I have to question some of Magnut's opinions about William Peter Blatty (the author and screenwriter of THE EXORCIST) and William Friedkin. He states that both of these two are challenged in the brains department. This seems particularly ridiculous - he doesn't back up either claim either. Is he saying that Blatty is a 'village idiot' because he believes in the idea of possession? I have no reason to believe that Friedkin is an idiot either, he's certainly a good filmmaker, if very interested in creating an exciting and interesting effect if not too much substance maybe.
So you're saying Blatty is a village idiot merely because he thinks the case that The Exorcist was based on is believable, whilst you say it was a hoax? I have not read anywhere that it was proven to be a hoax...where did you hear that please?
Lastly, on your claim that TWIN PEAKS was lean...are you sure on that one? I felt Season 2 was far from lean, certain episodes are nigh well unwatchable. They're only interesting because they are 'Twin Peaks' as such and feature loved characters.
With INLAND EMPIRE I think all of the limitations of Lynch having full narrative reign over a film were showcased, as much as I liked the idea and art of the project. But in terms of substance there wasn't as much to get your teeth into as there was in TWIN PEAKS, which was enabled by the input of all the other writers on the show. As far as the credits tell you, only Lynch conceived the story behind INLAND EMPIRE. Can you imagine EMPIRE if Lynch had enlisted the help of a couple of other writers? I think it would have been improved!