I don't know what everyone's talking about, this is the most normal movie ever made

Makes no sense whatsoever.

Lynch literally lost the plot. An endurance challenge, for sure.

Herein lies the dangers of going down the rabbit hole of Method Acting! Also, the movie makes much more sense after a second viewing than only going through it with a "once and done" approach. Also, I never noticed before this repeated watch that Terry Crews has a bit part in this film.

Incredible film!!! So glad I waited to see this in theater! I mean & so many people think this film doesn’t make a lot of sense! Damn! Were they wrong David Lynch & Luara Dern are incredible! How she Didn’t even get an Oscar Nomination for this back in 2006…. I mean makes absolutely NO sense!

I've just watched this film and trying to write a review but I can't, it was just bad it has literally drained me to the point of a thoughtless state. It was way too long for such at basic story of an actor stuck in and out of reality and a fantasy or dreamlike state. I think the hand held camera isn't artsy or unique to seem different to theatrical films it was just cheap and lousy.

This is possibly the most mind-bending, unsettling film I’ve ever seen. It’s hard to make heads or tails of it and I can see how many would become lost (much like myself). However, I can’t stop thinking about it since watching it. This is Lynch experimenting at even his most extreme limits, shot almost entirely on digital camcorder format it gives this eerie home video feel. That said although I appreciate the puzzle and the challenge put to us as the audience. This may be a step too far...

At a talk in Belfast, 2007, Lynch was asked if Inland Empire had been shot on film would it have been shorter. There were a few nervous laughs from the audience before Lynch replied "No, but it would have taken longer to make". A good answer however unlikely.

Onanistic and self-indulgent POS of film. Lynch even admitted that he just wanted to experiment. It took years to film, and it shows. There is no plot, it meanders, there is no point. I hate that I watched it. And I do tend to like his work. I LOVE Mulholland Drive, for example. That was a very good film. This was not. Anyone that calls this a "masterpiece" or says things like "the greatest film of all time" or "my favorite film" is also onanistic and trying to convince themselves that they are a connoisseur and that they "get it". There is nothing to get. Lynch threw everything he had at the wall, but none of it stuck.

This a insane work of art from David Lynch. Definitely a masterpiece. Highly recommended.

David Lynch's Inland Empire might be my favorite film of all time. It's a shocking film, coated in layers of lying and deceit, often directed at the audience. It would be an impossible task to fully decode the meaning of every scene, but the film's is that it makes you decide it. The way it's put together makes you come to your own understanding of what it means, I've looked at hundreds of theories about Inland Empire and no two are alike. The only way to fully enjoy it is to just give in to to the movie, don't try to understand it on first watch. A very difficult watch in almost every way, but it's worth it, due to one of the most satisfying endings ever. This is a film that stays with you, long after the 180th minute.

This is the last movie the director genius David Lynch will ever make.So,from the dreamworld back to real world.The real world is the Barbie world.David Lynch could've made a blockbuster like Barbie too,but he preferred not to make any movies at all.

David Lynch's underrated Magnum Opus. Mind-bending, ego-shattering, and breathtaking in ambition - this is Lynch at his finest, my favourite from his filmography.

Yeah, uh, what the hell? Inland Empire is a nearly 20 year old film about an actress involved in a project remake after the first attempt had all the cast mysteriously killed. That's the best I can describe this, um... definitely unique but most of the film is psychedelic, nightmare sequences that, while interesting, are most certainly going to stay in your head for a long time. But as a film, it's a work of art filled with really good scenes and it's so engaging that 3 hours passed really fast for me. Very good acting too but I think this a film better left discovered because it does really hold it's artistic merit in modern day. But overall, David Lynch's final outing is definitely a one that won't be forgotten any time soon thanks to the barrage of senses created by a film of a very high standard. Grade: A

The most striking thing about this bizarre, tedious exercise is its ugliness; Lynch chose to personally film this with a cheap handheld camcorder, claiming it gave him "more room to dream," but the resulting images are so bad in quality that whatever dreams Lynch had going through his head at the time are visually reduced to everyday YouTube junk fare. It's tough enough to wade through Lynch's succession of static scenes, dwelling pointlessly on Hollywood cliches, without his insulting our visual sensibilities in this way. Maybe Lynch wants to make his viewers more active participants by forcing them to fast-forward through shot after shot as Laura Dern slowly moves around this film that dwells on each detail far too long. Lynch reveals himself to still be the same nice middle-class kid that made Blue Velvet, imagining all those nasty things that go on in the Scary Big World that he would never, of course, engage in personally. He even throws in some Eraserhead-style scenes, reminding us of his tawdry lowbrow surrealist beginnings. Lynch has made no more features since this, suggesting that he saw this project as his goodbye to filmmaking, cataloging his previous themes without adding anything to them. Bye Felicia.

If Lynch has really committed himself to no longer making theatrical films (besides his return to "Twin Peaks" on television and his shorts), then he really couldn't make a grand finale better than "Inland Empire" which really feels like the culmination of all the themes he explored over the years. It should also be noted that Dern is incredible here, always committed and believable regardless of what is happening on screen.

As a huge fan of David Lynch, this one just doesn't offer much room for a decent interpretation or two of what went on. The fact that Lynch filmed this without any script is quite telling. You might interpret the entire film as a random person's dream of random unrelated events, but you'll still be left uncertain whether or not this was what Lynch had in mind. Watch it if you're super bored, but you'll have trouble with it unlike Mullholland Drive, which was a much superior psychological thriller.

David Lynch Fans: "It's so complex and introspective." David Lynch: "... but what if I put a recurring rabbit puppet sitcom in this three hour movie?" Typically, I'm really not a fan of avant-garde films that are nonsensical 'just because', or out of some unexplained sense of artistry; stuff like that seems a lot like Inception for film snobs, adding complexity so the audience can ooo and ahh at the level of detail involved and pat themselves on the back for following along (or it intentionally has no meaning in order to allow viewers to impart whatever meaning they want to give it). I'm also not too enamored with film that present the moviemaking industry as some sort of otherworldly plane, too often it seems like the creative team putting themselves up on pedestals. It was those two gripes that kept me from getting into Charlie Kaufman's Synecdoche, New York, even though most of what went into the film was excellent. The thing is, I don't really have most of those concerns with Inland Empire, even though the film fits those criteria to a t. The film is so deliberately strange. It's bizarre to the point where it's borderline impossible to know definitively what's going on at any moment; even Lynch didn't know what the film would be when he started, writing bits of the screenplay on a daily basis. The narrative flow is essentially nonexistent and the presentation is deliberately frustrating. And yet, it's not exactly nonsensical - it's a strangely impactful and immersive stream-of-consciousness experience, as pretentious as that sounds. Even among Lynch's other work, there really isn't much that can be called comparable. I'm not even going to dive into the themes here, becuase they're so varied and subjective across the 'plot's' segmented structure that they're almost secondary to the structure of the film itself, which is much more engaging. It's an exercise in cinematic surrealism that questions the nature of reality in film in a way that nothing else has done before or since, a nightmare captured on a digital camera. Laura Dern still hasn't gotten the recognition she deserves for this performance - just a couple of critics' association nominations and the continuing reputation as 'the woman from Jurassic Park'. Credits only serve to confirm Nina Simone's 'Sinnerman' as the ultimate component to a film soundtrack. (4.5/5)

I usually dislike movies that are deliberately obtuse in the name of "artistic vision." David Lynch is a rare exception - I liked "Mulholland Drive" and "Lost Highway." Those films, however, had some semblance of a plot to hang your hat on. Inland Empire does not. If you're going to offer 180 minutes of pure surrealism the images better be pretty damn interesting. I just didn't find them to be so.

One of the most abstract things I've ever seen. Some remarks from a person who worked on the film: when interviewed at the Venice Film Festival, Laura Dern who is the star of the film admitted that she did not know what Inland Empire was about or the role she was playing, but hoped that seeing the film's premiere at the festival would help her "learn more". Dern also recounted a conversation she had with one of the movie's new producers, Jeremy Alter. He asked if director David Lynch was joking when he requested a one-legged woman, a monkey and a lumberjack by 3:15. By 4 p.m. they were shooting with the requested individuals.