I have to admit, it's prob my least favourite David Lynch film. I didn't like that it was shot on digital. The reason Lynch films work so well is because of the well crafted atmosphere. And I just didn't feel that atmosphere was present here. That shadowy, noir style just didn't come across on digital. And although he cranked the weirdness up to a million, it just felt like someone trying to be weird.

No, I have no clue what it was about. But then I wasn't inspired and intrigued to dwell on what it was about the same way I was with Mulholland Drive, Twin Peaks, Eraserhead or Lost Highway, etc, etc.

I know it was critically lauded, so I recognise that it's a respected film. But it just wasn't for me.

@Invidia said: Anyhow, imo, it's a BRILLIANT FILM, but it also requires several viewings before the things that are happening in it begin to fall into place and make sense for you.

Several viewings! I could barely make it through the first. I dozed off so many times and had to keep remembering where I left off. It had the occasional interesting moment but overall it was a clunker. The only reason why most critics gave it a positive review is because it's Lynch and he's earned their respect. Had this been his first film, it would have been panned.

@Kewl_Kat said:

The only reason why most critics gave it a positive review is because it's Lynch and he's earned their respect. Had this been his first film, it would have been panned.

I do kinda agree. Like I said before, it just didn't have the same mood as Lynch's other work. And what Lynch was saying may well have been very clever, but I wasn't engaged. His intention was to weird us out and unsettle us, but all I felt was alienated. Although yes, there were interesting moments. But without that intriguing, creeping sense of dread that Lynch is known for, I'm not inspired to watch it several times so that it does make sense for me.

I do like your analysis though, Invidia. You clearly have a good grasp of it. I would never have gotten all that. Alas, it was a long time ago I watched the film so I can't remember it very well. Do you have an interpretation of Mulholland Drive? That's one I remember very well and seems to have similar themes.

Like others, I was alienated by the film when I watched it... although I didn't fall asleep. It's high time that I see the film again.

@Invidia said:

Yes I also have an interpretation of MD.

Check out the MD forum:

https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/1018-mulholland-drive/discuss/58aefe6c9251410b25008003

You might also like the impression I have of that film as well.

Whoah! That is one epic thread! I will give it a read at some point, but it's kip time now.

You are clearly a big David Lynch fan.

I gave it one and a half stars. I didn't like it, but maybe I just didn't understand it. I usually like weird mind bending movies, but this one fell flat for me.

@A-Dubya said:

I gave it one and a half stars. I didn't like it, but maybe I just didn't understand it. I usually like weird mind bending movies, but this one fell flat for me.

I agree. 'Twas a clunker.

It's a long way from Lynch's top drawer although it has sensational moments. I didn't really appreciate the digital photography. There were some truly terrifying images, but it was a lot longer than it needed to be.

One thing which I thought was unimpeachable, however, is Lara Dern's performance. I thought she was simply extraordinary, in a difficult role requiring a lot of range.

6/10 for the film but 9/10 for Dern.

The fact that many people have not been able to find a satisfactory meaning to this movie, does not mean that it LACKS one. I say this simply because I thought the same thing about the first Lynch movie I saw, Mulholland Drive. I was convinced it (MD) did not make sense. After reviewing it more carefully AND reading other people's thoughts on IMDb I finally began to see the beauty of MD and wow! it astonished me. I realized that Lynch had used characters and themes in ways I had NEVER seen before in film.

So when Inland Empire came out, I was determined to make sense of it too...and I did. What is it about? As Lynch himself said it is about a "A Woman in Trouble" Yes, exactly as the common phrase suggests this story is of a woman whose pregnancy caused big trouble for her. The key question is NOT however what it's about? it is more a question of HOW is it told? The story is told in the most direct first person narrative possible in literature. What is that? This woman is recounting her story, real time, with all the characteristics of none linear, stream of consciousness THINKING. We, the audience are merely given that long stream of her conscious thoughts.

This explains the many , many different attributes of the film: It's non linear, repetitive, James Joyce-like narrative is unpredictable, halting, distracting horrifying and very, very sad. The narrative is like this because it is the unfiltered "thoughts"of the woman and her thoughts, her feelings are exactly the same. Certain characters we see in the movie function both as narrative characters AND also as archetypal Jungian fossilization of thoughts, feelings, emotions this woman has had for so long that they have been cemented in her mind. One example I can give you is the character known as the 1st Visitor. Yes, she helps drive the brain narrative involving the aged actress played by Laura Dern, however she also represents the Woman in Trouble's deep seated sense of guilt a guilt specifically related to the 1st death she blames herself with. There is a 2nd Visitor who also comes the remind the mind of a second death, the second death is that of her lover's baby. Visitor # 2 speaks of a man named Krimp. Krimp is another archetype of the lover in this story.

Another quality of this 'stream of thoughts' is that it is NOT given to us with any placeholders or explanations. There is NOTHING in the film that shows us how to interpret what we see. Nothing that is save for the epilogue. That scene is Lynch ONLY clue because it shows US Lynch's own INLAND EMPIRE about the time he concluded making the movie Inland Empire. You will note the epilogue contains real people (Laura Dern's Hubby) some Lynch characters from previous shows ( Camilla from Mulholland Drive), some dead people who really lived ( Nina Simone's look alike) and some characters lynch merely thought about including in this film, but perhaps had to edit out because of time ( the Asian Lady's Monkey and the sister of a character merely mentioned in one of the long narrative speeches a lady with a leg like a stick shift of car) These two ONLY existed in Lynch's mind and the ONLY place they can co-exist with real people; dead people and fictional characters in in someone's MIND! Lynch gave us that final scene as if to say, this is MY Inland Empire, figure it out and my preceding movie is VERY easy to understand AND follow.

I can give a many more clues because I know EVERY SINGLE FRAME of this movie is carefully put together and makes absolutely makes sense. However the real joy and beauty of a Lynch film is to fix the puzzle yourself. Perhaps your pieces might not match completely with mine and that would be okay too. I will make some suggestions to help you along.

First, the events that this woman is "thinking about" occurred approximately a decade ago. This I derived from the approximate age (ten years) of the boy in the fantasized re-union scene of husband, son and woman. Second, there are many clues about this protagonist and narrator's CURRENT circumstances. These you will get from the carefully given throwaway words of smaller characters, stressing on seemingly pointless things like:" Horrible Tea! somewhat like a hospital cafeteria" Thirdly, if you sit back you will notice there are many, many examples of "adultery and tragedy" sprinkled all throughout the movie. I suggest that ONLY ONE actually occurred and the repetition is because our protagonist is continually thinking about it happening...in different ways, hoping, wishing the actual events could somehow be changed " this might be the one!". Which leads me to the status of this "thinking " narrator and protagonist . We never actually see her. What we see are representations and aspects of her being....AS SHE IMAGINES THEM...and as they float through her mind. Finally, if you feel a growing degree of confusion, disjointedness and terror while watching this movie, it is because this is EXACTLY how this protagonist is feeling as these thoughts rush through her mind and terrify her. This is HER Inland Empire you are viewing!

Those people who understand the "three quarters dream and one quarter flashbacks and recollections" explanation of Mulholland Drive will see Inland Empire as a natural progression from that mostly internal and partly external format to an ENTIRELY internal one.