I didn't love it or hate it.

Rating: Null/10 (21 April 2003)

But I was disappointed, though. For the first hour or so, I thought, well, this has some typical David Lynch weirdness, but I might actually like it. But I guess it just isn't meant to be.
I have watched 3 or 4 Lynch films now, and I just can't bring myself to believe he's a genius. I love a movie that makes me think, but Lynch just doesn't give the audience much to work with. It seems like he just films a bunch of scenes, throws them together and walks off laughing with his paycheck in hand, while his fans make up the story based on what THEY think it means. Then they tell everyone who doesn't absolutely RAVE about every crapfest he churns out that they just aren't "creative" enough, or "imaginative" enough, or the worst ones - "You just don't 'get' it" and "You must only like movies like 'Scream' and 'Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back'. You're so dumb and lazy that you can't appreciate Lynch's genius. I pity you, really." I mean, it's sad. It's like he's got his own cult, or something.
As I was saying, though, I love movies that intrigue me and stay in my mind for a while. The movies that do that for me may not match the standards set by all you super-intellectual filmgoers, but I know when a movie is good. I also know when a movie stinks. And Lynch couldn't make a good movie to save his life. One of the main reasons is because he has no understanding of character development. I don't care how "original" you want to be with your films, if I don't like your characters or at least despise them heartily enough to be interested in where they will end up at the end of the movie, then why should I care enough to waste time trying to figure it out? There are other, better movies I could be watching.
The characters in this film are made of cardboard. Betty was the only one who I came close to liking, but there are several things that kept me from it. One is her hopelessly innocent and naive, 50's sitcom attitude. Then she switches to a raging nympho with a strange old guy in front of a bunch of strangers for an audition. That was totally out of the blue. Next, she's in a raging lesbian love affair with "Rita" some chick who wandered into her aunt's house and is most likely brain damaged. Judging by Rita's acting skills, someone better get her to a hospital, quick (but hey, she's hot, right). Naomi Watts is a good actress, and she plays her part well, but her character seems to change personalities every five minutes. I can't really tell if I like her or not. The other characters were mostly quirky and weird and had no purpose. They were just thrown in to make it "freaky" and "different". They go nowhere, and then when you get to the end you find out that they aren't GOING to go anywhere, because none of them were who you thought they were. But you didn't really care because they weren't the kind of people anyone would spend five minutes with, anyway.
I probably could have handled the ending better if it weren't for the pointless masturbation scene and the tiny, giggling old people. That was just plain laughable. Oh, and if I had given a crap about Diane, who just seemed to be an emotionally disturbed loser. But I didn't get to know Diane because the first chunk of the story was about an entirely made up character that never existed. I don't know about some of you, but I don't like to plunk down even a rental fee just so someone who thinks his every brain-fart is pure genius can jerk me around for 2 hours. I like movies to engage my emotions as well as my mind. I want to feel something besides exasperation that I got taken for a sucker. I won't be getting that from David Lynch.
If Dave wants to throw his audience a bone, maybe he could start using all the time that gets eaten away by dead silence and pointless, one-note weirdo characters to throw in a little main character and story development. It wouldn't hurt, in fact it might help some of us stupid people who think Armageddon is an intense psychological drama. Which, of course, is anyone who doesn't love this stinker. But hey, like I said, I don't hate it (though I probably would if not for Naomi Watts), I'm just disappointed. And I am certain that I won't be taking another risk on a Lynch film. I hope anyone who reads this will take my advice and avoid his films at all costs.
Oh, and if you didn't like my review, it's simply because you're too narrow-minded to understand my particular brand of genius. You have to go back and read it very carefully three or four times before you will start to piece it together. Trust me, it's a great review. I don't get it yet, either, well, not all of it, but trust me, I just KNOW it's brilliant, complex, symbolic, and a total masterpiece. No? Maybe I should have thrown in a lesbian sex scene?