I love that! I guess surrealism and dream logic just wasn’t their thing. I watched Siskel & Ebert with a passion from 1980 until they were both gone, but they obviously missed the mark when it came to David Lynch. I think Ebert was cool with “Mulholland Dr.” despite the fact that it was very similar to “Lost Highway” in some ways. Watching it for the second time just recently, I was intrigued by how quiet it was at first. Pullman and Arquette spoke in hushed tones, and Badalamenti’s score was damn near ambient. Of course, Lynch understands what the film is about, and S&E’s confusion doesn’t change that. And what was it about the violence that bothered them? Ebert co-wrote the screenplay for “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls,” and there was some very disturbing violence in that that some might say was misogynistic. Are we to believe that Russ Meyer was a better filmmaker than David Lynch? I like both, but one always stuck to exploitation cinema while the other became one of our greatest auteurs.
Yeah, they were waaaaayyyyyy off on this one. Ebert especially seemed to have a giant bone to pick with Lynch all through the 80s and into the 90s up until he "saw the light" with Mulholland Drive. It's really frustrating to see two guys who are so obviously smart (and show it most of the time) run up against their own blind spots with certain actors/directors. Yes, everyone has their own opinions and viewpoints but their unwillingness to engage with Lynch seems almost perversely willful.
He literally acknowledges how talented David is in the video. I don’t think you realize just how difficult it is to love David Lynch’s films. Can you really blame someone for not enjoying Lost Highway? It’s deliberately puzzling and/or challenging, so naturally that’s going to make people have a hard time enjoying it. I’m a huge fan of David, but I can understand why people don’t enjoy his work
I'd respectfully disagree. I'd argue that Lynch - even 'subconsciously' - took heed of these kinds of reviews (I'm a huge fan but also consider 'Lost Highway' a big misfire), leading him to make 'The Straight Story'. For me, that was a big return to form.
@@MrSteviedan I don’t think Lost Highway was bad but it was definitely Lynch being too comfortable with his usual style. I definitely think he needed The Straight Story before he could make Mulholland Drive the masterpiece it is.
One of my favorite films of all time. Like all of David Lynch’s films, it moves like a fever dream. Truly like being in a dream that’s trying to turn into a nightmare. With absolutely incredible performances, surreal imagery and concepts, and an amazing soundtrack. Know it’s trendy to hate on that which isn’t easily understood, but to me, Lynch is the definition of a true artistic genius. Critics come and go, but true art lives forever.
I saw it in the theater, and it was a packed house. I remember because we had to sit close to the screen (which I hate) and deep into the row (which I also hate!). But then again.....I live in NYC, lol.
Lost Highway is simply a metaphor for how I live my life. There's the "truth", my interpretation of events and then there's the "truth", what happened objectively.
What a disappointing, simplistic review ...I remember seeing Lost Highway as a teenager and still find this movie so mesmerizing on so many fronts ...the twisted, cryptic, suspenseful plot(s)..2 femme fatales in 1 .. arresting scenes (this magic moment 😍).. a powerhouse music soundtrack ..And finally, the atmosphere and sensuality of it all .. no wonder today it is considered a CULT classic !!
Lynch had one of the all time great digs at Siskel and Eberts expense in an ad for this movie which said “two thumbs down! - Siskel and Ebert” at the top of the poster and at the bottom said “two more great reasons to see Lost Highway”. So funny. Basically saying they’re shit critics. Very clever. Well done
We went to see this movie for my 12th birthday party (100% because I was just starting to get into the bands on the soundtrack). For some reason no-one liked or appreciated the film, and I remember the rest of the bday party having a weird, really negative vibe haha that ruled
@@Yeomannn It's a guy on deathrow who believes his own lie that he didn't do the crime he committed. The film itself is like a mobius strip in terms of how the plot works. Lynch himself said the film was inspired by the OJ Simpson trials, and the general consensus on the trials is that OJ did the crimes, but convinced himself that he didn't do any of it.
Both of them didn't get it. I would have loved to just explain to them that it's a movie about a guy who killed his wife and then goes into a fantasy denial about it and then gets executed on the electric chair. Once you realize that the move is pretty straight forward. The only thing you could hit the film for is sort of so-so cinematography and directing. Great film though.
There is nothing wrong with not getting it, not even "professional" film critics can always find the meaning behind every film... but the fact that Siskel calls it "meaningless" is kinda insulting. Just bcause he couldn't decipher it yet, doesn't mean there is NO MEANING behind it all. If a critic doesn't "get" a film, I would prefer it if he would just admit to it and critique the film through that lens of non-understanding. Tell us if the subject seems interesting enough (as well es cinematography, music, mood etc.) to revisit and dig deeper. Tell us what it made you feel (Siskel only went for the violence here). If you call it "meaningless", especially with the word "ultimately" in front of it, that means you are completely unwilling to engage with the picture and therefor your "opinion" means nothing.
I have been looking everywhere for this, thank you. Anyway, I like Ebert's take in this one, he seems a bit less harsh on the film than Wild at Heart. This one doesn't piss him off, it only puzzles him, with perhaps a bit of annoyance, or at the very least least, disappointment. I think he would've liked it better if it stuck with the first half of the story, without the "transformation", and I would've too, as I love that segment. If it got more and more intense, that would've been very nostalgic for me. Probably my favorite Lynch film
@@bassage13 Y'know, I sat down to watch that a while ago but couldn't get into it. I'll have to be in a real specific mood to make it through the whole thing. The atmosphere is so oppressive and the pace is so slow. I'm sure I'll be glad I watched it when I do, though.
There's definitely an explanation for nearly everything that happens in Lost Highway. David Lynch tells a rather simple story in a very unique way. I don't blame Siskel & Ebert for not understanding the plot after seeing it only once (in a movie theater). I don't think it's possible for anyone to understand the film after just one viewing. In fact, it can be an incredibly confusing and unpleasant viewing experience. However, once a person better understands what they've seen, most will gain respect for the film and the filmaker. I won't explain the film here in these comments. But, if you invest the time to actually try to figure it out, you'll find that it's actually quite an amazing bit of art. P.S. As you watch, it's important to remember the statement made by Bill Pullman's character Fred Madison; "I like to remember things my own way. How I remembered them, not necessarily the way they happened". That's PART of the solution. But, there are many pieces that need fitting together. You CANNOT view Lost Highway as though it were a typical film. It will only frustrate you. You may want to watch the David Lynch film Mulholland Drive, which features many of the exact same plot structures. Watching Mulholland Drive might help you to understand Lost Highway, and vice versa.
"At the time Barry Gifford and I were writing the script for Lost Highway, I was sort of obsessed with the O.J. Simpson trial. Barry and I never talked about it this way, but I think the film is somehow related to that…What struck me about O.J. Simpson was that he was able to smile and laugh. He was able to go golfing with seemingly very few problems about the whole thing. I wondered how, if a person did these deeds, he could go on living. And we found this great psychology term-'psychogenic fugue'-describing an event where the mind tricks itself to escape some horror. So, in a way, Lost Highway is about that. And the fact that nothing can stay hidden forever." - David Lynch, Catching the Big Fish
This from the guys who gave Eyes Wide Shut two thumbs up, lol. Oh my gosh, this was hilarious, I love these guys. Watching them confounded by it was priceless. I'm pretty sure I saw this when it aired because I knew that Robert Blake clip going in to the theater, it was one of the things that had hooked me (aside from it being a Lynch movie that I was going to see anyways!).
I liked Eyes Wide Shut . Eyes Wide Shut is bizarre too because it is easier to understand . Kubrick’s last film doesn’t really have any paranormal elements to it like Lost Highway .
@@dagnabbit6187 I saw Eyes Wide Shut twice the day it opened, lol. I watch it once a year ever since. I have never changed my opinion of it. This Xmas I'm going to try ONE LAST TIME! As for Ebert: he panned "A Clockwork Orange" (as did Siskel). So I can totally update my comment if you prefer. And Ebert panned EVERY SINGLE Lynch film - including The Elephant Man! - including Blue Velvet! - until "Mullholland Drive", of all films. (He may have possibly given a good review to "The Straight Story", but all the rest, from "Eraserhead" till this movie he panned. Others both guys panned: "Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid". Ebert panned "Raising Arizona"! They both could be WAY off, but I love both of 'em and miss 'em.
The more old reviews of Siskel & Ebert I watch the more I realize they were almost always wrong on the classics. The movies that stood the test of time they dismissed, and those that they hyped up as masterpieces are forgotten by now.
That tends to happen with published criticism. It shows how hard it is to view the significance of art in its modern context and in the larger context of history. Siskel and Ebert seemed to focus their criticism more on what moved them, or didn't.
I'm surprised Gene Siskel didn't get it. He's by far the superior film critic but at least he conceded that there might be something here he's missing. That's actually pretty impressive given that he saw the film once, presumably, and it takes many viewing before you start to understand it. But this segment perfectly illustrates how bizarrely overrated Roger Ebert was. He didn't review films for artistic merit but often seemed to be sifting the movies though his own prissy morality. I try not to take these reviews too seriously given that this was a mainstream review show aimed at average American moviegoers and most of them would have hated Lost Highway. So it's reasonable that they're saying it was bad. Still, it's frustrating to see what may be one of the best films made in the 90s treated so dismissively.
What’s great about it not making sense after only watching it once is that every time you watch it, you notice something new. And the movie is highly entertaining and engaging, even if the plot doesn’t make sense.
It's funny how Siskel complains about unnecessary violence, when just a year prior he praised Fargo. You can tell both him and Ebert misunderstood Lost Highway. It's a difficult film because the meaning of the story is not handed out to you, instead you need to interpret the symbols yourself. I guess that part flew over their heads.
While the movie does require some thought, it really isn't that opaque. There is a strong Jacob's Ladder and unreliable narrator element to it. and the ending, while brutal, is not really fully in question. meaning--while it is open to interpretation, there definitely IS a way to cohesively connect all the pieces. sometimes I wonder if they had a certain threshold of pondering things that they just didn't like to go over.
For fucks sake, how do people with such little intuitive understanding end up being highly paid critics? What's going on the film is generally pretty simple and obvious : the Pete character is obviously Fred's fantasy version of events (through which knowledge of reality still tries to break through). The rest is either reality or memory. Ok, the details - such as the Mystery Man - might be more open to confusion, but the gist of it is pretty straightforward and it's embarrassing that these two can't figure it out. Sad.
I'm a huge fan of david lynch. Love every movie of his but remember siskel and ebert review movies to the average movie goer. Imagine just being an average movie goer and they recommended lost highway, they would not of gotten it and been pissed off at the recommendation. David Lynch fans of course will love it but we are the minority and that's even better. We are like the hardcore punk of movies
Keep in mind, @Carlos M: Gene actually put BLUE VELVET on his Top 10 of 1986, whereas Roger despised the film. However, Roger came around 4 years later on MULHOLLAND DRIVE & put that on his Best of 2001. So, it's weird....
I would have thought Ebert would have liked it - he himself made the weirdest movie ever made with Russ Meyer, a man way more eccentric than Lynch. I guess Lynch wasn't manly enough for him. Lost Highway is one of like three great films made by Lynch that are filmschool perfect. The others being Wild at Heart and Blue Velvet. Noone ever goes on about how weird Coppola is. I don't like Lynch as much as everyone else does, him having become a novelty in these recent years, but half of his movies and shorts are too good to be ignored.
I’ve not seen the movie, but have felt I’ve been able to piece the story together pretty well based on reviews and some scenes here and there. I don’t understand why THEY can’t make sense of it.
I love Lost Highway. It is definitely very difficult to make sense of it, but that really makes it rewatchable. Every time I see it, I always see something new. And it is quite entertaining with great performances from Robert Blake and Robert Loggia who has a memorably hilarious scene with a tailgater. If you ask me, coherent plots are overrated.
This is a hilarious review. I can understand on a first viewing why someone might feel this way, the movie is purposefully vague and disorienting, but it's such a clear reflection on their values as people that they can't see any reason to make this movie other than Lynch just trying to "outsmart himself." I'm not a simp for Lynch who thinks neither he nor his work can do any wrong, but having just watched the movie for the first time, all I can do is laugh that this is what such esteemed critics have to say about a movie that's clearly driving at something deeper
This is not an only once movie to see. Multiple viewings for an interpretation is what is needed but Professional Reviewers like Siskel and Ebert don’t have the time for that. I personally perceived it as a part science fiction , part paranormal movie. There are two LAs here in two different parallel universes. Both of these characters make a psychic connection . Both are doomed. The Robert Blake character is a supernatural entity . The Lost Highway is a connection between the two worlds. Not many people get to travel it but some do probably in the near death experience
That's a cool interperetation. I personally saw a film about a murder. The sax player murders his girlfriend because he feels sexually inadequate and retreats into a fantasy world in his head where he's someone who can satisfy her, or someone like her, and never hurt her. But eventually he starts to become unable to sustain the fantasy, the dream collapses and, even in the ideal world he made up, he can never "have" her and he knows it. Even he knows she has the last laugh from beyond the grave in his head. The titular lost highway would sorta be a bridge between reality and the psyche. It's been a few years since I watched it, though.
@@meursault7030 Well that is the way Lynch films are . David Lynch’s debut film Eraserhead is open to interpretation. In his excellent first Cult Movies book Danny Peary reported some of those on Eraserhead . He said that most people were reluctant to talk about it but some will mumble something about the astral plane . I do know that David Lynch is into transcendental meditation and allegedly that can take you there but I wouldn’t know . I like your interpretation of Lost Highway too and before I go I must say that I have noticed a kind of polarization between Lynch fans . Of course we all like most everything he has done but I have noticed there are Lost Highway fans who like LH better than Mulholland Drive and then there are MD fans who like it better than Lost Highway . I am team Lost Highway.
I think David Lynch could have been more clear that the film was about not just the story of a jealous murder, but how Hollywood, the music industry, and the media at large (including the porn industry), shape who we become. Think of the snuff porn-video scene where none-other-than Marilyn Manson is the victim (or willing human sacrifice) for the snuff film. It's all real. But, I feel the film needed to be expanded on. It's quite short compared to Mullholand drive. Lost Highway is actual the male version of Mullholand Drive. Think about it: in Mullholand Drive, the women slowly begin to have a sexual relationship as they try to find out why the dark-haired Rita has amnesia. Yet, all along (insert dream time-warp) Rita's head injury was received from the same woman. // Same murder scenario for the Lost Highway. Except its a MAN who kills his his lover. // The dialogue and acting was great, but I think the problem is there was just not enough character-development in the film to truly connect with anyone. It seems that the testosterone-laden "Lost Highway," much like the typical male, moved too fast. What's lame about Siskel and Ebert is that they have no clue about spirituality itself in the context of film. David Lynch has talked several times how he reads and refers to the Catholic (i.e. the long version) Bible. It is modernist Siskel and Ebert who for all their smarts, have lost there faith . . . in art itself. They dismiss it entirely, lost in their own dark (elitist?) egos. - This has been a message from - _The Acoustic Rabbit Hole,_ inviting all to come and see . . .
I wouldn't say clueless, just not open. For real. Look at their review of Poltergeist. They literally just laughed it off as absurd. I'm from the Apache Reservation here in New Mexico. When the film mentioned about the house being built on old Indain burial grounds, that meant something to us. Not in a sentimental way; but literally that as a historic culture we were always in touch with the spirts. We recognized these things and we had (and still have) in our vocabularies these working terms and concepts. That Poltergeist single-handedly exposed many of their spiritual biases. Their aversion to metaphor and dream its' deepest sense. Which is why I see David Lynch as a mystic, as compared to other fantastical filmmakers like, say, Danny Elfman, or die-hard-atheist Guierrimo del Toro. Not that there is anything wrong with being an atheist. As an English Literature graduate I very-much admire Rodger Ebert's high-level literary criticism. But to literally throw the spiritual out with the cosmic bath-water is just . . . upsetting to me. I was literally in shock to watch their causally disdainful review of Poltergeist with I consider one of the great horror films ever, if not a full-fledged Classic film. They didn't BELIEVE in it, therefore they dismissed it. @@plaidchuck
Oh, and I see where you're coming from now. I shouldn't have made that last statement that Siskel & Ebert have lost their faith in art itself. That was unfair. You got me. I was being dramatic!
Good to know! // Dood, you should see my short films here. I'm a big fan of The Lynch, and I'm documenting my color-associations with the musical notes! // I'm here at: _The Acoustic Rabbit Hole_ . @@beyondz55
I guess this is proof that movie critics shouldnt be taken as the de facto authority for what makes a good movie. Lost Highway isnt a film, its a piece of art. What Ebert said should be redirected back directly at both him and siskel. If only they werent trying so hard to outsmart themselves, they could make an actual review, instead of this sophomoric interpretation that these two minds could barely muster up.
I haven’t seen Lost Highway so my opinion is irrelevant. But I get what Roger is saying here about wishing Lynch would make a traditional movie instead of being pre-occupied with being clever. I feel two years later Lynch did that with The Straight Story which Roger loved.
It was probably his most pretentious film ever, I admit. But it was still a bold criticism of the ugly system that forms our society: mass-media, porn and the porn industry, and the upper-elitist cults that guide it. Like the porn-snuff scene where none other than Marilyn Manson is the victim being snuffed out in an an actual porn scene. I think David Lynch's mistake was simply not making it clear about what the film was really about. In the end its more of a frustrating experience. I believe David Lynch believes in God, and has spoken that he does read the Bible, with consistency. And I do think the spiritual element comes out in his works. It's why, nerdy, modernist Siskel & Ebert just don't get it at all. As smart and literary they are.
My first viewing left me cold. I didn't like Mulholland Drive the first time either so maybe repeat viewings will reward me but I was truly waiting for the clock to run out when I saw this last night.
I would have thought Ebert would have appreciated it more. Siskel's take is unsurprising. This makes me want to see what Siskel and Ebert had to say about Charlie Kaufman's movies.
I wonder if these critics often just played stupid. The flimsiness of their critiques is astounding, Ebert's especially. Siskel, with his usual moralistic "it's too violent" and peevish "I don't get it" , actually says the only perceptive thing about the movie - "it's something I haven't seen before" - enough reason to make you reconsider your opinion, to at least say, "maybe it deserves multiple viewings"... I myself was a bit predisposed to it when it first came out, but this is one film that improves with successive viewings. If maybe not the equal of Mulholland Drive or Inland Empire, it's certainly a necessary step in the evolution towards those films.
It's very easy to criticize this film and bash it. Yes it's frustrating because it doesn't fully make sense but the feeling, the mood it generate through simple scenes, silent scenes, is mesmerizing and stays long after the days in my mind...This style of film making is lost these days.. nobody makes it
Lost Highway is one of the easier Lynch films to understand I think, seems Siskel and Ebert had trouble truly engaging with it. Lynch trying to "outsmart" the viewer is such a shitty take, lmao. I find half the time Lynch's shit isn't that complicated or even "smart", you just need to be able to pick up what he's putting down, which isn't even that hard with this film in particular.
Many people said Inception was a big puzzle to work out, whereas I found it in first viewing pretty straightforward, as it is con artists going deeper into dreams to discover the dreamers ideas.
love David Lynch, and I love Siskel and Ebert. like all great works of art, we can interpret them as we see fit. I disagree with Rog and Gene here, but I hold them and Lynch in the highest of regards.
Ugh. I have long ago stopped listening to “movie critics.” I had to watch this movie 3 times, then think about it for a month, then watch multiple RUclips “explaining” videos before I got a sense of what this movie was about. How can you adequately review it after one viewing? You really can’t.
I rented it in 1999. I had listened to the soundtrack for years and was prepared for a great movie. I had literally nothing to do, and i couldn't get through it. I wanted to like it, I was all in, and it was just a weird inscrutable mess.
It’s weird that Ebert went on to give Mulholland Drive four stars and praise it for being uncompromising and nonsensical. Maybe it was the, in his words, “lesbian love scenes so sexy you’d swear it was a 1970s movie”
Siskel and Ebert had a hard time understanding movies beyond inclusion of violent content. “People don’t really know themselves” yes… “so they must relate to each other via violence” no. Sounds like a totally different film. I found it to be about how people craft false narratives of themselves to shield them from what’s really going on in their lives; the character is trapped in either a psychological or supernatural hell: a cycle of constant denial and desperation as he seeks to repair his life and choices repeatedly, but is blind to his own part in things and continues to devolve, left aimlessly running from his reality on the dark highway, unable to ever be free of his own darkness because he fails to confront it
Man, I remember long ago, giving this movie a chance shortly after it came out on VHS; I found it so bad and incoherent I didn’t even finish watching it.
I’m a die hard twin peaks fan but I’ve never seen this movie. I love the soundtrack though. I’ve seen blue velvet, mulholland drive, 1/2 of dune(just wasn’t for me).
Their review is infinitely more shallow and meaningless than they think the film is. Siskel repeats himself “times TIMES,” shows no real emotion or passion to the words he’s mindlessly spewing out, and reviews this brilliant movie as bland and predictably as a movie critic whose favorite movie is “Citizen Kane”. Clearly just following the trends and not leading. Ebert manages to summon up a little emotion and evokes a little intensity behind his words, yet still has the gall to criticize the film as “sophomoric” while still being someone who wrote the script to a Russ Meyers film, which goes a long way to explain exactly why he was a critic in the first place. No original ideas of his own, so content to slam those who bested his failed and beyond mediocre cinematic effort. I give this review one million middle fingers.
As always these types of comments reveals more about their author then their intended target. Anyone with a million middle fingers to spare should probably work on being less of a caustic jerk.
In contrast, I felt this was honestly David Lynch’s most pretentious, befuddling, asinine film. All character development literally just goes out the window of logic itself. You never get to see or feel the killers motives at any time.
Film is surface. David Lynch is the only contemporary director/writer, other than Polanski, who tries to show psychological interpretation with a surface medium. Characters are not real, they are icons illuminating our understanding of horror and suffering. This story is simple. A paranoid artist goes insane and brutally murders his unsuspecting wife. He is sentenced to die in the electric chair. The film switches back and forth through Fred’s (Bill Pullman) deranged mind until he is executed. How do you show the moment of death by electrocution? What happens to the brain? Ask David Lynch. Or better, watch David Lynch.
it's also reeking of themes of impotency and male sexual fragility, something I think is pretty easy to pick up on even if you aren't trying to decipher symbols or make sense of the surrealism. They seem reluctant to actually sit with a film that takes such a different approach to tackling themes and ideas, would rather it be portrayed through realistic characters and situations over pure intuition.
@@ricardocantoral7672 did you ever try to sit through that movie. Did you see bela tarrs satantengo. I watched it all 6 1/2 hours. Sorry just thought of it - I was bored less with satantengo. I love tarkovsky but only like his last 5 movies
They had a point. Lynch’s work in the 80s and early 90s was willfully obscure and in a way smug and cutesy and clever and overly reliant on shock value. It was Lynch who saw the light and came back around when he made Mulholland Drive.
Yeah they love Lynch because it makes them feel superior liking something that others don't "get" but throw hissy fits when someone actually says they didn't get it.
@@hahajaxsontv I recall hanging in the parking lot after the feature, sucking on menthols, seething about the murky miasma of the movie's third act, embarrassed for dragging friends to this cinematic fiasco. I've seen it again since then, wanting to appreciate its misbegotten bullshittery but unable to. Good thing MULHOLLAND DR. came around and succeeded at everything LOST HIGHWAY miserably failed at.
No, when you have an opinion you become a critic. When you have a Philosophy Degree from the Ivy League and a Pulitzer for journalism you become a respected critic. When you have the internet, you become some butthurt fan boy.
@@DaleRobby Lynch has always worked at the outside edge of Hollywood, and Gene and Roger should have reminded their core viewers of this fact. A two minute and fifty second review is not exactly giving it the old college try for an art film. L.H. was up against Craptanic and L.A. Confidential that year. So, their was something for everyone at the cineplex that week. Gene R.I.P. and Roger R.I.P. put all the emphasis on trying to out-clever the artist.
It's really not that complex though. Also you don't have to fully understand it to Get It. I love the film. It has haunted me for years although Mullholland Drive is my favourite Lynch film.
Good for Siskel and Ebert. It's very in vouge to love everything David Lynch does but this movie is silly. Sophomoric attitude that doesn't pay off and just lies there" is an apt descripting of this movie. When David Lynch made Lost Highway, Wild at Heart, and Fire Walk With Me there were some adults still around who weren't afraid to call a spade a spade. Lost Highway is trash.
I seem to recall David Lynch saying that Siskel and Ebert’s review was “two more great reasons” to see Lost Highway
He did. He even put it on an ad poster for the movie
I love that! I guess surrealism and dream logic just wasn’t their thing. I watched Siskel & Ebert with a passion from 1980 until they were both gone, but they obviously missed the mark when it came to David Lynch. I think Ebert was cool with “Mulholland Dr.” despite the fact that it was very similar to “Lost Highway” in some ways. Watching it for the second time just recently, I was intrigued by how quiet it was at first. Pullman and Arquette spoke in hushed tones, and Badalamenti’s score was damn near ambient. Of course, Lynch understands what the film is about, and S&E’s confusion doesn’t change that. And what was it about the violence that bothered them? Ebert co-wrote the screenplay for “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls,” and there was some very disturbing violence in that that some might say was misogynistic. Are we to believe that Russ Meyer was a better filmmaker than David Lynch? I like both, but one always stuck to exploitation cinema while the other became one of our greatest auteurs.
Ebert had some hangups about blue velvet
It sucks but I like it.
Yeah, they were waaaaayyyyyy off on this one. Ebert especially seemed to have a giant bone to pick with Lynch all through the 80s and into the 90s up until he "saw the light" with Mulholland Drive. It's really frustrating to see two guys who are so obviously smart (and show it most of the time) run up against their own blind spots with certain actors/directors. Yes, everyone has their own opinions and viewpoints but their unwillingness to engage with Lynch seems almost perversely willful.
He literally acknowledges how talented David is in the video. I don’t think you realize just how difficult it is to love David Lynch’s films. Can you really blame someone for not enjoying Lost Highway? It’s deliberately puzzling and/or challenging, so naturally that’s going to make people have a hard time enjoying it. I’m a huge fan of David, but I can understand why people don’t enjoy his work
He liked Eraserhead and loved The Straight Story before he saw Mulholland Drive.
Siskel was a fan of Blue Velvet, I believe.
I'd respectfully disagree. I'd argue that Lynch - even 'subconsciously' - took heed of these kinds of reviews (I'm a huge fan but also consider 'Lost Highway' a big misfire), leading him to make 'The Straight Story'. For me, that was a big return to form.
@@MrSteviedan I don’t think Lost Highway was bad but it was definitely Lynch being too comfortable with his usual style. I definitely think he needed The Straight Story before he could make Mulholland Drive the masterpiece it is.
One of my favorite films of all time. Like all of David Lynch’s films, it moves like a fever dream. Truly like being in a dream that’s trying to turn into a nightmare. With absolutely incredible performances, surreal imagery and concepts, and an amazing soundtrack. Know it’s trendy to hate on that which isn’t easily understood, but to me, Lynch is the definition of a true artistic genius. Critics come and go, but true art lives forever.
It's one of the greatest movies ever made. Too bad almost no one saw It when It came out
Saw it in the theaters in Seattle. Garbage.
@@TheCorrectionist1984 And yet here you are still thinking about it 25 years later.
I saw it in the theater, and it was a packed house. I remember because we had to sit close to the screen (which I hate) and deep into the row (which I also hate!). But then again.....I live in NYC, lol.
@@TheCorrectionist1984 rent free
@@Profile.4 , do you make any thoughts pay rent?
Lost Highway is simply a metaphor for how I live my life. There's the "truth", my interpretation of events and then there's the "truth", what happened objectively.
You live your life based on a movie!good luck😂
Pretentious dribble😂
Yeah, please avoid killing your spouse tho
What a disappointing, simplistic review ...I remember seeing Lost Highway as a teenager and still find this movie so mesmerizing on so many fronts ...the twisted, cryptic, suspenseful plot(s)..2 femme fatales in 1 .. arresting scenes (this magic moment 😍).. a powerhouse music soundtrack ..And finally, the atmosphere and sensuality of it all .. no wonder today it is considered a CULT classic !!
Wow these guys really don’t get it.
They do.
Lynch had one of the all time great digs at Siskel and Eberts expense in an ad for this movie which said “two thumbs down! - Siskel and Ebert” at the top of the poster and at the bottom said “two more great reasons to see Lost Highway”. So funny. Basically saying they’re shit critics. Very clever. Well done
I think they missed the point.
Lol
this is always the most vapid comment that can be made concerning stuff like this
Ebert completely missed Blue Velvet
They definitely missed the mark with this review
We went to see this movie for my 12th birthday party (100% because I was just starting to get into the bands on the soundtrack). For some reason no-one liked or appreciated the film, and I remember the rest of the bday party having a weird, really negative vibe haha that ruled
I would never show a 12 year old this movie
That’s a crazy movie to show a group of 12 year olds, I don’t blame the vibe for going south
who tf approved that? there is so much nudity 😭
@@boofjew I’d be more worried about the violence, although there’s nothing on there that isn’t on the news really
Lol I saw Wild at Heart when I was 11…
This is exactly the type of movie mainstream film critics would hate, David Lynch probably laughed his ass off at this review.
What I find interesting is that, of all of Lynch's surreal works, this is actually the easiest one to understand.
Ok what's you interpretation
@@Yeomannn It's a guy on deathrow who believes his own lie that he didn't do the crime he committed. The film itself is like a mobius strip in terms of how the plot works.
Lynch himself said the film was inspired by the OJ Simpson trials, and the general consensus on the trials is that OJ did the crimes, but convinced himself that he didn't do any of it.
@@hipsterelephant2660 That's the conclusion I came to
@@Yeomannn Nice.
" It just lays there." lol
Both of them didn't get it. I would have loved to just explain to them that it's a movie about a guy who killed his wife and then goes into a fantasy denial about it and then gets executed on the electric chair. Once you realize that the move is pretty straight forward. The only thing you could hit the film for is sort of so-so cinematography and directing. Great film though.
There is nothing wrong with not getting it, not even "professional" film critics can always find the meaning behind every film... but the fact that Siskel calls it "meaningless" is kinda insulting. Just bcause he couldn't decipher it yet, doesn't mean there is NO MEANING behind it all.
If a critic doesn't "get" a film, I would prefer it if he would just admit to it and critique the film through that lens of non-understanding. Tell us if the subject seems interesting enough (as well es cinematography, music, mood etc.) to revisit and dig deeper. Tell us what it made you feel (Siskel only went for the violence here). If you call it "meaningless", especially with the word "ultimately" in front of it, that means you are completely unwilling to engage with the picture and therefor your "opinion" means nothing.
@@abonny He seems to have thought it was just random scenes with no kind of narrative thus not worth investigating further.
At least they have each other
wym? the cinematography and directing is amazing
so so directing??
I have been looking everywhere for this, thank you. Anyway, I like Ebert's take in this one, he seems a bit less harsh on the film than Wild at Heart. This one doesn't piss him off, it only puzzles him, with perhaps a bit of annoyance, or at the very least least, disappointment. I think he would've liked it better if it stuck with the first half of the story, without the "transformation", and I would've too, as I love that segment. If it got more and more intense, that would've been very nostalgic for me. Probably my favorite Lynch film
Ah but then we wouldn't have gotten that amazing tailgating scene and lou reed scene, probably more scenes Im forgetting
I have immediately fallen in love with every Lynch film I've watched so far. It's interesting to hear the opinions of people who feel differently.
I'm mostly the same, except for Inland Empire.
@@bassage13 Y'know, I sat down to watch that a while ago but couldn't get into it.
I'll have to be in a real specific mood to make it through the whole thing. The atmosphere is so oppressive and the pace is so slow. I'm sure I'll be glad I watched it when I do, though.
When you get a review like this from people like that you know you made an absolute masterpiece
There's definitely an explanation for nearly everything that happens in Lost Highway. David Lynch tells a rather simple story in a very unique way.
I don't blame Siskel & Ebert for not understanding the plot after seeing it only once (in a movie theater). I don't think it's possible for anyone to understand the film after just one viewing. In fact, it can be an incredibly confusing and unpleasant viewing experience. However, once a person better understands what they've seen, most will gain respect for the film and the filmaker.
I won't explain the film here in these comments. But, if you invest the time to actually try to figure it out, you'll find that it's actually quite an amazing bit of art.
P.S.
As you watch, it's important to remember the statement made by Bill Pullman's character Fred Madison; "I like to remember things my own way. How I remembered them, not necessarily the way they happened".
That's PART of the solution. But, there are many pieces that need fitting together.
You CANNOT view Lost Highway as though it were a typical film. It will only frustrate you.
You may want to watch the David Lynch film Mulholland Drive, which features many of the exact same plot structures. Watching Mulholland Drive might help you to understand Lost Highway, and vice versa.
Lynch is a master of what he does.
that was a Motorola back in the day- if you had a Motorola, you were gonna get some chiks
"At the time Barry Gifford and I were writing the script for Lost Highway, I was sort of obsessed with the O.J. Simpson trial. Barry and I never talked about it this way, but I think the film is somehow related to that…What struck me about O.J. Simpson was that he was able to smile and laugh. He was able to go golfing with seemingly very few problems about the whole thing. I wondered how, if a person did these deeds, he could go on living. And we found this great psychology term-'psychogenic fugue'-describing an event where the mind tricks itself to escape some horror. So, in a way, Lost Highway is about that. And the fact that nothing can stay hidden forever." - David Lynch, Catching the Big Fish
This from the guys who gave Eyes Wide Shut two thumbs up, lol. Oh my gosh, this was hilarious, I love these guys. Watching them confounded by it was priceless. I'm pretty sure I saw this when it aired because I knew that Robert Blake clip going in to the theater, it was one of the things that had hooked me (aside from it being a Lynch movie that I was going to see anyways!).
I liked Eyes Wide Shut . Eyes Wide Shut is bizarre too because it is easier to understand . Kubrick’s last film doesn’t really have any paranormal elements to it like Lost Highway .
@@dagnabbit6187 I saw Eyes Wide Shut twice the day it opened, lol. I watch it once a year ever since. I have never changed my opinion of it. This Xmas I'm going to try ONE LAST TIME! As for Ebert: he panned "A Clockwork Orange" (as did Siskel). So I can totally update my comment if you prefer. And Ebert panned EVERY SINGLE Lynch film - including The Elephant Man! - including Blue Velvet! - until "Mullholland Drive", of all films. (He may have possibly given a good review to "The Straight Story", but all the rest, from "Eraserhead" till this movie he panned. Others both guys panned: "Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid". Ebert panned "Raising Arizona"! They both could be WAY off, but I love both of 'em and miss 'em.
Actually Ebert loved The Straight Story alot.
The more old reviews of Siskel & Ebert I watch the more I realize they were almost always wrong on the classics. The movies that stood the test of time they dismissed, and those that they hyped up as masterpieces are forgotten by now.
That tends to happen with published criticism. It shows how hard it is to view the significance of art in its modern context and in the larger context of history. Siskel and Ebert seemed to focus their criticism more on what moved them, or didn't.
Not really fair in Ebert's case. He championed or gave favorable reviews to a lot of what are considered cult classics or plain classics now.
I'm surprised Gene Siskel didn't get it. He's by far the superior film critic but at least he conceded that there might be something here he's missing. That's actually pretty impressive given that he saw the film once, presumably, and it takes many viewing before you start to understand it. But this segment perfectly illustrates how bizarrely overrated Roger Ebert was. He didn't review films for artistic merit but often seemed to be sifting the movies though his own prissy morality.
I try not to take these reviews too seriously given that this was a mainstream review show aimed at average American moviegoers and most of them would have hated Lost Highway. So it's reasonable that they're saying it was bad. Still, it's frustrating to see what may be one of the best films made in the 90s treated so dismissively.
All a reviewer has is his/her own taste. Ebert liked Mulholland Drive with all of his "prissy morality".
What’s great about it not making sense after only watching it once is that every time you watch it, you notice something new.
And the movie is highly entertaining and engaging, even if the plot doesn’t make sense.
It's funny how Siskel complains about unnecessary violence, when just a year prior he praised Fargo. You can tell both him and Ebert misunderstood Lost Highway. It's a difficult film because the meaning of the story is not handed out to you, instead you need to interpret the symbols yourself. I guess that part flew over their heads.
lets be real they misunderstood a lot of movies
While the movie does require some thought, it really isn't that opaque. There is a strong Jacob's Ladder and unreliable narrator element to it. and the ending, while brutal, is not really fully in question. meaning--while it is open to interpretation, there definitely IS a way to cohesively connect all the pieces. sometimes I wonder if they had a certain threshold of pondering things that they just didn't like to go over.
For fucks sake, how do people with such little intuitive understanding end up being highly paid critics? What's going on the film is generally pretty simple and obvious : the Pete character is obviously Fred's fantasy version of events (through which knowledge of reality still tries to break through). The rest is either reality or memory. Ok, the details - such as the Mystery Man - might be more open to confusion, but the gist of it is pretty straightforward and it's embarrassing that these two can't figure it out. Sad.
So you figured all that out after one viewing, did you? And you're positive that's what happened? Because Lynch has never explained the story.
I'm a huge fan of david lynch. Love every movie of his but remember siskel and ebert review movies to the average movie goer. Imagine just being an average movie goer and they recommended lost highway, they would not of gotten it and been pissed off at the recommendation. David Lynch fans of course will love it but we are the minority and that's even better. We are like the hardcore punk of movies
Keep in mind, @Carlos M: Gene actually put BLUE VELVET on his Top 10 of 1986, whereas Roger despised the film.
However, Roger came around 4 years later on MULHOLLAND DRIVE & put that on his Best of 2001. So, it's weird....
I would have thought Ebert would have liked it - he himself made the weirdest movie ever made with Russ Meyer, a man way more eccentric than Lynch. I guess Lynch wasn't manly enough for him. Lost Highway is one of like three great films made by Lynch that are filmschool perfect. The others being Wild at Heart and Blue Velvet. Noone ever goes on about how weird Coppola is. I don't like Lynch as much as everyone else does, him having become a novelty in these recent years, but half of his movies and shorts are too good to be ignored.
Siskel and Ebert literally wanted David Lynch to stop being David Lynch. which in this life, is truly unacceptable.
I’ve not seen the movie, but have felt I’ve been able to piece the story together pretty well based on reviews and some scenes here and there. I don’t understand why THEY can’t make sense of it.
I love Lost Highway. It is definitely very difficult to make sense of it, but that really makes it rewatchable. Every time I see it, I always see something new. And it is quite entertaining with great performances from Robert Blake and Robert Loggia who has a memorably hilarious scene with a tailgater.
If you ask me, coherent plots are overrated.
This is a hilarious review. I can understand on a first viewing why someone might feel this way, the movie is purposefully vague and disorienting, but it's such a clear reflection on their values as people that they can't see any reason to make this movie other than Lynch just trying to "outsmart himself."
I'm not a simp for Lynch who thinks neither he nor his work can do any wrong, but having just watched the movie for the first time, all I can do is laugh that this is what such esteemed critics have to say about a movie that's clearly driving at something deeper
something deeper....something.
This is not an only once movie to see. Multiple viewings for an interpretation is what is needed but Professional Reviewers like Siskel and Ebert don’t have the time for that. I personally perceived it as a part science fiction , part paranormal movie. There are two LAs here in two different parallel universes. Both of these characters make a psychic connection . Both are doomed. The Robert Blake character is a supernatural entity . The Lost Highway is a connection between the two worlds. Not many people get to travel it but some do probably in the near death experience
That's a cool interperetation.
I personally saw a film about a murder.
The sax player murders his girlfriend because he feels sexually inadequate and retreats into a fantasy world in his head where he's someone who can satisfy her, or someone like her, and never hurt her.
But eventually he starts to become unable to sustain the fantasy, the dream collapses and, even in the ideal world he made up, he can never "have" her and he knows it. Even he knows she has the last laugh from beyond the grave in his head.
The titular lost highway would sorta be a bridge between reality and the psyche.
It's been a few years since I watched it, though.
@@meursault7030 Well that is the way Lynch films are . David Lynch’s debut film Eraserhead is open to interpretation. In his excellent first Cult Movies book Danny Peary reported some of those on Eraserhead . He said that most people were reluctant to talk about it but some will mumble something about the astral plane . I do know that David Lynch is into transcendental meditation and allegedly that can take you there but I wouldn’t know . I like your interpretation of Lost Highway too and before I go I must say that I have noticed a kind of polarization between Lynch fans . Of course we all like most everything he has done but I have noticed there are Lost Highway fans who like LH better than Mulholland Drive and then there are MD fans who like it better than Lost Highway . I am team Lost Highway.
Remember when you used to hear Siskel and Ebert hated a movie, you just KNEW it was going to be fantastic.
So 'She's Out of Control' with Tony Danza is fantastic?
Gatekeepers will steer the masses to favored “ proGrams “
@@Jessicaunarex😂
I think David Lynch could have been more clear that the film was about not just the story of a jealous murder, but how Hollywood, the music industry, and the media at large (including the porn industry), shape who we become. Think of the snuff porn-video scene where none-other-than Marilyn Manson is the victim (or willing human sacrifice) for the snuff film. It's all real. But, I feel the film needed to be expanded on. It's quite short compared to Mullholand drive.
Lost Highway is actual the male version of Mullholand Drive. Think about it: in Mullholand Drive, the women slowly begin to have a sexual relationship as they try to find out why the dark-haired Rita has amnesia. Yet, all along (insert dream time-warp) Rita's head injury was received from the same woman. // Same murder scenario for the Lost Highway. Except its a MAN who kills his his lover. // The dialogue and acting was great, but I think the problem is there was just not enough character-development in the film to truly connect with anyone. It seems that the testosterone-laden "Lost Highway," much like the typical male, moved too fast.
What's lame about Siskel and Ebert is that they have no clue about spirituality itself in the context of film. David Lynch has talked several times how he reads and refers to the Catholic (i.e. the long version) Bible. It is modernist Siskel and Ebert who for all their smarts, have lost there faith . . . in art itself. They dismiss it entirely, lost in their own dark (elitist?) egos.
- This has been a message from - _The Acoustic Rabbit Hole,_ inviting all to come and see . . .
Siskel had a degree in philosophy so i really doubt he was clueless to religious or philosophical themes in movies
I wouldn't say clueless, just not open. For real. Look at their review of Poltergeist. They literally just laughed it off as absurd. I'm from the Apache Reservation here in New Mexico. When the film mentioned about the house being built on old Indain burial grounds, that meant something to us. Not in a sentimental way; but literally that as a historic culture we were always in touch with the spirts. We recognized these things and we had (and still have) in our vocabularies these working terms and concepts. That Poltergeist single-handedly exposed many of their spiritual biases. Their aversion to metaphor and dream its' deepest sense.
Which is why I see David Lynch as a mystic, as compared to other fantastical filmmakers like, say, Danny Elfman, or die-hard-atheist Guierrimo del Toro. Not that there is anything wrong with being an atheist. As an English Literature graduate I very-much admire Rodger Ebert's high-level literary criticism. But to literally throw the spiritual out with the cosmic bath-water is just . . . upsetting to me. I was literally in shock to watch their causally disdainful review of Poltergeist with I consider one of the great horror films ever, if not a full-fledged Classic film. They didn't BELIEVE in it, therefore they dismissed it.
@@plaidchuck
Oh, and I see where you're coming from now. I shouldn't have made that last statement that Siskel & Ebert have lost their faith in art itself. That was unfair. You got me. I was being dramatic!
Great points. just adding that Lynch himself said the OJ trial was a big influence on the films narrative.
Good to know! // Dood, you should see my short films here. I'm a big fan of The Lynch, and I'm documenting my color-associations with the musical notes! // I'm here at: _The Acoustic Rabbit Hole_ . @@beyondz55
I guess this is proof that movie critics shouldnt be taken as the de facto authority for what makes a good movie. Lost Highway isnt a film, its a piece of art. What Ebert said should be redirected back directly at both him and siskel. If only they werent trying so hard to outsmart themselves, they could make an actual review, instead of this sophomoric interpretation that these two minds could barely muster up.
I saw it in the theater and had no idea what it was about.
This film changed my life.
I haven’t seen Lost Highway so my opinion is irrelevant. But I get what Roger is saying here about wishing Lynch would make a traditional movie instead of being pre-occupied with being clever. I feel two years later Lynch did that with The Straight Story which Roger loved.
Worst hours I spent in a theater. I hated every minute of it, and hated the friends that dragged me in. I'm still angry after all those years.
It was probably his most pretentious film ever, I admit. But it was still a bold criticism of the ugly system that forms our society: mass-media, porn and the porn industry, and the upper-elitist cults that guide it. Like the porn-snuff scene where none other than Marilyn Manson is the victim being snuffed out in an an actual porn scene. I think David Lynch's mistake was simply not making it clear about what the film was really about. In the end its more of a frustrating experience. I believe David Lynch believes in God, and has spoken that he does read the Bible, with consistency. And I do think the spiritual element comes out in his works. It's why, nerdy, modernist Siskel & Ebert just don't get it at all. As smart and literary they are.
I love both of these guys and I still disagree with their movie reviews.
My first viewing left me cold. I didn't like Mulholland Drive the first time either so maybe repeat viewings will reward me but I was truly waiting for the clock to run out when I saw this last night.
I would have thought Ebert would have appreciated it more. Siskel's take is unsurprising. This makes me want to see what Siskel and Ebert had to say about Charlie Kaufman's movies.
lmfao David Lynch won this round. S&E in over their head.
I wonder if these critics often just played stupid. The flimsiness of their critiques is astounding, Ebert's especially. Siskel, with his usual moralistic "it's too violent" and peevish "I don't get it" , actually says the only perceptive thing about the movie - "it's something I haven't seen before" - enough reason to make you reconsider your opinion, to at least say, "maybe it deserves multiple viewings"... I myself was a bit predisposed to it when it first came out, but this is one film that improves with successive viewings. If maybe not the equal of Mulholland Drive or Inland Empire, it's certainly a necessary step in the evolution towards those films.
Almost all Lynch films don’t make much sense. I judge a film’s effectiveness by how it makes me feel more than anything. This one creeped me TF out,
It's very easy to criticize this film and bash it. Yes it's frustrating because it doesn't fully make sense but the feeling, the mood it generate through simple scenes, silent scenes, is mesmerizing and stays long after the days in my mind...This style of film making is lost these days.. nobody makes it
Doesnt have a purpose? Really.
Lost Highway is one of the easier Lynch films to understand I think, seems Siskel and Ebert had trouble truly engaging with it. Lynch trying to "outsmart" the viewer is such a shitty take, lmao. I find half the time Lynch's shit isn't that complicated or even "smart", you just need to be able to pick up what he's putting down, which isn't even that hard with this film in particular.
Deep.
Many people said Inception was a big puzzle to work out, whereas I found it in first viewing pretty straightforward, as it is con artists going deeper into dreams to discover the dreamers ideas.
love David Lynch, and I love Siskel and Ebert. like all great works of art, we can interpret them as we see fit. I disagree with Rog and Gene here, but I hold them and Lynch in the highest of regards.
The devil made a porno. That’s all.
Ladies and gentlemen, the most authoritative film critics in human history. 🙄
Ugh. I have long ago stopped listening to “movie critics.” I had to watch this movie 3 times, then think about it for a month, then watch multiple RUclips “explaining” videos before I got a sense of what this movie was about. How can you adequately review it after one viewing? You really can’t.
It should work on one viewing. And without an "explaining" video.
How dare they? How dare they?????
i still say his ultimate best is fire walk with me 🔥
I rented it in 1999. I had listened to the soundtrack for years and was prepared for a great movie. I had literally nothing to do, and i couldn't get through it. I wanted to like it, I was all in, and it was just a weird inscrutable mess.
Best mindfuck movie ever
It’s weird that Ebert went on to give Mulholland Drive four stars and praise it for being uncompromising and nonsensical. Maybe it was the, in his words, “lesbian love scenes so sexy you’d swear it was a 1970s movie”
Siskel and Ebert had a hard time understanding movies beyond inclusion of violent content. “People don’t really know themselves” yes… “so they must relate to each other via violence” no. Sounds like a totally different film.
I found it to be about how people craft false narratives of themselves to shield them from what’s really going on in their lives; the character is trapped in either a psychological or supernatural hell: a cycle of constant denial and desperation as he seeks to repair his life and choices repeatedly, but is blind to his own part in things and continues to devolve, left aimlessly running from his reality on the dark highway, unable to ever be free of his own darkness because he fails to confront it
Boy, was he wrong
Man, I remember long ago, giving this movie a chance shortly after it came out on VHS; I found it so bad and incoherent I didn’t even finish watching it.
I’m a die hard twin peaks fan but I’ve never seen this movie. I love the soundtrack though. I’ve seen blue velvet, mulholland drive, 1/2 of dune(just wasn’t for me).
Their review is infinitely more shallow and meaningless than they think the film is. Siskel repeats himself “times TIMES,” shows no real emotion or passion to the words he’s mindlessly spewing out, and reviews this brilliant movie as bland and predictably as a movie critic whose favorite movie is “Citizen Kane”. Clearly just following the trends and not leading.
Ebert manages to summon up a little emotion and evokes a little intensity behind his words, yet still has the gall to criticize the film as “sophomoric” while still being someone who wrote the script to a Russ Meyers film, which goes a long way to explain exactly why he was a critic in the first place. No original ideas of his own, so content to slam those who bested his failed and beyond mediocre cinematic effort. I give this review one million middle fingers.
As always these types of comments reveals more about their author then their intended target. Anyone with a million middle fingers to spare should probably work on being less of a caustic jerk.
Hands down, 2 of the most overrated movie critics ever. They have a very long list of wtf moments in their all too long career.
It's downright pretentious and equally befuddling, asinine opinions like this as to why I will always despise Roger Ebert. 😂
In contrast, I felt this was honestly David Lynch’s most pretentious, befuddling, asinine film. All character development literally just goes out the window of logic itself. You never get to see or feel the killers motives at any time.
Film is surface. David Lynch is the only contemporary director/writer, other than Polanski, who tries to show psychological interpretation with a surface medium. Characters are not real, they are icons illuminating our understanding of horror and suffering. This story is simple. A paranoid artist goes insane and brutally murders his unsuspecting wife. He is sentenced to die in the electric chair. The film switches back and forth through Fred’s (Bill Pullman) deranged mind until he is executed. How do you show the moment of death by electrocution? What happens to the brain? Ask David Lynch. Or better, watch David Lynch.
it's also reeking of themes of impotency and male sexual fragility, something I think is pretty easy to pick up on even if you aren't trying to decipher symbols or make sense of the surrealism. They seem reluctant to actually sit with a film that takes such a different approach to tackling themes and ideas, would rather it be portrayed through realistic characters and situations over pure intuition.
Well, these guys think Saturday Night Fever was the greatest movie ever made.
boy were they wrong...
These guys totally didn't get it. Try LSD next time before watching.
Polanski Catherine Deneuve “Repulsion”
They would have hated Tarkovsky. Imagine the Russian sensor version of Siskel and Ebert. Arseny and Ignat.
Ebert did praise Andrei Rublev.
@@ricardocantoral7672 did you ever try to sit through that movie. Did you see bela tarrs satantengo. I watched it all 6 1/2 hours. Sorry just thought of it - I was bored less with satantengo. I love tarkovsky but only like his last 5 movies
I saw this in a theater when it opened. I thought it was plotless garbage. Way worse than Lost in Translation even.
I have to agree with them that it's a disappointment. It's like a trial run before the dazzling masterpiece that's Mullholland Drive.
Amazing film.
They had a point. Lynch’s work in the 80s and early 90s was willfully obscure and in a way smug and cutesy and clever and overly reliant on shock value. It was Lynch who saw the light and came back around when he made Mulholland Drive.
They completely missed it
lol watch lynch fans freak out in the comments
Yeah they love Lynch because it makes them feel superior liking something that others don't "get" but throw hissy fits when someone actually says they didn't get it.
Lost Highway is an essay on mental illness.
More like Abbott and Costello!
Are they for real? Lost Highway is an absolute classic. If they couldn't recognise that, they're a pair of vacuous dimwits.
Two thumbs up for the bags under Gene's eyes
One of my all time favorite films. Of course the squares don't get it, they only like to be spoon fed narratives.
How are they squares?
Once again, they are on the wrong side of cinema history.
Plebs
duh duh duh
so funny
The most frustrating, unsatisfying movie I've ever bought a ticket for.
Imagine not being satisfied with your own mind.
@@hahajaxsontv I recall hanging in the parking lot after the feature, sucking on menthols, seething about the murky miasma of the movie's third act, embarrassed for dragging friends to this cinematic fiasco.
I've seen it again since then, wanting to appreciate its misbegotten bullshittery but unable to. Good thing MULHOLLAND DR. came around and succeeded at everything LOST HIGHWAY miserably failed at.
I give Siskel and Ebert two thumbs down and two middle fingers up. 👎👎🖕🖕😂
Yeah, I don't understand all the love for Ebert. But none of this shit makes sense right now.
sellouts
David Lynch is all style and no substance.
Nowhere near as good as Blue Velvet.
When you have the imagination of a rabbit, I guess you become a critic?
No, when you have an opinion you become a critic. When you have a Philosophy Degree from the Ivy League and a Pulitzer for journalism you become a respected critic. When you have the internet, you become some butthurt fan boy.
@@DaleRobby Lynch has always worked at the outside edge of Hollywood, and Gene and Roger should have reminded their core viewers of this fact. A two minute and fifty second review is not exactly giving it the old college try for an art film. L.H. was up against Craptanic and L.A. Confidential that year. So, their was something for everyone at the cineplex that week. Gene R.I.P. and Roger R.I.P. put all the emphasis on trying to out-clever the artist.
@@jamesericm9315 Well 3 minutes is all they're allowed. If you don't like that format then this show aint for you.
It's really not that complex though. Also you don't have to fully understand it to Get It. I love the film. It has haunted me for years although Mullholland Drive is my favourite Lynch film.
Good for Siskel and Ebert. It's very in vouge to love everything David Lynch does but this movie is silly. Sophomoric attitude that doesn't pay off and just lies there" is an apt descripting of this movie. When David Lynch made Lost Highway, Wild at Heart, and Fire Walk With Me there were some adults still around who weren't afraid to call a spade a spade. Lost Highway is trash.