Richard Kelly pulled off exactly what he wanted to. He made the film HE wanted to make. Which in this day and age is not only to be commended but aspired to.

It's a great film and exactly what Kelly wanted to make in the style he wanted to make it. Just because some people don't like it, doesn't mean it's bad.

Opinions are like arseholes, every one has one. Some are prettier than others, but at the end of the day, they all splatter out the same old s**t.

For the record, Inland Empire didn't do that incredibly well with critics either. Some loved it and some hated it just like this movie. If you look at the reputable critics (cream of the crop) on RT, 41% liked ST, and 52% liked Inland Empire. That isn't a very big difference. Especially when you consider that Lynch has proven himself time and time again in the past, and people have come to expect a certain waywardness in his films. I think Kelly just tried way too hard to surpass himself and he doesn't have the maturity as a director to pull it off yet.

Very good artwork. Definately need to check this out!

horrorfan25 wrote: Anything with Sarah Michelle Gellar is horrible.

Um, NO. Have we seen Buffy?

I still want to see this, and the debating on here is making me want to see it more still.

Decent artwork. I will buy for sure.

The trailer for this was horrible.

Dunny wrote: Eraserhead wrote: This looked even worse than "Donnie Darko".

I doubt that.  Unless it comes with a free book that explains what you've watched?

Anything with Sarah Michelle Gellar is horrible.

I found DD pretty ordinary and this almost sounds to close to DD for me to consider it...

We need a Blu release.

They are both on par for me. The 2 best films of the year.

FWNW I think if you watched ST again you would enjoy and pick up a lot of stuff you missed first time around and it would really change your opinion of this film. Most of the great review came from people who had seen the Cannes cut and then the recut. Asde from the changes, most of them admitted the film just simply needed to be watched again to fill in most of the gaps in plot etc. Still if you aren't willing to do that, you won't fully experience all that ST has on offer.

FWNW wrote: James Tully wrote: I think if it had David Lynch's name at the front of it instead of Kelly's then the critics would have been praising it as film of the year.

I doubt it, 2 reasons:

1) David Lynch's films arent always universally acclaimed.

2) David Lynch would never produce c**p like this (he has produced c**p in the past, though not as runny and reeking as this). I cannot see Southland Tales ever being shat from Lynch's arse, its just not his style.



You say this about a year in which Lynch released his 'Emperors New Clothes' flick Inland Empire and critics were falling over themselves to suck him off.

I really need to see this, to see how bad it really turned out. Looked promising from the trailer...

Simon Abrams wrote: It wasn't terrible at all. It's just that most people that see it dismiss it because what its trying to do isn't to their tastes.

Yes it was. Don't kid anyone. It was an awful movie that made little to no sense. I like all types of movies and I am open to all kinds of things. I really wanted to like this movie but ultimately was disappointed.

Wolfmother wrote: Jesus. Straight-to-DVD? Nice. I liked Darko and the storyline of looks okay, but the acting in the trailer blew.

I live in Finland & I knew that it was in theaters in US...

Ben Dover wrote: Is Richard Kelly a one hit wonder?


Come on, man has made two real movies, one good, one not so good...

Definately my fave film of last year. Just like the critics you'll either love it, hate it or just be utterly gobsmacked by it. Great performances allround once you get into the style of acting on offer, especially from Sean Scott Williams and Mandy Moore (boy did I never think that phrase would ever leave my mouth). A hystericly funny, weird and wonderful take on all things wrong in America today. It's actually very easy to follow if you watch it carefully and despite what everyone says, everything is there for a reason and has a meaning in the film if you watch it properly.

Once again Kelly falls just short of what he is aiming for, but at least he has the balls to aim for something different even if he seems to very narrowly miss his target once again. This was the only film besides Inland Empire this year to push the boundaries of filmaking and I for one hope he continues in his madness.

And to answer your question, this film is far more relevent than Darko.

In a years time this will be the film everyone is still talking about.....

WTFlunk? This never even played in my city,

But I was wondering what the heck took this so long to get made?


Is Richard Kelly a one hit wonder?
Maybe DD is his one valid but only thing he rreally had  to say to the world?

James Tully wrote: I think if it had David Lynch's name at the front of it instead of Kelly's then the critics would have been praising it as film of the year.

I doubt it, 2 reasons:

1) David Lynch's films arent always universally acclaimed.

2) David Lynch would never produce c**p like this (he has produced c**p in the past, though not as runny and reeking as this). I cannot see Southland Tales ever being shat from Lynch's arse, its just not his style.


When i first watched Donnie Darko (when I was 18), i loved it. But as time went on, and the more i thought about it, the less "genius" it seemed. fast forward 6 years later, after seeing southland tales, i have reason to believe that richard kelly is truely a hack. the guy is obviously trying too hard to be f^cked up. Lynch has earned the right to be f^cked up, and if you've seen his films, and understand his thinking process (i suggest you read his book), you'll know very well how he earned the right to be f**ked up. i see kelly as the film student who thinks to himself "hey, i could probably do that too!" ...no.

I kinda liked the movie. I liked the first 2/3rds of the movie but then it turned into a huge mess. But I like these types of out there movies that don't make much sense. It's not a movie for everyone and I'm pretty sure 90% of the population will hate it.

I hope the film is better than Donnie Darko (the ending of DD made me hate the film).

I actually really liked this. I was one of the 17 people who saw it in the cinema in the UK. It was original, funny, completely ridiculous and utterly pretentious. I think if it had David Lynch's name at the front of it instead of Kelly's then the critics would have been praising it as film of the year.

Even now bits of it seem like a dream.... Surely I cant have ACTUALLY seen some of those things. It was a vey bizarre film and not to everyone's taste, but I personally cant wait to see it again.

Definitely worth giving a go...

Dunny wrote: Chris Gould wrote: Did people really need a book to explain Donny Darko?

not unless your familiar with Tangent Universes and Manipulative Objects.

You don't need to get any of that to put 2 and 2 together at the end of the film...

This looked somewhat interesting but the bad acting and reviews is a turn off..

Thanks. Thought I was a bit off.

I'm definatly going to check it out

If I am correct, it got horrible reviews at Sundance(2 Sundance's ago) so Kelly went out and shot new material and re-edited the whole thing. After all of that it still was considered a disaster by critics. It was in selected theatres for a bit then it was pulled.

*feel free to correct me if I am off on the facts*

Is that it for the extras??

No commentary or deleted scenes?

oh yes, this got bombed on every side you can think of. Great little cast, but the previews did make the film look cliche.

this was a disaster of epic proportions..and I love Richard Kelly.

Can't wait.

And Gellar's career takes another tumble, ah hell it's not like she had one anyway.

I love Donnie Darko and have since it came out so I was really looking forward to this. Ive seen Southland Tales three times now, and I still don't know what to make of it. I still can't say if I like it or not.

Damn...When Was This Release In Theatres???

.......I think this will do fairly well on DVD because of all the negitivity that surrounds it. Ppl are going to be interested in forming their own opinions(the hardcore movie fans that have been reading about it for the past few years) & since The Rock is going to be on the cover, the others who have no clue about it will prob rent it.

I have not seen it, but will definatly check it out.