Rating: 
Summary: Open your mind, you might like it
Review: Alot of people who are writing reviews on this film simply don't get it.If you don't like the work of David Lynch, all I want to know is....why do you bother watching his films, and then complaining about them. Anyone who knows his work knows what to expect, it doesn't always make sense and is far from the norm. But true fans of his, like myself, appreciate his art, even though it is flawed at times, we give him the benefit of the doubt. I'll say what alot of others have said: "If you are a Lynch fan, you'll enjoy this film,if you are not, you probably will come away confused and frustrated. It is a haunting, mellow and truly surreal experience, and in my opinion a very good film. It's hard for me to compare anything to Twin Peaks, which I believe is the greatest work of the 20th Century in pop culture(the TV series, not the movie). Blue Velvet was also terrific. Lost Highway is a mind blowing trip, and a "thinking man's" movie. Great performances from Pullman, Arquette, Blake and especially Loggia, who I feel stole the film. I tend to agree with most of the reviewers who believe that the 2nd half of the movie played out Fred's mind. Definitely worth a watch.
Rating: 
Summary: Lynch's Second-Best Film
Review: David Lynch spent most of the early- and mid-1990s in a kind of torpor. After the cancellation of Twin Peaks and the (deservedly) cool reception to "Wild at Heart," Lynch turned to other projects, including his art and another television show that never really made it past the pilot stage. In 1997, he returned, arms swinging, with "Lost Highway," and it was certainly a project for which the wait was worth it. Bill Pullman (whom I normally cannot stand as an actor, but he turns in a killer performance here) plays Fred Madison, an avant-garde jazz saxophonist who suspects his wife (the beautiful Patricia Arquette) is cheating on him. Someone keeps leaving plain brown envelopes on their doorstep, with videotapes of their house inside. When one of the tapes shows the couple sleeping, Madison calls the cops. That night, at a party, he meets a Mysterious Stranger who convinces Madison that something's very wrong. He doesn't know the half of it, and the rest of the movie is an unraveling of Fred's life, in more ways than one. Some of the typical Lynch stuff is here: mysterious people who seem to be some kind of supernatural force, invisible characters, and characters that 'morph' into new characters. It's also a tribute to the film noir style with some amazing scenes (the desert seduction scene is one of the sexiest ever committed to film), and borrows many elements from "Vertigo," a film that was truly ahead of its time. "Lost Highway" may seem like it's weird for the sake of being weird, and it's the kind of movie that appeals to those snobby filmgoers who like to brag about figuring out artistic mumbo-jumbo, but it's not. Lynch, who typically says very little about his films, has given people two clues about "Highway": it's set in the same 'universe' as Twin Peaks, and that the film is essentially a 'psychogenic fugue,' a term described in the DSM-III-R as a state where someone under immense stress suddenly adopts an entirely new personality, with new memories. With that in mind, the film isn't terribly difficult to figure out, if you are familiar with some of Lynch's recurring symbols and his style. Each Lynch film has a certain theme, and the theme here seems to be how one person deals, psychologically, with his life when he discovers it was not what it seemed to be. To say any more would ruin the fun, though, except to add that "Lost Highway" is almost a mirror image of "Mulholland Dr.," so if you understand one, it's not difficult to understand the other. I should also note that, personally, I found "Lost Highway" to be a (slightly) better film than "Mulholland," but still believe "Blue Velvet" is Lynch's best, so that might offer some kind of measuring stick for those familiar with his other works. Like Lynch's other films, "Highway" isn't for everyone, but it offers the same kinds of rewards for anyone who wants to engage himself or herself in following the trial of clues "Highway" offers. Final Grade: A
Rating:
Summary: Great Movie, Dumb Studios
Review: Lost Highway has been available on DVD for a while now in Canada. The problem is that some genius decided to release it solely in a pan and scan version. As a result, for over the past year, copies of Lost Highway DVDs have been clogging the clearance bins of stores all across the country as true film fans (who else would buy anything by Lynch?) avoid this mutilated version of the film like the plague. I can just picture what the various distributors are thinking: "Someone else already released Lost Highway and it didn't sell. Obviously, nobody wants to buy it." In conclusion, I don't think we'll see a proper release of LH in North America until enough people raise enough of a stink.
Rating:
Summary: Lost Highway FOUND
Review: For many of you who saw Lost Highway, the meaning and interpretation of the film has eluded you. If you are anything like me, you spent hours reviewing the movie, thumb on the pause button, notebook in lap! The beauty of the film truly lies in it's mystery. It is a work of art, and as with any artistic expression, the piece is left open for interpretation by all. Each persons opinion or conclusion neither being right or wrong. My original ideas included comparing Renee Madison/Alice Wakefield (Patricia Arquette) to a modern day Eve, working with the devil/mystery man (Robert Blake) as she lured the men in the movie into sin. My other major theory was that the main characters in the movie at one point sold their souls to the devil, and he held total control over their fate, drawing them into his den and forcing them to do his dirty work, i.e. porn, murder, etc. Well, my interpretations were all well and good, but I was interested in what was going through the mind of David Lynch and Barry Gifford when they wrote the movie. I did a little research, and this is what I found... Night People The idea for this movie came to David Lynch while reading a book by Barry Gifford called Night People. In the book, Barry uses the term "lost highway" and those words sparked an idea in David's head. From this early point, David knew he wanted to make a movie about the unknown. He contacted Barry, and they set out to write the movie. Murder If any of you are wondering if Fred actually killed Renee, the answer is yes. Fred lived in constant fear of loosing Renee, constant fear that she was cheating on him, and most importantly, constant fear of her past. He loved Renee, but at the same time hated her. Whenever he saw her, he saw her past. Sex with Renee was a torturous reminder of her experience in porn, making it impossible for him to even finish. Eventually, he just snapped. If you watch the movie again, pause it at the point where he watches the final video tape, and jog slowly over the portion where we see Renee's body. You will see what kind of anger and rage exploded inside Fred when he killed her. Her torso is ripped apart, her upper and lower body are completely separated and her hand is cut off and lying on the bed. Continue to jog slowly and you will see Fred stare directly into the camera with a piercing, maniacal gaze. Psychogenic Fugue Psychogenic fugue is an existing mental condition in which the subject, wanting to escape reality, creates a new reality inside their head. The person will create new friends, a new job, a new home, everything. Pretty much the entire movie takes place within Fred's head. When the movie opens, Fred has already killed Renee and he starts creating an alternate reality. He infuses his own reality with tiny portions of the truth, so some of what we see is actually based on fact, but the majority is what Fred is creating inside his own head. A very important line in the movie is when Fred and Renee are explaining to the police why they don't own a video camera. Fred says he doesn't like them, that he "would rather remember things his way, not necessarily the way they happened" When Fred is imprisoned, his mental illness kicks into high gear. He is on death row, and any hope of escaping his nightmare (his real life) is lost. He is stuck in this cell until his death. His only way out is to completely escape to a new reality. This is when he essentially snaps and in his own mind, he takes on a new identity, Pete. The rest of the movie is him trying to live a life he finds more attractive. He is a young, good-looking guy, who has no trouble getting any woman he wants. Then he meets Alice (a now blonde Patricia Arquette), his alternate version of Renee. But, Fred is so sick, that even in the reality that he is creating, Alice becomes a product of his paranoia, eventually turning on him, declaring "you will never have me" while they are having sex and then getting up and walking away. This is the point in the movie, in the desert, when Fred decides to abandon this alternate reality and he reappears and Pete disappears. The last scene of the movie is Fred being chased by the police down the highway as he begins to transform again, just like in the prison cell. This reality didn't quite work out the way he wanted it to, and now he is out there somewhere, living a new life again. Let's hope this one worked out for him! Robert Blake The mystery man is truly the most fascinating aspect of this movie. In my opinion, he is Fred's idea of the devil. He has supernatural powers and he feeds off the sins of mortals. The scene at the party is one of the creepiest movie scenes I've seen, yet at the same time it is hilarious. The way the music and party noise fade when the mystery man and Fred walk up to each other created a bizarre and surreal exchange. Another great scene of the movie is when Mr. Eddy and the mystery man call Pete together. "Yeah Pete, I just wanted to jump back on and let you know I'm glad your ok!" Click. That was great. And of course, I can't talk about the great scenes in the movie without mentioning the "tailgating" scene. Robert Loggia (Mr. Eddy) is a master. Conclusion Keeping in mind David's use of psychogenic fugue as the main characters mental illness, the movie is actually very simple. Watching the movie again, keeping this all in mind, is an entirely new experience. The first several times I watched it I was intrigued by the puzzle. Now, watching the movie, I can relax, stop trying to figure out how everything relates to everything else, and watch what is actually happening. I suggest, if you are a fan of the movie and haven't seen it in a while, or if you learned some new things here, then go back and watch it again. You will realize more than ever that David Lynch is brilliant, a master of the avant-garde.
Rating:
Summary: A mystery of sex and murder
Review: If not for 'Mulholland Drive,' I would say that 'Lost Highway' is the film that every surrealist director spends his or her career working towards. This is a beautiful film. This is a chilling film. This is a film that employs narrative techniques that you've never seen before. Characters multiply, add, subtract. The murky topic of sex hangs over the film, and the entire film is haunted by the presence of the uncanny, and by the mysterious, seductive beauty of Patricia Arquette. Lynch takes the sex lives of Fred (Bill Pullman) and his wife, Renee (Patricia Arquette), as his starting point, and builds a fascinating psychological film in which the demons haunting Fred are physically embodied in the twisted, broken plot. Fred, impotent and haunted by suspicions about his wife's fidelity, is driven to homicide by his growing estrangement from Renee, who no longer appears to be herself. Suddenly, Fred isn't himself. In prison, he transforms into a young, virile mechanic named Peter (Balthazar Getty). The jailer (Henry Rollins), expresses what the audience is probably thinking: "This is some pretty f---ed up sh-t." Lynch's technique has made it appear that Fred has actually transformed into Peter, but the physical embodiment of Peter actually takes place in the realm of fantasy, as Fred imagines himself as a sexually active younger man. The way that Lynch confuses the viewer by making the metamorphosis appear *real* adds to an overall sense of mystery. Patricia Arquette re-appears, but this time as Alice, the young concubine that Fred imagines she is in her murky private life. However, as Peter, Fred masters Alice, and we have the pleasure of repeatedly seeing Patricia Arquette in one of the sexiest roles in the history of film. This segment of the film, where Fred exists as Peter and Renee exists as Alice, contains most of the entertainment. The sex, violence, and slapstick humor that Lynch experimented with in 'Blue Velvet' and 'Wild At Heart' reappears in full force, and, together with the great soundtrack, make for a wonderful experience. In the end, Fred's fantasy fails, as Alice abandons him and he transforms back into his impotent self. The narrative climaxes in a chilling loop, as the last line of the film has Fred uttering what we thought was the first line of the film, and which we thought Fred had *heard,* and not spoken. The circularity of the film culminates in fantastic mystery, leaving the viewer thinking, "Wow, that was an awesome." Lynch's ability to artistically muddle a film is beyond compare - Oliver Stone's pathetic attempt in 'Natural Born Killers' doesn't even come close. The duplicity of the Patricia Arquette character, and the unity of the Bill Pullman and Balthazar Getty character is astonishing; trying to figure out who's who and what rivals the experience of working out the plot of 'Memento.' Throughout the film, The Strange Man links the two plots (Fred-Renee and Peter-Alice) together: his white, shaven face haunts the film like a phantom. I need to emphasize three things about this film: 1) The use of the soundtrack is riveting. Nine Inch Nails and Marilyn Manson are played at very high volumes - an incredibly bold musical statement by Lynch, and the intensity of the music gives the film a wild, captivating excitement. 2) The use of bizarre, psychotic images is fantastic - the last twenty of the movie climax in a spectacular barrage of powerful, haunting fantasies. 3) On a more negative note, the first hour of the film is a little slow, although it contains significant surrealist material - the boldest elements of the film are reserved for later. The wait is worth it, though. Is this film weird, intellectual, psychological, or sexy? Yes. With a hip soundtrack, a dazzling plot, a perfect cast, a profound sense of mystery, and a really terrific treatment of sex and violence, you'll never get the roaring music and the film's psychotic images out of your head.
Rating: 
Summary: Lacks the coherence of Blue Velvet
Review: In Lost Highway, David Lynch returns to some of the things that worked so well for him in Blue Velvet in 1986. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a very good script here, and to make up for that he tries too hard to be mysterious and arty. The first part of the film plays like an experimental low budget amateur venture (although the acting is professional). The sets are too dark and the games with the lighting lead to nothing. The long takes on the faces of the actors add nothing, and the long time spent fading to black creates nothing more than a mood of impatience. The supernatural hooey is strictly grade "B." The barroom lighting in most of the interiors recalls the apartment in Blue Velvet, but the apartment in Blue Velvet worked well because of its lay out and how it was set up to work effectively in the plot of the movie. Here we just have a lot of barroom lighting with little purpose. Robert Blake, with his white clown face makeup as the "mystery man," expands on the cameo character of Dean Stockwell in Blue Velvet, but he is not so interesting as we eventually see he is another tired personification of some kind of Lucifer. Patricia Arquette plays the female sex animal as Isabella Rossellini did in Blue Velvet and she is as sexy as sexy can be, but not as interesting as Rossellini because she is a little too perfect physically, and too psychologically familiar. Lynch's idea that women are evil temptresses leading men astray is worked on here, but yields nothing new. Main problem besides the script is Lynch has no Dennis Hopper. And he has no contrast. Laura Dern in Blue Velvet was a perfect foil to Rossellini, really etching their contrasting characters for us, but against Arquette plays only a variation of herself. Bill Pullman is good in a grim, spiritless role. Balthazar Getty, with more to do, does it very well. The movie is also very poorly edited. A lot of the first half hour could have been profitably tossed. The film only gets going after the prison scene. (The "road rage" scene in the Hollywood Hills was good.) The desert scene where Arquette seems to turn into Blake was a wonderful opportunity lost. Instead of sex by the headlights of the Mustang in front of a dreary wooden structure (I don't think the crew got farther than Victorville) how about sex among the cacti in the blazing sun in front of something adobe? And the Lost Highway Hotel? Gee, how did everybody end up there apropos nothing and without rhyme or reason? How convenient for the requisite gore to follow.
Rating:
Summary: another response to the reviewer below
Review: Ir97 loved the charlton heston opus mother lode.
nuff said.
he also states movies are just movies.
go home and watch another episode of threes company why dont you.
now, the first assault against my defending the films of lynch will be that i'm just another lynch fan.
actually, i'm not.
amongst the current crop i'm more inclined towards cronenberg and kubrick.
that said, the review 'wanna be artistic junk' reaks of bigoted stereotypes and rallies against anything remotely avant garde. it's like the song ' i dont like what i dont understand and it scares me half to death'.
its also a very typical and lazy mentality.
to say that movies are just movies is such a naive statement that one really has to take a breath before responding to such silliness.
from the beginning film has simply been another visual medium and many artists have, of course, tackled this medium in their individual styles. it doesnt have to be entertaining and yet, it can be.
i enjoy popcorn fluff as much as the next guy and my biggest guilty pleasure is the james bond movies.
that said, i also have a passion for 'that art crap' and that 'art crap' has been around for a very long time.
hell, melies 1902 trip to the moon was as valid an art film as any. and its been that way from the silent era to today.
if i were to take this type of mentality seriousely i would simply write off artists like keaton (the first true modernist), chaplin, bunuel, marnau, stroheim, eisenstein, welles, dali, dreyer, whale, sturges,fellini, kurosawa, kubrick, cronenberg and on and on and on.
lost highway certainly isnt the best lynch or the best avant garde film ive seen.
but any film that is this perverse and features robert blake with shaved eyebrows deserves to be seen.
and again Ir97 demands that anyone who likes this movie explain it.
i like this film and yet i cant explain it.
i wouldnt want to even if i did understand it, because part of the beauty (yes, beauty) of this film is the inability to understand it.
not only is the 'narrative' of this film a mystery but the aesthetics are also mysterious and if anyone does have an inside clue as to the entire meaning dont email it to me. i dont always like things explained to me.
Rating: 
Summary: Wannabe "artistic" JUNK!
Review: This review will no doubt get me negative "unhelpfull" numbers on amazon because of the "Lynch Fanatics" out there but I will state MY OPINION anyways. First off, MOST movies claiming (especially from fans or the director himself) to be some form of "art work", or "movie making artistry/masterpiece", should give the average movie go'er a clue. I, MYSELF (IN MY OPINION) have never considered ANY Hollywood film maker an "artist". I suppose "art" IS in the eye of the beholder though or a matter of opinion, but MOVIES are just MOVIES to me. How anyone can call films or movies "art work" I will NEVER understand. Entertaining yes. But "Art work"? Oh well, to each his own opinion. As far as "Lost Highway" goes; This movie is yet another NON-COHERENT GARBAGE of a movie and "wannabe" art bologna. Ask any David Lynch fanatic out there and he or she can't even attempt to explain what this movie's plot or suppossed story is even about. They'll give you the wrap that you are stupid and don't have enough "attention span" to understand the logic and can't "comprenend" real art work. Basically an excuse for "GARBAGE". They should give that bologna a rest and admit that THEY--THEMSELVES can't even attepmt to explain this film. Most importantly, coherently. They just tell you it's art and you'll never get it. Some bologna like that. When they just somehow find facination in NOTHING. I am happy for them that they enjoyed the film and it entertained them. But for anybody that REALLY wants entertainment, or to say the least "be entertained" in the slightest, then don't waste over 2 hours of your time on this GARBAGE of film. I ONLY give it 2 stars because in some parts I enjoyed some of the rediculous things that were going on, however one might TRY to understand it. Lynch's style of camera work (Kubrick rip-off) is very good and always has been. Robert Blake pays a good EVIL person (or Devil-or whatever he was supposed to be) no doubt, the mobster guy was wannbe Soprano-ish and intresting, but as far as any story that makes any sence, NOBODY can explain it. Which IN MY OPINION makes this a horrible movie that IS a waste of time. Was this movie suposed to be about time-travel? A dream? I don't think anybody can explain what was going through Lynch's mind and most imporantly, after 2 hrs.+ and no coherent plot I COULD CARELESS! And for the most part I wished he would give me my money back for wasted time & the price of the ticket to this whatever-it-may-be" so-called movie. I wanted it to be good, it DID sort of keep me WANTING or especially WAITING to find out what the heck is going on.David Lynch HAS made some decent better than average movies that come together: Blue Velvet; Wild At Heart; Twin Peaks:Fire Walk With Me". This movie does not. Besides "Lost Highway", "Mullholand Drive" is yet another attempt by Lynch to film any garbage he wants and still get his "fanatic" fans to buy tickets to his films and thus calling it "art work" because THEY TRY to find a way to understand it, and the Lynch fanatics really seem to enjoy TRYING to ANALYZE his nutty nonsence movies. If "Lost Highway" & "Mullholand Drive was suppossed to be a form of "David Lynch art work", then "Dune" was a masterpiece. Don't be fooled by the Lynch fanatics out there. They know it's a junk movie. Let them TRY and explain what this movie is about. If it takes more than a paragraph to explain it then just REALIZE the movie sucks and IS NOT Coherent. A waste of 2 hours +.
Rating: 
Summary: stupid, stupid, stupid
Review: All of David Lynchs film are stupid and this one is one of the worst followed only by the the mind numbilgly bad Muhholand drive. The only people that will these movies are psudeo intelcutals who think it is cool to say they like them. I am not stupid by the way two of my favorite films are Memento and Swimming pool, get those instead.
Rating:
Summary: You either love it or you hate it.
Review: This movie is difficult to explain and just as difficult to understand, but I absolutely love it!! Lost Highway is a movie that you can see over and over and notice something new or different every time. I keep checking this page to see if they've introduced it on DVD yet, but so far, nothing. I've worn out two copies of it on VHS already and am on my third quickly wearing out one now. David Lynch's Lost Highway is in the same category as Natural Born Killers, in that you may be one of the lucky ones who can't get enough of it or you may see it and just warn everyone else away from it.
Please at least see it once, if you haven't already, and then maybe you'll begin to also understand the artistic quality in this wonderful film.
|
