At last, after roughly four years of waiting, I finally got my chance to see Boxing Helena... on YouTube. Absolutely the last way I'd choose to watch something but hey, Netflix doesn't carry it and the DVD prices are outrageous (out of print, you know). Anyway, this has been pointed out to me by various people over the years given the similarities to my script Complete. As it happens, the similarities are scarce but it was interesting to check it out.

The directorial debut of Jennifer Chambers Lynch (Surveillance, Chained), Boxing Helena follows Nick (Julian Sands), a surgeon obsessed with a woman named Helena (Sherilyn Fenn) whom he's apparently only had one sexual encounter with and who has absolutely no interest in him whatsoever. After Helena leaves her purse at Nick's house (following a party of his she attended out of pity), Nick is able to lure her over for a desperate, poorly orchestrated lunch meeting, which naturally doesn't go so well and ends up with Helena running into the street and getting hit by a car.

Rather than take her to the hospital, Nick brings Helena back to his house, amputates her limbs, and keeps her as his prisoner (of "love"). Cue Helena strangely spending more time insulting and verbally emasculating Nick than she does screaming and crying (she does that to but you get the idea).

WTF, right?

Hmm... I don't know what to make of this one. For starters, it's NOTHING like Lynch's later efforts, which are much darker and brutal. Boxing Helena is certainly weirder but surprisingly lacking in either sexual or violent content. I'm guessing they were shooting for something psychological and disturbing but more often than not, it's cheesy, melodramatic, and very 90s. Sort of like if father David Lynch guest-directed a really bad soap opera episode (which I'm honestly surprised hasn't actually happened).

Sands is uber awkward. He'd be creepy if his character weren't so embarrassing and didn't let a kidnapped woman with no arms or legs push him around. Imagine a grown man acting like a 13-year old with mommy issues pursuing the high school prom queen and you'll have an idea of what to expect. Seriously, I think the entire film was supposed to be a metaphor for mommy issues. Nick's mother is eluded to not necessarily often but often enough in blatant Oedipal fashion.

I'm not sure if this was bad acting on Sands' part or if the character is just that ridiculous. The same can be said for Fen. Clearly, her performance is about as far removed from the behavior of a woman who's been kidnapped and dismembered as you can get. The rest of the cast is equally bizarre by simple virtue of who's on it. Bill Paxton, Kurtwood Smith, and Art Garfunkel of all people also appear. Paxton is a veritable national treasure as far as I'm concerned and it was sort of fun to watch him ham it up in ludicrous shiny leather pants but really, he just contributes to the WTF factor.

So, I'm pretty sure all in all, this is a bad movie. The ending, for one thing, is absolute rubbish and if everything leading up to it had been on point, it would've completely dismantled the whole piece. Terrible. Other than that, Sands' hair and the horrendous Tommy Wiseau-esque 90s montages of Helena just about say it all. This thing is ridiculous though in a weird way, almost consistently entertaining just at how wacked out everything is.

It's also one of the few films I've seen where I honestly had no idea who it was made for. David Lynch fans, I guess? While Lynch's sound design, melodrama, and bad dialogue are the only real elements of his style his daughter seems to retain, I think anyone who'd watch Inland Empire might just watch anything. Other than that, it's too disturbing to be a love story, not disturbing enough to be horror, too generally weird to work as conventional drama, and probably too silly and possibly underdeveloped to work as an art film.

Yeah. I don't know. I guess if you see the name Lynch stamped on anything film-related, you should expect the unexpected. I do hope Jennifer continues with her new style though. I dug Surveillance and Chained pretty good.

Yeah, a perplexing and vaguely unsatisfying film that's still really, really well worth watching in my opinion. Lynch was...24-ish, I think, when this was made? And 19 when she wrote it? It's an interesting film in that we rarely get to see someone so young and inexperienced attempt a film like this with the budget and star power that it has. It's definitely a total mess, but as James notes it does strangely end up being consistently entertaining.

Quoted from James McClung I think anyone who'd watch Inland Empire might just watch anything.

Haha! In terms of sheer repelling incoherence, I think Inland Empire might be the least watchable film I've ever seen. Good call.

Quoted Text (out of print, you know)

Actually, it isn't.
And even if the film is lame, anyone putting full length features  that they didn't make on YouTube should be banned from You Tube. If YT wants features on thier site like VOD, that's one thing.  But not like blowhards like these.

As for the film itself, I remember when I saw it, I liked some of the surrealistic quality but that's about it. But instead of giving us hints and clues that it is all fantasy (like Fight Club or American Psycho*) the ending where it's "all a dream" reads as a cheat to anyone who was involved in the narrative, oh those precious few! (I include myself) I do feel that the film goot bad press before production began, first with Madonna saying no then the whole stink w/ Kim Basigner. Remember- before Julian Sands it could have been....Ed Harris? I think...I'm going on memory here. In any case, 'Twin Peaks" fever was still fresh (is that your soap, James, I hope not   ) and yes, James, Sands...if Sands played it more like he had an ounce of 'Warlock' left in him - that mean streak of cockiness - (or even like his reccuring part on the series 'Person Of Intrest) it might have been better.

Years go by, I remember the film but I don't miss it. Then Lynch comes back with three films (or two, depending on who you ask regarding Hssss) and while I'm still convinced she has weak endings (Chained) she has improved. Most of the work goes right toi VOD more or less, but it would not surpise me in the least if someone asked her to direct the inveitable Insidous 3. (James Wan says he's done with horror....just as Insidious 2 rolls in 40mil on a 4m budget) Okay, she might not get that mantle, but it does appear self contained thrillers are becoming her strengths, doesn't it?


*at least until the new American Psycho series hits the air, anyway