u4129401
Joined Apr 2006
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews2
u4129401's rating
I saw Inland Empire last night, and as I suspected it didn't exceed my expectations, nor did it fall short of them. It dodged them completely. Whatever you've read, heard, forget it. Just go and see it.
Lynch was talking on French radio about how he began with a Sony PD-150 and actually shot on low-res before upgrading it in post. He then graded it and played with it a bit more before printing it to film for the version we get in cinemas. It's hardly the death of film but it does give some images, particularly those in warm lighting conditions, an uncharacteristic depth. It doesn't resolve the inconsistency of video in the slightest though, and we do end up either marvelling at the quality of some images or lamenting the "videoness" of others.
What's interesting is that his framing has changed drastically. Lynch probes his actors now, capturing their disorientation, and confusion, with harsh closeups and wobbly pans. He's clearly having fun being away from the rigour of a 35mm rig, and in many scenes dispenses with the tripod altogether and just sort of observes the action. This compounds the suspense and uncertainty at the film's core, carefully inviting us to make assumptions and hazard guesses, but never letting us past the perspective of curious outsider.
I'm still utterly ambivalent about this video business. I wonder if Inland Empire would've worked on 35 though, if it would have illicited the same discomfort, been as challenging, as ambitious?
Lynch was talking on French radio about how he began with a Sony PD-150 and actually shot on low-res before upgrading it in post. He then graded it and played with it a bit more before printing it to film for the version we get in cinemas. It's hardly the death of film but it does give some images, particularly those in warm lighting conditions, an uncharacteristic depth. It doesn't resolve the inconsistency of video in the slightest though, and we do end up either marvelling at the quality of some images or lamenting the "videoness" of others.
What's interesting is that his framing has changed drastically. Lynch probes his actors now, capturing their disorientation, and confusion, with harsh closeups and wobbly pans. He's clearly having fun being away from the rigour of a 35mm rig, and in many scenes dispenses with the tripod altogether and just sort of observes the action. This compounds the suspense and uncertainty at the film's core, carefully inviting us to make assumptions and hazard guesses, but never letting us past the perspective of curious outsider.
I'm still utterly ambivalent about this video business. I wonder if Inland Empire would've worked on 35 though, if it would have illicited the same discomfort, been as challenging, as ambitious?
C'était complètement minable : à fuir absolument!
This was an idiotic attempt to destroy classic source material, and thoroughly succeeded!
Do not see this film under any circumstances unless you wish to have your ten euros torn up and shoved up your nostrils by a bunch of vapid, atrociously unamusing characters.
This type of film clearly illustrates the gulf that still unfortunately divides directors and audiences. If the individual (heaven forbid a collective could have conceived this dross) behind this had been considerate enough to watch the version currently playing in French cinemas, he or she would have endured what I was forced to endure, and mercifully rewritten it or just scrapped it altogether. The vein of adult humour being mined here dates, to my mind, back to Fritz the Cat but lacks that film's avant-garde status or even its base attempt at social commentary.
With the proliferation of remakes and increasing reliance on pre-existing source material to fund storytelling these days, one would hope that choosing Snow White, and thus not having to worry about conceiving characters or a radically new story, would have allowed more time for, oh I don't know, interesting animation, smarter jokes, perhaps a coherent film that has something to say and doesn't telegraph its vacuity from the opening frame?
A manifestly appalling production.
This was an idiotic attempt to destroy classic source material, and thoroughly succeeded!
Do not see this film under any circumstances unless you wish to have your ten euros torn up and shoved up your nostrils by a bunch of vapid, atrociously unamusing characters.
This type of film clearly illustrates the gulf that still unfortunately divides directors and audiences. If the individual (heaven forbid a collective could have conceived this dross) behind this had been considerate enough to watch the version currently playing in French cinemas, he or she would have endured what I was forced to endure, and mercifully rewritten it or just scrapped it altogether. The vein of adult humour being mined here dates, to my mind, back to Fritz the Cat but lacks that film's avant-garde status or even its base attempt at social commentary.
With the proliferation of remakes and increasing reliance on pre-existing source material to fund storytelling these days, one would hope that choosing Snow White, and thus not having to worry about conceiving characters or a radically new story, would have allowed more time for, oh I don't know, interesting animation, smarter jokes, perhaps a coherent film that has something to say and doesn't telegraph its vacuity from the opening frame?
A manifestly appalling production.