Badmovies.org Forum

I'm in the mood for "wierd," and David Lynch always fits the bill. I love the DL wierdness. Inland Empire is the only DL film I've never seen. I understand it is way beyond bizarre. I read that the cast member were handed new script every day of shooting, and that DL had no idea how the film was going to end up?

I like the wierdness, but even his most bizarre films, as enigmatic as they are, have some kind of story and meaning. Does Inland Empire have any meaning at all? I get the impression it doesn't. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to watching it. Who has seen it who would like to comment?

You can check out my rather long review (http://366weirdmovies.com/inland-empire-2006/) if you like.

In short, there is really no story (there's a shred of one but it's abandoned).  Yes, according to Lynch it was written scene by scene, with no grand plan.  It is complete and total surrealism, and a little much at times.  I liked it, but then again I'm "weird."   :bouncegiggle:  Frankly, like you I prefer I little more plot.  If not more plot, then a shorter running time.   

It was weird for the sake of weird.

Why do people always say that like it's a bad thing?  People never review a comedy by saying "it was funny for the sake of funny."

I bought the DVD awhile ago.  Although the story (if there is any) is nearly impossible to follow, the movie is very engrossing and hypnotic . . . you MUST watch it until the end (but you won't know why).  Definitely not the type of movie where you buy a couple cases of beer and invite the boys over.  This one is best watched alone.  You'll want to drink afterward.  If you're a David Lynch fan, you should definitely see it.

I didn't mean it in a bad way.

It's also pretty spooky at time.

Eh, I wasn't sure you did.  But people usually do use the phrase that way, and it's a pet peeve of mine. Anyway, I definitely recommend Flick watch it.