Ponder this (or simply consider it nonsense): Many of DL's projects begin with a premise, no matter how absurd, off-kilter  or drily humorous it is, that intrigues us.  Jeffrey Beaumont's Hardy Boy-like amateur sleuthing at the beginning of BV, "Who Killed Laura Palmer?" in TP, the tense relationship of Fred and Renee, and then the daily arrival of intrusive videotapes in LH, the seemingly straightforward mystery in MD of how perky Betty will help the mysterious Rita find her real identity (and also how Dan, Jacob from LOST, and all the other side characters fit into it).  Even WAH seems to start off as a "wild" caricature of a delinquents-on-the-run tale before it gets more complicated.  So Mr. and Mrs. Average begin watching - intrigued with the mysteries and drama, chuckling at the oddball humor, getting more and more caught up in the story, and then...subversion.  BV is much more than about two innocent young people solving a mystery, TP is much more than about Laura Palmer: we have evil forces living in other dimensions, Fred apparently kills Renee, then becomes Pete?  Hey, what happened to our fun, suspenseful Hollywood mystery about a couple apparently being spied on?  And MD - well, don't we all feel like suckers for thinking Naomi Watts was such a sweet young thing?

 But does IE have this type of mind-blowing subversion?  Isn't it surreal from the start?  There's not any hint of the "normal," albeit Lynchified, world suddenly twisting into something much weirder than we thought we were watching.  There's a feeling of alienation from the beginning.  Does this make IE less subversive (as a narrative) than those earlier works?  I'm still coming to grips with what I think about IE.  I'm planning to watch it again this month to analyze it more.  I LIKE it, I'm not meaning to say it's inferior.  I just wonder what others think of it compared to DL's earlier style as described above.  As it might be a moot point if he'll make any more features, is it worth asking: What future styles of DL movies do you want to see?  More in the IE style?  A return to his earlier late-80s to early 2000s manner?  Or something beyond?  Something so new and radical that even the most hardcore Lynchian will be astonished.

just like you said, i can understand your opinion, but i was definitely emotionally engaged by IE.
on first viewing as well as the last time i watched it, im still drawn into its world. probably because i find IE to be a metaphysical story, so the duality of real vs. dream doesnt hold up as a criticism for me.

It's a step forward in a circle, bringing him back where he started (Eraserhead) but with the left shoe on the right foot and vice versa.

With Eraserhead he was a no-name film student making a movie for ten thousand dollars with no-name actors and nice 35 mm black and white aesthetics.

With Inland Empire he's a well-known and respected filmmaker making a movie for millions(?) of dollars with several known actors, with cheapo film student aesthetics.

I personally found INLAND EMPIRE emotionally engaging but I'm aware that wasn't the general consensus among Lynch fans. 

DL is at his best when he works with a writer - Mark Frost, Barry Gifford, Robert Engels, Mary Sweeney* - because the story is (at least) as important as the visuals and properly developed characters are ultimately more engaging than transient, abstract concepts. FWWM is emotionally engaging because Laura is a complex, well-written character and I care about what happens to her. INLAND EMPIRE appeals to the part of my brain that projects it's own narrative onto paintings and can empathise with people in short, self-contained news reports.

* But not Frank Herbert

Terrific comments.  Thank you.  I'm rewatching IE now, my first time since seeing it once (plus one other viewing in which I was distracted most of the time) last autumn.  I suppose I could say that the intrigue of the "cursed" film/story (and just why does Irons feel he has to tell Dern and Theroux about this?  lol) works as an early point of interest.  But, indeed, we are essentially thrown into "the deep end" right from the start - the smeared heads of the man and the prostitute, the crying woman watching the incomprehensible "Rabbits" (and fast-forwarding a clip of a later IE scene), Grace Zabriskie's welcoming/hostile/confused chat with Laura Dern's baffled Nikki, the 2001-like shift in time to Nikki celebrating landing the role with her two friends.  Then we get some "normal" if askew narrative.  Jeremy Irons kicks off the project, the ghastly Marilyn Levin interview, the scene reading, the lurker in the darkened set who Theroux can't find....but a feeling of amused alienation about it all.  Not comfy like Dale Cooper's first monologue about coffee and trees or the funny/stilted chat between Betty and Coco early in MD.

I'm still having trouble with the digital camera look.  Certainly a great way to make a work of art like IE more affordable to shoot, but that video-camera-to-film style can look so ugly and limited at times.  But I'd rather have a brand new Lynch movie done this way than no new feature film from him at all.

More later. :)

Inland Empire absolutely blew my mind. Honestly I think it's my favourite David Lynch movie. I have never been more intensely frightened in a movie the way I was by IE.

But the best thing about it is that there's an actual crystal clear story you can piece together if you pay enough attention, it doesn't have the Lost Highway element of having to just accept that some of the events are purely random and will always be loose ends, pretty much all of IE fits together somehow, I'm sure of it.

The final confrontation between Nikki and the Phantom is one of the most terrifying scenes I can remember in a movie, just the way that one shot (you know the one I mean) just creeps up on you, even after a number of viewings, still coming sooner or later than you expect it to. How does the beautiful Laura Dern do... THAT... with her face?!

.

I've seen the film many times and I love it more and more every day... I admit that the first time I saw it I couldn't stand the DV 'ugliness' and also, well, to put it simple, I didn't understand at all what the f*cking thing was about... My fault, probably, but I was hugely disappointed...

I gave IE another chance, and another, and another... And my opinion changed drastically, I still don't quite 100 % get the film, but my understanding has obviously improved. Among the chaos I see somewhere a logical plot, a well thought story, convoluted and messy yet clear... And yes, I see the emotions... I feel happy at the end, I'm frightened by the finger-shaking Phantom, I admire Smithy's house geography,... And yeah, I'd gladly give Freddie two bucks...

I *love* it...

Masterpiece? My favorite Lynch film? Well, even if that were true (and I think it isn't) I wouldn't be so brave to say that, but one thing is clear (though maybe some Lynch experts here will correct me on this), I believe IE may be the only film by Lynch where he shows almost complete freedom... He doesn't care about the running time or the 'ugliness', he doesn't give a damn about critics or us, he made a movie doing exactly what he wanted to do... Perhaps the film where he's more involved, should I say his most personal film? Even more than ERASERHEAD... And for that I admire the man...

It's a strange film that I can't really get a handle on, even after 3 viewings. I don't mean just I don't understand it, because I don't think anyone completely [i]understsands[/i] it; that's not what most of Lynch's stuff is about, anyway. But I just don't know really how I feel about it. The first hour is pretty mesmerizing, but after that I sort of lose interest. I think the DV is occasionally very effective and beautiful even, but sometimes it totally fails. With digital, you lose the "illusion", the artifice, that film provides, and so it makes it harder (for me anyway) to fall for the illusion the film is trying to get you wrapped up in. It feels too "real" (i.e. like reality) yet too "fake" (i.e. not convincing) at the same time.

All this said though, it says a lot about Lynch as a director that he's made a three-hour film I have major problems with yet have seen 3 times and will eagerly watch again and again in hopes of finally loving it like I love MD or LH. And whatever I think of the rest of IE, the ending is beyond perfect and surely one of the best ever. Gives me chills every time the song ends and the screen suddenly goes to black.

A step forward but only technically.

http://www.online-inquirer.com/cinema/inland-empire/

Online-Inquirer

To take the original point I think that IE does have that solid hook of a mystery that Lynch's other films all share.  The mystery is invested in the cursed film production and Jeremy Irons and Harry Dean Stanton do a great job in setting up that plot line.  The audience are intrigued to see if the curse will also strike Nikki and Devon and whether they will have an affair that mirrors their on screen romance.  I think it's all there it's just the execution of it on video as opposed to celluloid that seesm to upset Lynch fans the most.

Online-Inquirer

I`m like that myself with it...

i don`t really like it or get it but keep on going back to it for some reason or other....

it grows on you,doesn`t it...or seems to anyway...

Myowl