The Rambler

Who is the rambler (Dermot Mulroney)? All we know is that he has been released from prison and is on his way to his brother's farm. But this is not important -- what matters are all the misadventures he has between point A and point B.

I really wanted to like this movie. The characters are interesting, some of the story is incredibly funny, and it is all-around entertaining. But, unfortunately, the film is completely disjointed. For every good segment, there is a bad segment, and unfortunately the better ones are in the beginning so as the film goes on the viewer becomes less entertained.

Editing might have solved some of the problems, but as a whole I think there is only so much that could be done here... the film comes across as a series of short films or television episodes. And in those formats it might have a strong following. As a feature film, it tends to fail because of the lack of central narrative.

Lets get one thing clear, this film doesn't reach new heights in cinematic excellence, far from it but it is interesting. If you liked Eraserhead & Blue Velvet then you'll find some enjoyment in this offering, if you didn't like them then this will stink. At the very least this film will have you talking about it the following day, i've lost count of the films i've watched and instantly forgotten. Its flawed, its disjointed and often ludicrous but still offers something. Don't be too critical and it won't disappoint, expect ground breaking cinema and it will. The IMDb score is probably a touch harsh considering it isn't your run of the mill B movie. Films like this should be applauded for taking a less well trodden path.

The Rambler isn't for everyone,and I'm not sure it's for anyone. There's fragments of something more profound within it but it's not an easy movie to enjoy. It is very Lynch-esque...layered and at times beautiful as it strides a limbo length of highway in search of...well, that's the problem for many. What is this movie saying??? Reviewers who trash it because they don't get it are short-changing the metaphorical depth and visceral experience of the movie...and much like a Lynch movie this is a visceral journey. The cinematography is very good, the acting is what it needs to be for this type of movie. It's all very dream like. I admit I don't quite understand "The Rambler" and that subtracts points for me perhaps unfairly. I'm sure a few metaphor champions will crack the code and see the brilliance but for the rest of us there's probably a feeling of confusion. I saw this listed on some best of horror lists for 2013 but it's not a horror movie, not in the conventional at least. It's more of a ramble through subconsciousness and a desire to be free from the "logic" of society. A quest to stay within oneself and live without meaning. Or...maybe not. The meaning might be ambiguous and if that type of thing drives you crazy then stay away. If your feeling adventurous and want something that escapes the typical Hollywood polished package type movie take it for a spin.

I can't picture a single festival screening of Calvin Reeder's The Rambler that wouldn't result in at least half the crowd walking out in revulsion. There's just no way to put it lightly when describing the alienating, severely soul-disturbing kind of sickly atmosphere that hangs over the entire film like a radioactive blanket of surreal dread. The DVD cover barely suggests the beyond Lynchian, out to lunch, bugfvck nuts events which unfold, and instead hints toward a western with vaguely horror themed aspects. Couldn't be more different than that. The conventional elements like plot and the theme of Western are dimly present, shaky railroad tracks for a train that careens straight into the subconscious of bizarro world, some of what we see even too messed up and disassociate for the hardiest of cultist buffs. Few films are able to capture the purely illogical and disjointed feeling of a dream, but this one nails it scarily well. Sentences don't match responses, human behaviour is terrifyingly devoid of inhibitions, events repeat and come out of nowhere, and we really and truly feel lost, removed and detached from any kind of rational thought or action. Now the film doesn't outright announce that it's all a dream, save for a few hints embedded in the story, but it sure felt like one long nightmare to me, evoking psychological feelings which words really can't describe. Dermot Mulroney does a 'Man with no name routine' as a vacant ex con who is released from prison and blows back into his one horse trailer park town. He does indeed have no name, now that I think of it, and is only ever referred to as The Rambler. Upon returning, he finds his volatile girlfriend (Natasha Lyonne) has taken up with another man, and no one seems to want him around anymore. Time to hit the road, he figures, sauntering out into the acrid desolation of the southwest in a dead cool opening credits scene set to Terry Allen's Red Bird, one of my favourite twangy tunes. From there it gets hard to describe, comprehend and stomach. He's off in some John Waters style twilight zone of very unsettling characters, saying and doing things that make little sense and get increasingly shocking and vulgar. A mysterious girl (Lindsay Pulsipher) weaves in and out of the story and seems to be the only one besides him who is remotely coherent. A crackpot doctor (James Cady) shows him an extremely defective device that is supposed to look into people's dreams. There's ugly, misanthropic fiends running all about with nothing to say other than loosely strung together verbal diarrhea, and a constant nauseating film of unease over everything. I've read reviews wailing about how this film has less than nothing to say, and should have shut it's mouth. But that's the point to a nightmare; it doesn't teach, enlighten or otherwise change us in any way other than to give our sense of dread a workout and provoke a cold sweat. Similarly, the film simply is there to scare, to induce the gag reflex and doesn't strive for anything else, and in that sense it's pure, primal and honest about it's intentions. The very definition of not for everyone, this will even put off bands of counter culture cinephiles who scoff at anything mainstream. Deliberately vile, constantly off its rocker and so far beyond the event horizon where bizarre ends and something truly indescribable begins, The Rambler will shake the soul out of anyone who claims to have seen it all. You have been warned.

It is for those who think that David Lynch makes far too few Movies, or for those that haunt Film Festivals and Midnight Movie Screenings, or the Counter-Culture Hordes who abhor anything from Mainstream Hollywood. That is to say this is one of the Weird Ones.

It is incomprehensible and defies Classification. It is Bizarre and proud of it. Disturbing imagery abound and Ugly People populate this Misanthropic Movie and it has no pretensions other than to make you squirm and squabble about its Meaning (it has none other than what you provide).

Definitely worth a watch for those interested in Underground Cinema and Films that inhabit the edge of the Universe defiling anyone who dares venture into proximity. It cannot be explained and doesn't attempt to offer any coherent Story. This is an exercise in Art and is filled with nothing more than Imagery and Sound to elicit a response. The Dialog is so strange that it really has nothing to do with anything.

There is one exchange between a Cab Driver and The Rambler that is directed at those who will hate this Movie. Cabbie: "Have you seen the Movie Frankenstein?" Rambler: "No." Cabbie: "I Love that Movie, but I would have made it in Color".