Quote:
|
Originally Posted by batreleaser
Inland Empire was the only Lynch fil I found to be tedious, and ultimately pointless. It basically was the third in the trilogy of his "women in trouble", behind mulholland drive and fire walk with me. but, after 8 watches, i still have no clue what the fuck it means. mulhlland drive was confusing, but when you figured it out, it was like wow, brilliance. i never got that epiphanie with inland empire (and how the fuck could you watch that movie for pure entertainment). fire walk with me is soooo underrated though. ive watched it thre days straght, and i really love it. i thought twin peaks as a whole was lynch's best work. bob/leland, the man from another place, the black lodge, all terifying ideas. and sheryl lee was amazing, especially for someone with no acting experience.
|
Movies are a visceral experience as well as an intellectual one. If it has a good story, that's great, but there are other reasons for watching them. For me, the plot in Mulholland was by far the worst part of the movie (after figuring it out on my own, discussing it with my friends, and then reading "official" explanations). It was just a desperate cry for meaning in an otherwise plotless idea. With Inland Empire, he unintentionally admitted that he was full of shit. And you know what, he still claimed there was some logic behind it. If you look hard enough at the stars, you'll see contellations. But there's really nothing between the stars. I watch Lynch for brilliant isolated scenes and sensory complexity, not a "good story".