Lost Highway

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.

Buckle your seat belts: this film is quite the ride. As so often with David Lynch's movies, 'Lost Highway' doesn't bother with a traditional narrative and follows its own, dreamlike (or nightmarish) logic. It is a wild, expressionist work of art, and while it starts on a slow, brooding note, the film soon explodes into a crazy, violent trip that hooks you competely and doesn't let up. My advice to people unfamiliar with Lynch's work is this: just enjoy the experience and let yourself be immersed. While it is fun to analyze Lynch's movies, especially his most surreal ones, they're not mysteries that require resolution in order to be enjoyed.

As for the filmmaking itself, the pacing is fantastic throughout, the cinematography outstanding and the cast of character actors like Bill Pullman, Robert Loggia and Patricia Arquette simply a joy to watch (especially Loggia gets to shine in a wonderfully over-the-top part). Another aspect that should not go unmentioned is the music. The orginal score by Angeolo Badalamenti (who is to Lynch what John Williams is to Spielberg) is hauntgingly beautiful, but equally important is the amazing soundtrack - featuring greats like David Bowie, Lou Reed, Rammstein, Marilyn Manson, Trent Reznor and more - which fits and enhances the images on screen perfectly.

As far as I'm concerned, this is Lynch at his best. 'Lost Highway' is a dark, violent, surreal, beautiful, hallucinatory masterpiece: 10 stars out of 10.

Favorite films: IMDb.com/list/mkjOKvqlSBs/

Favorite TV-Shows reviewed: imdb.com/list/ls075552387/

Lesser-Known Masterpieces: imdb.com/list/ls070242495/

Favorite Low-Budget and B-Movies: imdb.com/list/ls054808375/

This is the first film directed by David Lynch I've seen, not counting The Elephant Man, which is another great film, but is an outsider in his career, since it is not surreal. This film is, however, making it the first typical Lynch film I've seen. And I'm honestly not sure what to make of it. I had heard a lot about Lynch's films before watching, but I guess I hadn't heard enough. I went into this film hoping for a good mystery, an interesting puzzle to solve. As the end credits rolled I didn't know what to make of what I had just seen. I didn't get an answer to the question I kept asking while I was watching; "What exactly is this film about?". As soon as the credits were over, I read a comment or two by Lynch fans... and the truth dawned on me. It's not supposed to be solved. It's not a movie where you, when you see the very end, exclaim "Ah! Now I get it!". This film won't provide you with some twist ending or have a character come up to the lead and explain it all. It's not supposed to make perfect sense or be easily explainable. It's not real. It's fantasy. Fiction. The whole film is like a dream, or, more appropriately, a nightmare. The film is great; it's just not for me. I won't let that affect my rating, however. This was an excellent example of masterful film-making. Lynch's direction is eminent, evidenced by the fact that I kept watching, despite not understanding half of what was going on or being able to sympathize with any character(something we are much too used to from mainstream movies). The lighting is great. Lynch really plays around with it, and it's always interesting to look at. It also really adds to the mood, nicely set by careful editing and music usage. The acting is flawless, and that is not a term I use lightly. All in all, a wonderfully well-done film, but definitely not for everyone. Wasn't in my tastes, but I enjoyed how well-made it was regardless. I recommend this to fans of art films, rather than conventional ones. Fans of Lynch should enjoy this. Very surreal and loose. 10/10

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.

"Lost Highway" is a great many things, but often seems to be reduced to a love-it or hurts-my-head-from-the-confusion, so-I'll-just-dismiss-it kind of movie. Some critics have written it off as self-indulgent swill, saying that only people who could hope to appreciate it would be Lynch himself and his plethora of wide-eyed adoring fans, etc, etc. I myself have never actually been a huge fan of Lynch, perhaps because I thought his stories didn't take themselves seriously enough, were just too darn quirky, who knows. Still, I've always admired his talent for creating beautiful, disturbing imagery, and "Lost Highway" has to be my favorite film of his, and possibly one of the most beautiful and mesmerizing I've ever seen! Certainly not for everyone, as those who want a definitive "answer," who think that seeing it again and again is really going to explain everything, or those who are simply into the ol' explosion-packed action blockbusters are going to be left shaking their heads. It's definitely open to interpretation. Myself, I'm not one to offer any new insight, I view it as--SPOILER AHEAD??--a purely subjective movie, with nearly all the events seen and largely imagined by its protagonist, Fred Madison, and once you can simply accept him as insane (or at least very imaginative!) you can simply quit puzzling over it and allow yourself to enjoy the ride.

While incarcerated for killing his wive in an act of jealousy, he embarks on a "psychogenic fugue" as an act of last-minute escapism from the looming dread of his upcoming execution--sort of like Ambrose Bierce's "Occurence At Owl Creek Bridge"--imagining himself as a younger, more likable/worthwhile guy (valued auto mechanic, "Mr. Eddy's" favorite), with people who care about him (his parents and girlfriend, as opposed to his real-life murdered wife who didn't even bother to go to his musical performances), and definitely more virile, as he is able to both attract and fulfill his "wife" (seen here as the slutty, icy femme fatale-type he always suspected her to be). However, try as he may, he ultimately can't avoid his past (notice how the fantasy him is put off when he hears Fred's jazz song on the radio in the garage), and thus after the fantasy Alice/Renee rejects him in the desert, he immediately turns back into his typical view of himself--hurt, older, sensitive, vulnerable (represented by his nakedness)--proving that even his fantasies fail him, and thus he's left to die an unpleasant death in the electric chair after all (notice the way he violently contorts in the closing moments, almost as if he's being electrocuted). Call him a modern-day murderous Walter Mitty I guess. The Fred Madison/O.J. Simpson comparisons made by some are interesting--if just a BIT cynical!--though I have to halfway wonder if that real-life spousal jealousy murder case provided any grain of inspiration for this fictional one. The cast is impressive and do a great job; Bill Pullman definitely has the haunted, deer-in-the-headlights look that his confused, out-of-it character requires, though at the same time I don't know if he quite portrays the extreme jealousy and animal savageness deep down inside that caused him to murder his wife as gruesomely as he did (if of course you even want to accept what was on that final videotape as something that actually happened in the first place!). Needless to say, the whole moebius-strip "twist" of having the film end at its beginning greatly complicates any interpretation; even without it, the film could STILL be difficult to decipher by some (heck, I'm still not even really sure what the significance of the Mystery Man was!)

Perhaps the film could have benefited from a few extra scenes or lines of dialogue to make it a little less cryptic for the more literal-minded members of the audience, but still, even by suggesting that you'd be implying that there was one concrete explanation for the film, which there most certainly is not.

Regardless, all plot and interpretations aside, you can almost certainly enjoy for its images, its music (an EXCELLENT soundtrack), for its mood and atmosphere, and simply for it as a whole: dare I say, it's almost more of an experience than anything (though for what it's worth, at the same time I can't think of the last time I saw a film--or work of art period, for that matter--that provoked such a wide variety of interpretations and opinions, as should hopefully be the case with ANY great work of art).

Fascinating.