The (Now-Overrated) ILX Top 100 Films of the 2000s Poll Results

dude made me jump with a lightbulb going from pinkish to blue. hats off, dave.

i'm not sure why one goes at all. i'm not trying to be an asshole here i sincerely don't get what is so interesting chez lynch.

people who call shit "dreamlike" should be bludgeoned 99 times out of whatever, but i don't think i've ever seen another film that works like my dreams actually work. ymmv of course if you mostly dream of ice cream of bill murray's sons.

cronenberg is hell of creepy, of course to do this he films things actually happening besides staring & flat affect dialogue, but the camera is quite detached and clinical somehow. i haven't seen some of his recent films but generally find him very uncomfortable to watch.

the desperate search for connection between the big holes the next morning for shit that seemed so crucially narrative as it was happening.

xpost: oh cronenberg as a whole > d. lynch, no doubt

i have no opinion on bill murray, i liked ghostbusters when i was a kid

think it could be nice if omar wants to do more threads of kinda random kinda fantastically poignant screencaps with sans serif annotations
maybe a series of youtube.jp kitten videos?

cronenberg prolly g.o.a.t. for me, really, on a very personal/non-critical level.

best friend?

If I had voted, Grizzly Man probably would have been my #2. Loved it.

slocki he saved my sister from drowning one summer.

cronenberg's alright. provokes interesting audience reactions, such as lols @ 'existenz' which is definitely super funny, friday night movie crowd having no idea 'history of violence' was a lot more weird and plain creepy than you'd think a rather trite crime story could ever be. i find bruno dumont v creepy and difficult to watch for that reason, same deal as far as the camera seeming to be at a very detached and clinical distance & how that affects perception of what takes place onscreen.

oh let's not bring dumont into this

he's so wrong! SO wrong. i'm not saying i recommend it. but if what you're going for is to really unsettle somebody, there you go. see if i'm understanding the appeal of lynch it is that he is unsettling but i honestly can hardly stay awake.

i'm curious how much people loaded up multiple movies by the same directors on their ballots -- i only did it w/ 2 LOTR movies, otherwise a lot of times if i really liked more than one movie by a director i'd end up only including the one i liked more which was usually also the one less likely to place

one of the things that i liked about humanite is that dumont's camera makes everyone seems legitimately deranged enough to have been the killer. kept waiting for the big reveal that it was the sad-sack repression case cop through the whole movie.

i have seen like two of these movies.

if i'd voted for the full forty i'd probably have voted for two cronenbergs, two miikes, and two joon-hos, along with the two lynchs. but i think that's more about my pet obsessions than any sort of strategery.

haha also maybe two eli roths :/

and by "two" i mean "almost all"

had 6 2x directors on mine

i'm curious how much people loaded up multiple movies by the same directors on their ballots -- i only did it w/ 2 LOTR movies

Assayas got two mentions in my top forty, but c'est tout.

directors w/ two films on my ballot:
takashi miike
david lynch
the coens
park chan-wook
bong joon-ho
peter jackson

directors I'm surprised are not on my ballot at all: polanksi, herzog, cronenberg

i find this so maddening. it's like lynch doesn't do the work to make any of this coherent in any way, and expects the viewer to just believe, somehow, that there is something more there

but it's all the same relentless flat, creepy, grim, dark

so are you saying you don't like lynch

you might like miike, then. same thing, but with the bonus of something blatantly retarded every five to ten minutes or so.

2 lynches, 3 hanekes, 2 joes

IE would still have been stronger if it were leaner, but then again that's my reaction to most films these days. I know most ppl around here seem to like their Lynch freewheeling.

xxp Also bonus of releasing one film a week!

theres a good david foster wallace essay on lynch in one of his nonfic collections

Daria-g I have similar problems with Lynch, but admittedly I haven't seen MD and IE. Might give them a spin but yeah that's basically why I haven't bothered yet.

haha when that lynch thing first ran in premiere it got me stupidly hyped for lost highway. more the fool me.

i dare say lynch isn't going to work for you if your on the net complaining about it as it plays.

Laura Dern should have been all 5 oscar nominees for IE

Tenenbaums >>>>>> Rushmore so hard.

Herzog, fuck yeah. Need to watch Kaspar and Nosferatu soon.

i still hate that kid from the newer lord of the flies b/c of that essay where he is mocking lynch throughout, balthazar getty

put down the bong joon ho

Lynch is pretty easy to mock though.

I mean I love David Lynch films but it's kind of hard not to think the dude is pretty ridiculous.

i love the whole balthazar getty thing in that essay.

you gotta admit, it's a good name.

I think daria's criticisms are valid. One of the things I liked about Inland Empire, though, is the way the narrative keeps folding in on itself, each "version" of the story reflecting and interacting with the others. It creates a unique kind of disorientation that I've only experienced in Lynch's films.

i watched 'mulholland' straight through last week. thought this might be different. seems to have a very limited vocab, yet again.

i suppose i can see how elements that provoke certain expectations, in film, are often screwed up and out of place chez lynch, and those are the only times i find him a little bit interesting - like putting the dramatic horror film strings over top of a scene where nothing much happens. and then he throws you off by revealing that whatever scene just happened was part of the movie they were shooting. but.. it's hard to be that thrown off, when you were never on in the first place, there was nothing to build on. idk..

from said essay:

"The first time I lay actual eyes on the real David Lynch on the set of his movie, he's peeing on a tree. This is on 8 January in L.A.'s Griffith Park, where some of Lost Highway's exteriors and driving scenes are being shot. He is standing in the bristly underbrush off the dirt road between the base camp's trailers and the set, peeing on a stunted pine. Mr. David Lynch, a prodigious coffee drinker, apparently pees hard and often, and neither he nor the production can afford the time it'd take to run down the base camp's long line of trailers to the trailer where the bathrooms are every time he needs to pee. So my first (and generally representative) sight of Lynch is from the back, and (understandably) from a distance. Lost Highway's cast and crew pretty much ignore Lynch's urinating in public, (though I never did see anybody else relieving themselves on the set again, Lynch really was exponentially busier than everybody else.) and they ignore it in a relaxed rather than a tense or uncomfortable way, sort of the way you'd ignore a child's alfresco peeing."

it is kind of hard not to love david lynch, at least as a weird real person rather than a filmmaker.

especially because he talks like carol channing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut6zdE8qWj0

i guess some of it is a bit personal because most all the cinema nerds i've known irl love the guy and when i say i don't particularly THEY take it personal and ugh

i kinda wish he was my uncle. he'd make soap sculptures and when i'd tell him how i was doing he'd say "that's super" in his carol channing voice.

^LOOOL