You people are crazy, this movie was horrible

Rating: Null/10 (25 August 2003)

SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!
This review might spoil some plot elements. It might also spoil your ability to pass off a bad film as genius. Read on at your own risk.
This movie was horrible. All of you are digging so deep to find meaning in this drek. You are excusing bad dialogue, bad cinematography, no story, bad imagery by giving it some deeper meaning. I honestly felt like I was watching a bad student film. The exposition was horrendous. However you guys want to break the film down, it was damn unwatchable. If the film is going to have some greater meaning, then it should make sense. This thing was about as masturbatory as it gets. What the hell was Robert Forster doing in this movie? He had what? Two lines?
The only thing that prevented me from laughing out loud at this movie every five seconds (the thing was Ed Wood funny) is the score. It was brilliant. Lynch is a master of false suspense, trying to make everything oooooooooo creeeeeeeepy. It's a joke and he should blow the composer because he's the only reason I could sit through the film. The OLD PEOPLE attacking her, cackling? I laughed OUT LOUD at that one. That is the image that drove her to the edge? Old Mort and Thelma cackling and trying to tickle her while the strobe light is on?! Woooooo, scaaaary. What did they represent guys? Please tell me, I can already hear you... ...that represented the hopes and dreams of the people back home, blah blah blah. Give me a break. That's why there is no director's commentary on this DVD, because no one can explain it, not even David Lynch. To call this a great film would be an insult to all the great craftsmen of STORY that are out there. Film is not just a series of images pasted together. There is a math and a science to it, and you guys are mistaking the scribblings of a four year old for Newtonian Physics.
The BOTTOM LINE is this. Even if you give the movie all this hidden meaning and say it is a masterpiece in presenting the subconscious mind - it does nothing to excuse the down right poor craftsmanship of this film. The exposition, "Oh I am just here to drop off sides for your big audition that you have today at six PM with the big director who is best friends with your aunt." Oh and let's not forget the, wait a second, I need to add a scaaaaaary moment here, and since I can't motivate one through the story, I guess I will just put two guys in a diner and have one see a homeless guy and have a heart attack! I've seen worse mugs on a Chicago crack whore, so the fact that a character who would have a heart attack at that was even ALIVE in Los Angeles is a joke. But wait, I forgot, you guys wave your magic wand of deeper meaning and all these inexplicable scenes and bad dialogue is no longer BAD! Now it's GENIUS! Oh I see why that scene sucked! She was dreaming it! And we all write s***ty dialogue in our dreams!
Guys. I hate to break it to you. But dreams CAN have meaning. Freud based most of his work on it. That being said, why can't this film?
The basic actions and motivations of the characters made no sense. There was no story logic to this movie. That is why only six people saw it, and if it wasn't for the 16 year olds that heard there was lesbian scenes in it, it would have been less.
Now, all that being said, there are some visceral engaging moments in the film, the theatre stuff, the 50s set piece, but it just didn't have meaning. It's like he had these ideas and just wanted to string them together. It's the same sin that action directors do when they try to craft a story around this great action scene they have in their head (MI 2 is a perfect example). It has to be organic to the story or it's going to suck. I felt like Lynch was like, ooo, we need a lesbian scene here. Ooooo wait, scary moment scene! And you guys can say oh it represented whatever, come on, you could do that with any movie, including Dude Where's My Car. (Which was better than this)
Lynch doesn't make independent films because he's avant garde and gifted, he makes them because his movies aren't well crafted enough and don't make enough sense to justify a larger budget and a wider release.