I'll un-cosign a few of your comments.

I genuinely like this film, despite it not being in my top 50. I like it in the same way I think a lot of critics liked Inland Empire (which I hated). It's a mess, but a fun mess from a master at the peak of his powers. Like Casino or One From the Heart.

If the acting bothers you I'm curious which Lynch films you love, because the tone/style of acting here doesn't seem that far from his norm.

And, yes, I think one shouldn't discount the impact of those two hot scenes on overwhelmingly male film critics.


>I'm going to just go ahead and be lazy and co-sign pretty
>much all the statements made below. I really don't get the
>outpouring for this film. I love Lynch and I wanted to like
>this movie. I saw it in the theater and hated it (minus two
>of the best lesbian scenes in cinema) - thought it would be
>written off. When it was praised again and again I retried on
>DVD and still didn't like it. The acting, besides Naomi
>Watts, is painfully terrible. I know, I know = that's the
>point! It's still sux. I think there are alot of loose ends
>that people have read alot into for me it's pretty flimsy and
>just not a good film. It does have some iconic stills though
>and those two scenes...
>
>>I think it's a lot of fun, but it's fundamentally a TV pilot
>>with some creative fixing at the end.
>>
>>Lynch made the absolute best out of a shitty situation, but
>>that doesn't change the fact that there's lots of stuff that
>>would not justify its existence (all the subplots: Robert
>>Forster, blonde hitman, etc.) if this was made as a
>>stand-alone feature.
>>
>>I think that "Five Obstructions" quality makes for
>fascinating
>>viewing, but there's a reason Five Obstructions didn't make
>>our top 50.
>>
>>I think critics especially like films that offer a lot to
>>write about.
>
>