Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Inland Empire (2007) 4/10


Wow, where to start here. I guess the first thing i'll say is that this film is 3 hours long and i gave up after 2. If you feel that because i didn't finish the film i can't have a true review of it. fine. stop reading. If a film is 3 hours long, it better be really good for me to dedicate that much of my time to it.

This film however was not really good. I am a david lynch fan. I love lost highway, blue velvet, hell i even love Dune. The only one of his films i didnt like was wild at heart. So you can stop with "well maybe he doesn't eve like his films." You can also stop with the fanboy syndrome of never being happy with a director/musician/whatever, does in light of previous supposedly masterpiece work. I think a person's films should be judged without thinking of previous works as much as possible, though can't be avoided altogether.

Whew that being said i really didnt like this film. It's shot on digital which usually doesn't bother me but because of the quality and the lack of a tripod alot of the camera work looks just like something out of a student film. There's a host of characters that are seemingly unrelated not that thats unique in a lynch film. The thing that gets me is that there is no conflict set up like in his other films or 99% of any other films for that matter. Laura dern plays an actress that slowly goes crazy i guess and there seems to be no reason for this. There are some beautifully shot and edited squences but those don't stop the bulk of the film from bringing the whole ship down. For some reason the films comes off as amateurish and poorly acted. sorry david this one's a miss.

Overall 4/10

2 comments:

Ego said...

I guess i will steer clear of that film....thanks Uncouth Man!

Anonymous said...

thanks for saving me three very long hours i can now spend watching grass grow. or hunting buffalo.

even picasso sucked at times...