Lost Highway

Clearly, as with most of David Lynch's films, Lost Highway is not for everyone. It is, as Lynch intended it to be, a film realization of a dream. In this regard, it is comparable, in terms of artistry and raw intensity to Kurosawa's _Dreams_. Indeed, in terms of sensory experience - cinematography and sound, for example - Kurosawa and Lynch have few rivals. However, the comparison falls away rather quickly in consideration of the film's content. Lost Highway is really no dream, but a nightmare.

Let's face it, like it or not, everything Lynch does is intentional. This film has inspired polarized reviews here on IMDB. Those looking for a plot-heavy movie that they do not necessarily have to pay attention to tend to despise it. Those who are open to allowing this manipulative, intensely disturbing and thought-provoking film to carry them into its own parcel of hell love it. This is, in my opinion, what good art can do.

Like a dream, Lost Highway has as many plots as it does viewers with their own individual interpretations and perspectives. It forces itself upon you with a vengeance, but simultaneously encourages the kind of disengagement you experience when you are conscious that you are dreaming.

I recommend Lost Highway highly. See it with intelligent, open-minded friends who like to talk about film experiences. And expect that the conversation will keep you up way past your bed time.

I don't think this film can be fully enjoyed or appreciated without digging deeper into various analyses and interpretations. Or without having a broader understanding of Lynch and the way he creates films or uses symbols. While enlightening, it does point to the film perhaps not fully standing on its own. It's really a piece of a much larger puzzle in the Lynch universe. To really understand it requires effort. I'm not sure if that's a good thing. It will depend on the viewer.

I'm not sure if there is much content or ideas in Lost Highway that aren't explored in a more satisfying way in other Lynch content. I think calling it a test run or precursor for Mulholland Drive (as I've heard) is apt. It almost feels like a shadow reflection or imitation of his other works.

To watch the film as it is presented, on a surface level, would leave most viewers completely unmoored, frustrated and confused. There's an icy, aloof detachment and distance to the film (including some very subdued performances) that almost pushes a viewer away in an unwelcoming manner. As if to say, you're just not smart enough to understand this, with a patronising pat on the back - like the important one given to Fred within the film. I can understand why many viewers would bristle at this kind of artsy condescension. It's definitely not a film that wants to hold a viewers hand, quite the opposite.

I think this film is a moody and disconcerting experience, but not the most enjoyable of Lynch content to consume. I definitely wouldn't call it a fun watch. If I was to revisit the films of Lynch I don't think this would be a priority, but I appreciate it for what it is.

I don't know if the long runtime is justified. It makes watching it even more of an investment. I'd be curious to see if the same ideas could be conveyed in a more condensed fashion.

I do enjoy watching Bill Pullman and Balthazar Getty in the film. Their performances are pretty spot on I think. But performances become pretty irrelevant when the whole idea of plot or narrative breaks down. It just comes untethered.

It pretty much goes without saying that there is some spectacular imagery too. It is Lynch after all.

I had a really bad headache while watching, which made my viewing even more uncomfortable. The fact that wife killer Fred was simultaneously experiencing one was a bit trippy.

All hail David Lynch. All hail the other David Lynch.

Lynch is not a complex man, I think; it is easy to read him. But he is cinematically articulate and its a pleasure of a special sort when you meet an articulate artist. His interest is simply described: duals.

All his films work with some exploration of this idea. What makes him interesting is that he doesn't work the usual way, with a reality and then a surreal overlay. Both elements in his experiments are what we coarsely call "surreal." The game in traveling with him is an investment in the idea that there is no anchor to reality, that all references are among imaginations, sometimes twisted. "Mulholland" was a little too conventional for me because you could actually explain things and one of the realities was sorta real if you ignored a few things.

My favorite Lynch is "Velvet," which imposes the two warring realities on film genres. The most fun is the seemingly straight "Straight" story, which is perhaps the most bizarre encounters of dual strangeness because it seems so ordinary. Dualing roots that keep getting mowed.

But if you are into Lynch, this is an extraordinary pleasure, this one. Its the most obvious in plan, the least hidden in the swirl of two worlds. Neither world is anchored in reality and each hallucinates the other. Probably the only anchor with reality is the most disturbing character in appearance, The Robert Blake guy.

But even these two surrealities are nested in cinematic realities. One is the gangster movie, elevated to cosmic status by the French new wave. The other is visual jazz and the accompanying dream linkages that have been similarly blazed, starting with Dennis Hopper so far as American films.

What you are open to determines what you can get, I suppose. What Lynch provides is a sort of post-post modern notion of film as sometimes centered in itself, with its own cosmologies and lives that always refer to other film notions and never to real ones. There is no fold of us as viewer, no acknowledgment of our world at all (except for the mysterious videos). Celestial madness.

I prepared for this by watching four bad Holmes movies in a row. How we detect and discover is what this is about and is so superior to what we normally encounter, you should watch it.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

I started this film upon renting it one night at 11:00 PM. I finished at about 1 in the morning. I was so stunned and awestruck that I stayed up until 3 in the morning to watch it again. This is one of the most spell-binding movies I have ever seen. Each time I see it my theory of the plot thickens. What I love about the movie is that it leaves you with the option to fill in the blanks. You will keep asking what happened and why that happened, but that is what makes the movie so awesome. David Lynch's skewed opinion of reality is very inspiring and I feel that my reality has changed ever since I watched it. Having watched it 13 times I can pretty safely say that my theory of the plot is set, but I still love to ponder exactly why.

This was the first time I was in anticipation of the release of a David Lynch film. Having only discovered his movies (and Twin Peaks) in the period of 1992-1997. I became a huge fan, owning several films on video as well as the complete Twin Peaks series.

I was not disappointed with Lost Highway. A film that left me totally stunned. A film that I did not want to end, in the hope that I could figure out what was going on. A film that left some scenes imprinted on my brain like a tattoo. A film that is a dream.

This film is what dreams are. There are times when you feel you control the dream, and times where you feel it escapes you. Slow and rapid events. Images that don't make sense. Fantasy. Horror. Surrealism. Symbolism. All part of a long dream, that I doubt anyone can decipher, including Mr Lynch.

Seeing this film for the second time with a person who truly did not "get it" (though I thank her for her patience to watch the whole film), made realise that there are two kinds of people in this world. I love this film. I can't wait to watch it again.