreck that took 3 hours to cross. i had a hard time staying awake.

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

My favorite part of Inland Empire was when they did the locomotion.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Dr. Eugene Felikson

My favorite part of Inland Empire was when they did the locomotion.

my favorite part was the last scene-- the sinnerman / nina simone thing. end credits (not cuz it was the end, it ws just good)

i also like it when laura dern is dying among the homeless -- up until they say "cut"-- oh yeah ok it's just a movie, blagh, old trick

then that scene with the crazy lady i can't remember what they talk about

the rest of what i remember is mostly this blue/black grainy video screen, ha ha ha

[atsonicpark]

Inland Empire is horrible. I re-watched it for the final time last week and realized it's just a big boring mess from a guy who just bought a DV camera and got his friends together. Lynch shot SIXTY HOURS for the film -- and those were the best 3? All his films from Blue Velvet to Mulholland Drive had been edited by Mary Sweeney -- if you ever wondered why an "editor" matters, look at Inland Empire. She MIGHT have been able to edit it down to a nice little 30 minute short or something; since Lynch edited it himself, it explains why it's such a mess. If some random director had released it, no one would've cared. It fails, but it fails brilliantly -- talentless individuals can't make movies that entertainingly shitty. I've watched it many many times now... but, in retrospect, it was only to try to figure out why it was so bad. All I can think of is: No script, no Badalamenti, an hour and a half of the movie is Laura Dern walking around an empty set (and all the sets are blank), shakey camera, almost every shot is an EXTREME CLOSE-UP of Dern's face, Lynch edited it himself, everyone looked bored and confused. I dunno why I watched it many times... I guess it was one of those things like... I usually dug Lynch's stuff alright (though he's not a very good director, he creates interesting atmospheres at least), so why wasn't I "liking" this? Until I did some research and realized that he didn't surround himself with talented people like he usually does, and the film is one overlong digital experiment by someone who just got a digital camera and had no idea what to do with it, and it's a self-indulgent overlong mess, no longer constricted by things like "take time" or "cost" (or, "self-editing"... or "story".... or "structure".... and I LOVE when directors experiment with film form -- but Lynch just flat-out is not good at it). It's Lynch and all his friends doing boring shit, basically. And that scene with the Beck song is just the worst thing ever filmed. I'm selling my copy of this movie soon, but I don't know anyone who wants it, since the 3 Lynch fans I know in real life couldn't even get through the whole thing. Lynch's best film is STRAIGHT STORY, which is one of the best films ever, and the only film of his I'd reccomend, mainly because he had no hand in writing it!... Has anyone seen his shorts around the time of and SINCE Inland Empire? Stuff like Boat, Ballerina, Darkened Room, etc.? Just AWFUL, amateur DV experiments. I've seen everything Lynch has done, and Rabbits will go down as his final good project, I'm guessing, because the last, oh, 7 or 8 things he's done have been horrible! Oh, and Lynch is no genius at all, he's a guy who watched L'Age D'Or and Marienbad a couple of times and he works with talented people like Mary Sweeney and Mark Frost (the genius behind Twin Peaks). I'm not saying I hate Lynch (though I do find him massively overrated, especially when he's only really made 10 actual films in 42 years [42!!!!!!!!!!] and many of them feel extremely samey), but his best days are way behind him. I dunno. He's okay, there is far better surreal/experimental/underground/arthouse/"avant garde" etc stuff coming out every day though. Hell, Reflections of Evil -- a similiarly messy dreamlike film -- was easily the best film of the decade (and, luckily for it, a recent reappraisal has taken place), but it only has like 200 ratings on imdb. Oh well. I am grateful for getting into Lynch, oh, 14 years ago but I don't think he's a particularly noteworthy director, from any angle, though his early shorts have some cool ideas (but none that weren't already explored by Toshio Matsumoto, Shuji Terayama, Nobuhioko Obayashi, and too many others to name).

Funny note: Inland Empire was shot on the same camera as all of Giuseppe Andrews' movies. Except every G.A. movie is great, save for one or two misfires. But he made, oh, roughly 30 great films in 10 years. Crazy!

Anyway...

 

moon in the gutter - 8/10

 

songs from the second floor - 10/10

[atsonicpark]

Oh, and I'm sure most of you know this, but DUNE was originally directed by Jodorowsky, who probably would've made it a masterpiece. Can you imagine?!

...Also, Lynch turned down... which Star Wars? Return of the Jedi?... to direct Dune. Can you imagine?

Weird world... now, Lynch can't get financing, period, except from some French investors! But, yeah, as for Dune being worse than Inland Empire, Lynch disowned it, and I am going to go ahead and respect that disownment. It's not really a Lynch film, anyway, never was; but, yeah, I mean, it's probably the worst film ever made, but hell, at least Sting is entertaining in it -- his scenes offer more entertainment than the entirety of Inland Empire AND More Things That Happened combined.

[davenotdead]

i actually like Inland Empire a lot. though I can't really defend it. I feel like its a horror film though. and the atmosphere is generally hella creepy throughout

[atsonicpark]

 

7/10

[GeneticKiss]

Dune is the only David Lynch film I've seen (I saw Dune, Mulholland Drive, Blue Velvet, and Lost Highway, in that order) that doesn't really feel like a David Lynch film, mainly because it was scored by Toto (eww) and Brian Eno (he's ok) instead of Angelo Badalamenti. Ever notice how some director/soundtrack composer combos work better than others, like George Lucas/John Williams and Tim Burton/Danny Elfman? David Lynch/Angelo Badalamenti definitely fits into this category. I think the truth is that David Lynch is a great conceptionalist, meaning he's good at creating ideas, but needs others to perfect them. That said, upon very close examination, Dune DOES have Lynchian qualites...there are parallels between the Baron Vladimir Harkonnen, Frank Booth (Blue Velvet), and Mr. Eddy/Dick Laurent (Lost Highway).

[atsonicpark]

Good point, I think DL definitely needs people to make his films work -- exceptthat Eraserhead and his early shorts were good, without anyone's help; I just think that, as a director starting out, he had a lot to say (we're talking int he span of 37-42 years ago here), and he ran out of things to say a long time ago, so his films have largely been a product of careful collaboration with other talented indivuals, and that's something that's long annoyed me about critical appraisal of his work, that people often call him a "genius" (without recognizing that his films live and die by the careful, controlled editting of Mary Sweeney), when a director is actually a very, very small part of the overall picture -- unless we're talking TRUE auteurs like Jost, Godard, Fassbinder, Kitano... who really do have control over the entire picture (usually; all those directors have had their vision compromised by someone at some point). While Lynch probably has always had more control than a lot of directors, he spoke quite candidly about "freedom" while making IE; not just digital freedom, but freedom from trying to appease certain investors and such. In other words, he could go completely down the rabbit hole for once, and not have to worry about "stupid" concepts like "structure", "plot", "character development" (regardless of any criticisms leveled at him, his films prior to IE at least had ENOUGH of those elements to make them watchable, since his films flat-out would not work as pure abstraction -- it needs the "normal" plot to make the abstract stuff interesting). So, IE is DL without anybody standing in his way!!!!!!!... from making, uh, whatever the fuck he made! Haha.