Inland Empire is the best film of the 2000's

Perhaps. Definitely the best film about films relationship to human beings I have seen. Videodrome was good in this regard as well.

its good because they are improvising

so deep

>A lot of people hated it, and the same with TTW. Even TTOL has haters.
There were plenty of people who hated KoC, just like all of Malick's recent output, but very few loved the film, aside from some desperate wannabe film buffs. The average response to both KoC and TTW ranged from lukewarm to negative, even amongst fans of Malick.
>That still doesn't change the fact that they're all masterpieces.
That's not a fact.
>If there's any movie that gets better with repeated watches is Inland Empire. You're nuts, pal.
Uh huh.
>Opinions discarded. Thanks anyway, though. You tried.
Technology is all about how you use it, but what Lynch accomplishes by using cameras that were crappy even for their time is beyond me. It isn't just the choice, but the lack of any useful effect yielded by that choice.
>And in case you're curious, he said multiple times that he's never going back to film again, and he's going to keep using digital like in IE. So you can leave now, if you want.
There's plenty of decent looking and distinct works shot digitally. Inland Empire isn't one of them.
>No it's not. He's only been getting better and better over the years.
Since the 70's he's changed and evolved, and has been consistently great. But getting better? Is Wild at Heart better than the Elephant Man? Is Lost Highway better than Blue Velvet? He's made films of varying quality. There is no grand qualatative trajectory.
>Also in case you or anyone is actually interested enough, here's the analysis site I was talking about. There's also a wiki and other stuff, but whatever, look everything up yourself if you actually give a shit.
I don't, because Lynch's work isn't intellectual for me. Just like the myriad of theories written about Mulholland Drive, while sometimes interesting, really don't impact the film in any way for me.

>even among fans of Malick
People who only liked his first 3 movies don't count as fans. His newest 3 are considered his best among his niche fanbase. That is a fact.

>That's not a fact.
Whatever you say, user.

>Technology
>decent looking
That's besides the point. It's fucking art. It's not about that. Furthermore he started IE as a bunch of different experimental short films with Laura Dern, and then combined them into one and made it work. He liked the ease, quickness and lightness of the production, and how close and personal he could get to the actors. He would literally just grab the camera himself with basically no crew and work with Laura Dern at random bits, and light the scene with shitty cheap light bulbs. It was all an artistic exercise for him and Dern, not a massively produced blockbuster. That's why it's so great. He stripped everything away to the most minimal, and did so much with what he had. And if you think a film has to be good looking and use the latest technology in filmmaking to be good, then you're an enormous moron. I'm amazed how anyone could miss the point so fucking hard.

>He's made films of varying quality. There is no grand qualatative trajectory.
I'd say there is. You can clearly see it in his directing and editing, he improved and solidified his style over time. Elephant Man and Blue Velvet were pretty basic and conventional in that department, and Wild at Heart and Lost Highway at least show originality and new and interesting approaches.

>I don't
Fair enough, you can watch movies any way you want, but you can't deny that his films shouldn't at least be interpreted as something. He even said that himself.

You're clearly not the target audience for this (type of) film, and you don't understand or want to understand what makes it good or interesting. You should probably stop butting into conversations about things you don't know jack about and on top of that, you're not even interested in them in the first place.

>People who only liked his first 3 movies don't count as fans.
They were fans of Malick before you had a community of people telling everyone he was a genius, before you were even born, but they're not the TRUE fans. No true Scotsman much?
>His newest 3 are considered his best among his niche fanbase.
One, it's a niche - a small group of people, and it's a niche within a niche. Amongst his fans in general, his latest two films were met with a lukewarm reception. Two, this niche you're speaking of is made up of younger viewers who haven't been exposed to much arthouse and experimental cinema, so they overestimate the importance of Malick's recent work.
>Whatever you say, user.
Whether or not something is a masterpiece is an opinion, numbnuts.
>That's besides the point. It's fucking art. It's not about that.
Seems you've missed my point then. It does nothing for the art.
>He liked the ease, quickness and lightness of the production, and how close and personal he could get to the actors.
Great, but if it produced an inferior product, then who cares.
>not a massively produced blockbuster.
Neither were most of his films but plenty of them don't look like shit.
>That's why it's so great. He stripped everything away to the most minimal, and did so much with what he had.
You're begging the question.
>And if you think a film has to be good looking and use the latest technology in filmmaking to be good, then you're an enormous moron.
Good thing I don't think that then. Nor did I imply it.
>and Wild at Heart and Lost Highway at least show originality and new and interesting approaches.
What about the Straight Story, which came afterward? Boy, your theory sucks by any interpretation.
>You're clearly not the target audience for this (type of) film, and you don't understand or want to understand what makes it good or interesting.
You're not that smart, kid. Get a girlfriend and enjoy life, because nothing you say about films will ever be remotely interesting.

I honestly can't tell if you're really that dumb or just baiting. In any case, I'll probably stop replying if you continue like this.

Let me simplify the conversation we've had:
>this movie sucks
>why?
>it just sucks, and it's ugly
>do you even know what it's about?
>no, but it sucks, shut up.
>I don't know user, it's pretty artsy, are you sure you're looking at it the right way?
>yeah it sucks and you suck

Just because you're rebutting everything I say with middleschool remarks it doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.

>not the TRUE fans
Holy shit, you're killing me

> this niche you're speaking of is made up of younger viewers who haven't been exposed to much arthouse and experimental cinema
That's a pretty ridiculous categorization you're making there. I don't see how he's any worse or less important than any other recent art film director like Almodovar, Tarr, Leigh, Apichatpong, Kaufman, Kiarostami, Zulawski. He's obviously highly influential, has an original style and his films will only grow more appreciation over time, just like most of art house.

>It does nothing for art.
Please explain. It's hard for me to take you seriously when all you do is go "nuh uh" to everything I say.

>Straight Story
Lynch said that was his most experimental film, and an exercise in constraint from his part. Again, you don't know shit what you're talking about.

>pulling the old "I'm too smart for you, kid" trick, go get a life.
Literally every cliche

>Let me simplify
There's a difference between simplification and strawmanning.
>this movie sucks
Never said this. I think it's alright.
>I don't know user, it's pretty artsy, are you sure you're looking at it the right way?
You seem to view artsy or avante garde as synonymous with good.
>everything I say with middleschool remarks it doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.
Yawn. Problem is, you don't even understand my points or you're not reading carefully enough.
>Holy shit, you're killing me
I'm making fun of you there. You're invoking a fallacy. Own up to it.
>That's a pretty ridiculous categorization you're making there.
As opposed to saying that people who only like Malick's earlier work aren't true fans?
>I don't see how he's any worse or less important than any other recent...
Not what I'm saying. You strawman a lot.
>He's obviously highly influential
He is?
>has an original style
A style he established over 30 years ago and has since run into the ground.
>and his films will only grow more appreciation over time, just like most of art house.
Most of art house cinema is forgotten.
>It's hard for me to take you seriously when all you do is go "nuh uh" to everything I say.
Because I've already explained this. See:
>Technology is all about how you use it, but what Lynch accomplishes by using cameras that were crappy even for their time is beyond me. It isn't just the choice, but the lack of any useful effect yielded by that choice.

Moving on...
>Lynch said that was his most experimental film
Great, but Lynch isn't God you know? It's clearly much more conventional than most of his other films.
>Again, you don't know shit what you're talking about.
Because I don't take everything Lynch says literally?
>Literally every cliche
You're clearly young and you seem to take contrarian viewpoints to bolster up your lack of having anything meaningful to say. And you miss the nuance of my arguments.

The simplification/strawmanning/whatever wasn't meant to be taken seriously or literally, dude. What are you doing?

I always thought a "TRUE fan" likes all the director's films, not just some. Kind of makes sense when you think about it more than not at all, I guess.

>Not what I'm saying. You strawman a lot.
> they overestimate the importance of Malick's recent work.
You contradict yourself.

>He is?
Yes, with his older films, and he clearly will be with his newer ones.

>A style he established over 30 years ago and has since run into the ground.
Maybe watch his films before commenting on them. He changed twice. Once with The Thin Red Line and once again with The Tree of Life. If you can't tell the difference why even bother talking about it.

>Most of art house cinema is forgotten.
In the mainstream side of media, of course. But we weren't talking about that.

>again with the technology bullshit
That's dumb and you know it. It's like saying that modern films in black and white are worse than they could be because they don't use all the technology available. You couldn't be more ignorant.

>Great, but Lynch isn't God you know? It's clearly much more conventional than most of his other films.
Nice way of not admitting you were wrong

>Because I don't take everything Lynch says literally?
Yeah, I guess you can't trust the actual creator of something when they're talking about the thing they made. What are you even saying?

>You're clearly young and you seem to take contrarian viewpoints to bolster up your lack of having anything meaningful to say
Again, at least try to make up something interesting to say as an insult. You're hitting every checkmark on the pseudointellectual asshole list.

And I don't think you know what contrarian means, because it doesn't mean that you like all or a lot of things, which I do.

>nuance of my arguments
Let me quote you on that one: "Uh huh"

Knight of Cups and To the Wonderful are both amazing films that speak to me in ways no other film has.

>What are you doing?
Idk, but you're clearly wasting my time because all you're doing is strawmanning.
>I always thought a "TRUE fan" likes all the director's films
A fan is a fan. You're the one that brought up the "true fan" nonsense. I'm a fan of Malick's, but everything since the New World has been a mixed bag.
>You contradict yourself.
Overestimating his importance has nothing to do with his quality relative to those other directors you listed.
>Yes, with his older films, and he clearly will be with his newer ones.
All his good ideas exist in his older films. And it isn't clear that his new films will be influential. His influence as it stands is very little as I see it, but I don't care about such things to begin with.
>Maybe watch his films before commenting on them.
Kay, I'll go do that. You're so smart.
>If you can't tell the difference why even bother talking about it.
His style changed, but it's the same ideas.
>In the mainstream side of media
Again, arthouse is not synonymous with good. There are a lot of "arthouse" films which are crap and will be forgotten.
>It's like saying that modern films in black and white are worse than they could be because they don't use all the technology available.
And again you can't figure out what I'm saying. Because you're an idiot. Ha ha.
>Nice way of not admitting you were wrong
You never proved me wrong. Artists do not have final say on how their art is appraised.
>Yeah, I guess you can't trust the actual creator of something when they're talking about the thing they made.
I'm saying he might have been being tongue in cheek.
>And I don't think you know what contrarian means, because it doesn't mean that you like all or a lot of things, which I do.
Thinking that Inland Empire is easily Lynch's best film is a major contrarian opinion and screams pseudointellectual douchebag.
>Let me quote you on that one: "Uh huh"
Let me not quote you and say, you've wasted enough of my time for one night. Ta.

>You're the one that brought up the "true fan" nonsense
No, you are.

>His style changed, but it's the same ideas.
We were talking about style, not ideas. Stay focused.

>Again, arthouse is not synonymous with good. There are a lot of "arthouse" films which are crap and will be forgotten.
How come now you're so sure that's Malick's future? I thought you were the one who sees the future as unsure : "And it isn't clear that his new films will be influential".

>And again you can't figure out what I'm saying. Because you're an idiot. Ha ha.
What a mature and totally not childish way of explaining it and proving how you're in the right. Nicely done. Proves my point.

>Artists do not have final say on how their art is appraised.
>I'm saying he might have been being tongue in cheek.
It was about the process of making it, not the way it should be appraised. He never explains his movies. So yeah, you were wrong.

>Thinking that Inland Empire is easily Lynch's best film is a major contrarian opinion
It's just an opinion. I wasn't dissing anyone. You were the one who got massively triggered for no reason. I love all of Lynch's films, but IE is my favorite, and it clearly is also his most complex work.

>screams pseudointellectual douchebag.
Like your preachy patronizing accusations of "being just a stupid kid who should get a life"?

>you've wasted enough of my time
Again, you started it, buddy. I just had a bunch of free time to reply to your bullshit.

But yeah, everything has devolved into just mocking eachother and finding inconsistencies in what we say, so it's probably for the best if we stop. After all, proving how wrong you are over and over again gets tiring after a while. "Ha ha."

GETS SO FUCKIN DARK IN HERE