Finally, a bad movie to review! I've been itching for some complaining.

I saw Wild at Heart a couple nights ago as well and I've gotta say David Lynch is one of the most inconsistent directors ever. I hesitate to say overrated because he definitely has a distinct style that appeals to some people. Anyone who's into film is aware of it to a certain extent. Surreal. More dream logic than anything. Hard to grasp. Perhaps aggravating and arguably without meaning. Needless to say, Lynch is an acquired taste.

But even his more traditional films. Dune. Wild at Heart. Very whatever. Dune was downright cheesy and boring. Wild at Heart had some good performances, notably from Nicholas Cage, but I didn't really invest in the story or characters. And the Wizard of Oz references were forced as hell.

Blue Velvet is the only one I thought was anything special. I suppose Eraserhead ain't bad either. I liked bits of Mulholland Drive but it was a frustrating film and more than anything, uneventful.

But I digress... Inland Empire. For all intents and purposes, this is Lynch's opus. So Lynch fans... feel free to disregard my review. You'll probably eat this one up. I, myself, am going to tear it up, accordingly...

Now, I should note. Inland Empire is a very polarizing film and the reasons for that are well documented. Namely, there's essentially no story or logic to speak of. It's a completely free range dreamscape. Free range Lynch. Not something to be analyzed. Just experienced.

I went into the film well aware of this. So my indignation doesn't come from being blindsided. I knew exactly what to expect.

But good lord. I haven't seen a film that's tried so hard not to be liked in a long time. I mean making a plotless film that completely open to interpretation is, while not my cup of tea per se, an artistic choice and I respect Lynch for that. But for every flaw that could be explained away with this kind of logic, there was another flaw that practically made it inexcusable.

There are two things in particular that make the film monumentally difficult watch.

1) It's shot on DV. I went to film school. I can spot this look from a mile away. It. Looks. Like. Shit. It's like watching VHS instead of DVD. It doesn't help that a lot of the scenes were either poorly lit or not lit at all. I also question whether or not Lynch cared to white balance. A lot of the tones was needlessly warm. Distracting to say the least. But really, the overall picture quality just looks abysmal.

2) It's 3 hours long. Not 2 and a half. Not 2 hours, 45 minutes. 3 hours.

The three hours were the absolute worst crime of the film. The first hour has a plot, surrounding two actors (Laura Dern and Justin Theroux) playing in a supposedly cursed film. Sounds great, right? David Lynch knows creepy. Nope. Boring.

Then after that, the film descends into a series of vignettes, some interrelated, some not, all focused around Dern's character. I guess she's supposed to be losing her mind, having a nightmare, whatever. Two hours. No plot. No real world logic. Only dream logic.

Both parts of the film are an absolute chore to sit through. I had to stop once or twice and thought about stopping the film altogether several times. I opted not to though. I think you should finish a film no matter what. But I was very close to turning it off and forgetting about it forever. I mean, it's absolutely painful to sit through.

Why, David?! Why?! Was it really necessary to make this film 3 hours?!!!

I mean, what do you actually get in this timeframe? Umm... I guy dumps ketchup on his shirt and asks where the paper towels are. A man goes into a house, comes out and complains there's no toilet pater. A light flickers. Maybe some editing flourishes there but whatever. Some crackheads talk about taking a bus to Pomona. Some chick watches a show about stop-motion rabbits and cries. Some people speak Polish.

Nothing interesting happens at all. AT ALL. I don't get it. It's one thing to mess with audience expectations. Another to completely disregard them. But what is it about showing content that's completely boring and uneventful that no one would want to see, for any reason (entertainment, artistic merit, symbolism, plain old curiosity, etc)?

So a guy's got ketchup on his shirt. Clean it up, asshole! I mean, there's nothing to this at all. And yet they have to play spooky music nonstop to give the illusion that something's happening.

I saw Gummo a few months ago from a director (Harmony Korine) who likes to make films almost exclusively about mundane bullshit. Who needs to watch some fat chick shave her eyebrows for five minutes? Really.

But you know what? Gummo had its moments. In fact, it had its fair share. That's kind of the fun of vignette films, really. You can appreciate a single moment even if you don't like the whole film. Lynch is a much better director than Korine. You'd think Inland Empire would have some cool moments. Nope. Not really. Maybe one or two. That's it. The rest... Fuck it.

There's a fair share of good actors in this film and they're all wasted. Their performances are meaningless, including Dern's, who clearly put a lot into her role. Also, Lynch's dialogue isn't always particularly good. Some of it just sounds awkward, for some reason. Maybe it's the actor's delivery. I don't know. Not good.

Almost done...

When I said the length is the greatest crime of the film, I meant it. But here's the second one...

Some films really need to be viewed twice to truly be appreciated. Crash (1996) and Requiem for a Dream come to mind as I've rewatched both recently. But with Inland Empire, if you didn't like it the first time around, it'd be impossible to sit through it a second time. Lynch basically denies the film its second change by making it so hard to get through once.

So there was literally nothing good about this film I liked. Technically speaking, it's a more successful film than, say, Dune because Lynch did exactly what he wanted to do with it. Like I said. I respect that. A lot. Film shouldn't be designated just for entertainment. It's just too expansive an art form. But as far as I'm concerned, Inland Empire sucks.

If you're a die hard Lynch fan (and I mean hardcore), I'd say check it out. Even some of them didn't like this one. Otherwise, it might just be a big waste of time.

I'm a moderate Lynch fan -- especially Blue Velvet and Lost Highway -- saw this in theatre...all I can do (again) is echo James.  Unwatchable.  Lynch is not a man who should ever be allowed complete freedom.  Nothing happens at any point in this movie ever, but it has a lot of eerie music and unpleasant colours so having the movie playing is much more annoying than having the TV off.  

This movie can only worsen your life.  You will gain nothing from it.  Avoid.

Since I have only seen this once, I'll refrain from commenting as I'd prefer to withhold my opinion until further viewings. Needless to say, its a very difficult film but not without the surreal mystique and intriguing weirdness that pervades Lynch's work. Plus Laura Dern's performance is nothing short of terrifying.

I can't say I'm too eager about it but I will definitely give it a second watch soon as its been over a year since I've seen it.

Anyway, I'm a fan of David Lynch. For me, Blue Velvet and Mulholland Dr. are true masterpieces, no question.

Quoted from James McClung I liked bits of Mulholland Drive but it was a frustrating film and more than anything, uneventful.

Trust me, James, give this another go. If it helps, check up the F.A.Q. section on IMDb before watching it to give you some insight. It's got great replay value once you're clued in...and lotsa stuff happens.

I really liked The Elephant Man and Eraserhead (for different reasons) too. While, similar to Inland Empire, I need to watch Wild at Heart (saw it too young) Dune and Lost Highway again.

But yeah, for the casual moviegoer, I wouldn't exactly stick a "recommended" sticker on this one.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 I can't say I'm too eager about it but I will definitely give it a second watch soon as its been over a year since I've seen it.

You're a bigger man than me. And I keep a really open mind to this stuff. I sat through Limits of Control. It was a little tedious but I'm glad I did. Inland Empire is easily the worst experimental film I've seen since Marilyn Manson's Doppleherz and among the worst I've actually sought out on my own (as opposed to seen in film school *shudders*).

Quoted from Colkurtz8 Trust me, James, give this another go. If it helps, check up the F.A.Q. section on IMDb before watching it to give you some insight. It's got great replay value once you're clued in...and lotsa stuff happens.

Fair enough. I've checked out the FAQs and message boards a few times already but I think I've got my own interpretation of what happened in the film. I'd like to see if it actually holds water.

Seeing as I've seen half of Lynch's filmography already, I think I'm gonna go ahead and watch the rest of his films as well, including the Twin Peaks series. It seems like Lost Highway and Mulholland Dr. already accomplished what Lynch tried to do in this one, albeit with that little precious thing called restraint.

I liked Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive & Blue Velvet but disliked Eraserhead & Inland Empire.

I actually despise Eraserhead.  That took me like ten goes to watch, not more than ten minutes a go.  It was so annoying and a brain fuck too.

Inland Revenue is a like a mash of everything he's done picking up the worst parts of every film.  I like David's creativity, but this film appears to show sometimes a second opinion is require before giving the green light.