|
Post by Fickle81 on Dec 4, 2006 10:09:40 GMT -5
First,to get those who don't know what INLAND EMPIRE is caught up to speed: www.imdb.com/title/tt0460829/Now for the reason why I started this thread...the teaser trailer... youtube.com/watch?v=y4hFEDYmMcMAlthough it's only a teaser and it brought a huge grin across my face,my worst fear for the movie has apparently come true...coming from somebody that has used it for all 4 of his student films,I love the DV medium for its ease of use and accessability with filming and editing,its picture quality,and it being much cheaper and more reliable than stock...but the one complaint I have about it is the sound quality it picks up...it's too raw and overbearing as it tends to pick up a lot of echo and backround modulation...the echo of the traffic noise in the night time shot was near unbearable...again,this is only a teaser that may not have any real sound mixing in it,but I'm suspicious that they would release a trailer like this that has overbearing sound this close to release (it's supposed to have a limited theatrical release on December 15th) In any case,I can't wait as this looks like the kind of bizarre film trip I'd expect from master Lynch...just remember, cheese is made from milk. EDIT:The Official Site: www.inlandempirecinema.com/
|
|
|
Post by pureevilmatt on Dec 4, 2006 22:26:07 GMT -5
I'm looking forward to this too. I've yet to be disappointed by a David Lynch movie. I love how love them or hate them, you end up talking about them for weeks after seeing them. His movies always leave a mark.
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Dec 4, 2006 22:36:51 GMT -5
I'm looking forward to this too. I've yet to be disappointed by a David Lynch movie. I love how love them or hate them, you end up talking about them for weeks after seeing them. His movies always leave a mark. Early word is that the movie is basically sort of a compilation of every single film Lynch has ever done...no wonder it's 3 hours long...
|
|
|
Post by Fickle81 on Aug 7, 2007 8:24:18 GMT -5
As posted here with slight differences:Very VERY slight spoilers ahead...nothing major is given away,but just as a forewarning:Before I officially begin the review,I must make something perfectly clear. As the picture says above,this IS a David Lynch movie in the truest sense. If you're not a fan of his surrealistic films,I STRONGLY suggest you not even bother with it because it will do you no favours...like,at all. In fact,I also strongly recommend you not even read further than this paragraph. Ok,now that I've weened out the potential detractors and am left with the select few remaining Lynch fans (or just those indifferent who are still curious)...all I can really say is that my brain has been throughly fucked into oblivion. I'm dead fucking serious when I say this...this may very well be Lynch's most fucked up movie to date. It makes Mulholland Drive extremely normal in comparison...hell,even Lost Highway pales in fucked upness compared to Inland Empire because at least Lost Highway has a specific and definable structure to its altering of time and reality. I personally believe that the less you know about the movie,the more effective the viewing experience will be,so the previous sentence will be the last bit I will get into reguarding how utterly bizarre this film is...ok that was a lie,THIS will be the final bit I add because I find it very interesting and cool as shit...towards the end of the film,there is a scene in a theater that plays out in a similar manner to the theater scene in my Trojan Horse story that I wrote a treatment for (for those that read it,you should know exactly what part in the treatment I'm referring to). I think it's fuckin cool as hell to know that Lynch and I had the same similar idea (that I didn't even know he thought up as well till I saw this),eventhough one's version plays out a bit differently than the other. Alright,now that my reactionary view of the surreal nature of the film is out of the way and in the open,lets talk about some technical aspects...for starters,the movie being filmed in digital video as opposed to film,which is a medium I'm all too familiar with due to having used it to make all 6 film projects I've shot. For those unaware,Lynch is a very cinematography heavy film maker and for him to give DV,still a very new medium of film making,his unanimous blessing (even going so far as to say that he will never use regular film again) dispite some of it's shortcomings when compared to film (more on that in a sec) is a very big triumph for the medium...which is great because I was starting to feel inferior for only using DV for all the films I've shot rather than busting a move and at least trying my hand at working with film (DV is ALOT more low budget friendly than film) . But how did his use of the medium turn out? Overall,pretty good...there were some instances where you could blatently tell that he used auto focus that I had issues with. There were also a bunch of shots that were hard to see due to insufficient lighting (although this may have been on purpose for atmosphere),which is one of the shortcomings of DV...you need to really crank up the lighting in dimly lit areas (areas that don't appear dim to the naked eye can sure as fuck be dim with a DV camera even with the iris and gain pumped up all the way...you'll see what I mean if you watch the movie). Having seen these hard to see shots,I'm actually glad I didn't see this film on the big screen,cause it would have been a helleva lot worse (trust me,I know from personal experience). Also,eventhough I wasn't really bothered by them,probably because I have been known to do the same thing in some of my films,some people might not like all the shots that are obviously handheld (the first person POV shots for example) because of the way the camera shakes...but at least I have an excuse for it due to not having any access to a steady cam. Would it have killed Lynch to invest in one? But there was also a lot of good stuff going on dispite these flaws...while there were shots that were hard to see due to being dimly lit,there were also lots of shots that did some really cool things with the lighting using outside the box techniques as simple as waving a bunch of flashlights in front of Laura Dern. Overall I give the DV cinematography a 7.5/10...while there were spots that annoyed me (particularly with focus),theres no doubt that it gave the film a unique feel and look...it certainly makes certain scenes a lot creepier. Now lets talk about the sound. Like the cinematography,this works both for and against the film. Another shortcoming of the DV medium is that unless you have and work with top of the line sound capturing equipment,the sound quality has the potential to be finicky...and even if you are working with the best sound capturing equipment,the sound quality of DV pales in comparison to the sound quality of regular film. I watched it on my computer with the sound coming through my speakers,and I had to turn them up damn near to full blast just to be able to hear what people were saying during some scenes...but then all the sudden there would be a sudden instance of blaring sound that would catch my ass completely off guard to the point of it being a jump scare,and I had to quickly react to turn it back down. I have no idea if this was a purposeful unorthadox sound design,but if it was,it was actually quite clever and kinda annoying at the same time...again,a mixed reaction just like the cinematography. My advice if you watch it on a computer...unless you don't have a problem with a sudden brief occurance of near deafining sound overtaking you and your surroundings,it might be a good idea to keep your hand on the speaker volume dial while you watch this...but then again,it's not like you can adequetly prepare for these instances anyway without prior knowledge to where they are,which you won't have upon your first viewing. Other than that,there were also some instances where the sound helped with the atmosphere...particularly the dark room with the constint light buzz. If by some chance you've been following this film as I have,you may have heard some rumblings about Laura Dern's "amazing performance" in this film. Well,the reason you've been hearing said buzz is because she essentially plays 2 different characters that actually feels like 4. It's a very unique performance. These 2 characters have distinct differing qualities,while at the same time they each have another slightly different extension of their being to the point of practically becoming a whole new character...and yet all of these distinctly different characters played by one person have a semblance of feeling like that one person at the same time. Thats really the best way I can explain it. It's really unlike anything you've ever seen before. Other than the cinematography and sound issues that I already covered that are the film's double edged sword,are the re any other flaws? Well,there are instances where it can be difficult to tell some people apart in the movie. Other than Laura Dern's doppleganger performance,there was also basically 3 VERY SLIGHT different versions of another character (I believe her husband). The difference was minute,but it was enough to confuse me a couple times. Also,just a forewarning,this movie is litterally 2 hours 52 minutes and and 18 seconds long...I say litterally because theres even shit going on during the end credits and as the end credits are coming to an end (it might finally go to black a few seconds before the 18 second mark,but it hardly seems like a big enough difference). Eventhough it didn't bother me TOO much,there were some instances where the pace slowed down considerably to the point where I was really wanting it to move onto something else. Thankfully it usually didn't take long for that to happen. Overall,if your a fan of Lynch,seeing this film is pratically an obligation. If you're not,AVOID IT AT ALL COSTS because it will potentially drive you insane with its surreal nature and long runtime to the point where you'll probably dismiss it as pretensious crap. It may drive you Lynch fans insane in a different and good way,even knowing what kind of movies David Lynch has made in his career before this. If you honestly believe you are gonna be able to fully comprehend this movie after 1 viewing,you are DEAD FUCKING WRONG! Although there were a couple of reoccuring themes in the movie that I definatly got,I'm certainly not gonna even try to make sense out of the rest of it until I've fully digested this first viewing and have fully digested the next 5 or so viewings...yea,it's that complex. On your first viewing,don't try to question it and don't try to rationalise any of it. Just sit back and enjoy the warped fucked up journey it takes you on...if you give it repeat viewings after the first,THEN you can try to put the pieces together and attempt to make some sense out of it (good fucking luck). I would personally rate this above Mulholland Drive and about the same level as Lost Highway...but Blue Velvet and Eraserhead (his magnum opus in my superior personal opinion) still rank above it. 4/5
|
|