Reviews

Horrifying, shocking, incomprehensible, boring . all have been used by reviewers who've taken in David Lynch's first film, "Eraserhead". Many who have had difficulties with the film say it is confusing or boring, lacking plot. Well, plot is not necessarily a prerequisite of film. Getting emotion across is.

--- POTENTIAL SPOILER ---

Okay, I put that alert in to satisfy all, but you really cannot spoil the "Eraserhead" experience. Roughly: Henry is a loner, living in a despoiled, unidentified, industrial city. He broke up with his girlfriend. Then, she calls him, inviting him to her parents house for dinner. During this time, she tells him there's been a baby. Henry objects that not enough time as passed for a baby. Well, they're not sure it IS a baby. If that doesn't get you weirded-out by this point, nothing will.

--- END SPOILER ---

Shot over a period of four years as money came available, Lynch still achieved a cohesive narrative of unease, tension & outright fear. The black & white palate, with light dropping off at the edges of the almost frame, make this eternally twilight world very disconcerting. Note that sound is as important a character in this film as any of the actors. It rises, falls & takes over the entire theatre at times, all to huge effect. Note that other than people & I believe a dog, there are not any living creatures in this film. Even the "plants" Henry has on his nightstands are mere dead branches in dirt (there are no flowerpots; just dirt). I've not read all 140+ reviews, but a good portion of them. None seem to point out something I noticed: this is also a very funny movie. Some of the points Lynch gets into border on the horrific, but if one steps back, could be viewed as very deadpan humor. Brits out there will note the tongue-in-cheek use of the slang, eraserhead (nerd). Most movies out there are just filmed books. Beginning, middle, end, credits. Eat your popcorn & go home. "Eraserhead", which I saw shortly after it was first released, was the first film in a long time which could be classified as CINEMA - a film that could exist in no other medium & carry the same impact. Other examples I'd give of pure cinema would be "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari", "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Koyaanisqatsi". There aren't a lot of these, folks. But there are quite a few plain old movies. "Eraserhead" is not just a movie. After seeing it, I felt that Lynch would go on to do some great things. I dragged a director friend to see it, and he HATED the movie. A few years later, after "Elephant Man" came out, he had to go back and watch "Eraserhead" again. He felt he did not give it it's due. I'm looking forward to Lynch getting the DVD version he is remastering out for the U.S. audience. Those who value landmarks in film will want a copy in their collection. I know I do

I say "minor spoilers" as let's face it: the name of this movie is CRACK IN THE WORLD. Sort of truth in advertising.

I saw this baby on the big screen when it came out in 1965. A scientist wants to tap the geothermal energy of the magma, so mankind can have a limitless power source. They explode an atomic bomb to break through a "barrier" that keeps them from getting through to the magma. Result: an ever-growing crack in the earth's crust starts travelling around the world.

In retrospect, majorly bogus science, but still this was great stuff. Worth seeing if only for the upside down missle, aimed at a huge shaft dug into the earth. Like a launched rocket is really going to travel down a very narrow passage?

I wonder how the SFX holds up these days? On the big screen, it seemed pretty dramatic and convincing. At least in my 9 year old eyes. It's not available in any form, other than some late-night showing on TV. And I haven't seen it come up anytime in the last 20 years.

Someone should look into releasing this on DVD. In my opinion, far superior to "Armageddon", another movie with very dubious science.