Movie Review
Inland Empire

By: Patrick McKay

Posted 01/24/2007 - 09:58:57 AM by florenz6:
 I´m curious! There are only a few films of David Lynch that I didn´t like, the much-praised "Wild At Heart", for example, or "Lost Highway" (not only because of the director´s obsession for this terrible Rammstein songs. But I saw his other films more than once and became totally absorbed by them: Mulholland Drive, "Der Elefantenmensch", "Blue Velvet", "Twin Peaks" (the series, and even the quite underestimated film) etc. Normally, I don´t read film reviews before seeing the film myself, but with Lynch and few other film makers it´s a different matter. The story is only a very small part of the whole. So, here, on "Inland Empire" we have to expect some 60´s pop. Lynch has a great ability to transport some of these old, sweet songs into a very dark ambience that frees the songs from a purely nostalgic perception. Maybe even lynch´s regular music man Angelo Badalamenti will add one of his dark and moody pieces. P.S. I´m just seeing Patrick McKay also took a second take on "Barry Lyndon". This made me keen on having a second look by myself, after many years. I was not disappointed at all, the magic still worked!
Posted 01/24/2007 - 10:01:06 AM by florenz6:
 P.P.S. And "Straight Story" was also great!!
Posted 01/27/2007 - 10:57:35 PM by superliminal:
 Nice article. Its hard to take a stab at a Lynch movie before time has allowed for some discussion among the public sphere, but the film seemed to be pretty affective in addressing questions of identity, time and ideas of reality. Am I the only one who saw a theme of womens' sexual identity as the red thread that ran through the entirety of this fucked up narrative? Wasn't there a Wizard of Oz reference in there too??
Posted 02/02/2007 - 11:23:57 AM by cwperry:
 It is really difficult for me to say this, because I'm sure some people who read it will think I can't handle impenetrable art, I don't understand cinema, Lynch is too sophisticated for me, etc. I know a thing or two about this kind of bag, I've seen the dang Cremaster Cycle, and I have to say that I believe Lynch has "jumped the shark" with this one. It's full of interesting visuals, sure. But unless you just want a trip into Lynch's subconscious with zero context, you really don't need to see Inland Empire. The "A" grades and four- and five-star reviews seem to be the products of critics who are either 1) happy to give Lynch high accolades for anything he does so long as it's cool to look at, or 2) completely clueless and stabbing in the dark. I don't believe that a film is great simply because it confounds the audience, or because it's so impenetrable that you must be "in the cult" to "get it." This film is no piece of garbage--I'll save that assessment for Crispin Glover's What Is It--but it's no masterpiece. In three hours, how many truly satisfying scenes are there? Not many. But there are a lot of "whoa, what the fuck" moments, and those do not a great movie make.
Posted 02/02/2007 - 11:26:35 AM by cwperry:
 superliminal: No, you weren't alone--one of the few threads I could pull from this bloated tapestry was a theme of female sexual identity/sexual politics. But it's like finding a needle in a haystack and I'm sure even more people would argue it's about the Hollywood star system (another arguably present theme). But I hear ya, superliminal.
Posted 02/04/2007 - 10:09:26 PM by asimler:
 Well I found the film to be sensational. Sort of a radical remix of 'Mulholland Dr.'. I've seen it twice now and found it to be quite an intense experience both times. I guess if you like your films spoon fed to you, this isn't for you. Totally uncompromising and endlessly fascinating-open to so many interpretations.
Posted 02/05/2007 - 12:10:20 PM by cwperry:
 I certainly don't like my films spoon-fed to me. And truth be told, I thought Lynch jumped the shark with Mulholland Drive.
Posted 08/20/2007 - 05:36:09 AM by hardcoracle:
 This is months late but in response to cwperry: Nobody is saying this film is great because it "confounds" or is only decipherable by a certain "in" group of people. If somebody is saying that, they are stupid.