The Thirteen Most Confusing and/or Inscrutable Movies of All Time

I have received word that my previous link to Pajiba’s list of the most confusing movies was lacking in appropriate comment, correction, addendum, and annotation. So, in honor of Inception, a film that is certain to make any future list of confusing movies, I have compiled my own list, though I prefer the word inscrutable to confusing since the latter makes it sound as though the filmmaker had no control over the material. I am also differentiating confusing/inscrutable from incomprehensible. I mean here movies that attempt to tell a narrative story, but do so in an unorthodox, dense, or fractured way. I excluded purely experimental films (because they are not typically plotted) and those that are intentionally unplotted (such as Head). I also excluded shorts (e.g., Eraserhead, An Andalusian Dog).

The movies on this list fall into two main categories: puzzle movies versus existential movies. Puzzle movies are nesting dolls, with one reality wrapped inside another, while existential movies look at the nature of existence. Most of the American films on the list fit in the puzzle category, while the classics of European art cinema go in the existential category, though a few (Cronenberg, Greenaway) belong on both lists. On with the list.

The Thirteen Most Confusing and/or Inscrutable Movies of All Time

13. Richard Kelly’s Donnie Darko (2001). Hijinks ensue when a jet engine fails to crush Jake Gyllenhaal. Richard Kelly has stumbled mightily in his post-Donnie Darko career, but his breakthrough movie presents a creepily effective time-travel conundrum and deserves a place on the list because its central mystery is essentially unknowable. Yes, one can explain the mechanics of the plot (deep breath: when Donnie misses being killed by the falling jet engine, it creates an unstable splinter reality, which only ‘rights’ itself when the jet engine finally catches up with him, a fate that Donnie comes to welcome after living in limbo for 28 days), but understanding the why doesn’t explain away what’s so disquieting about this movie, even after (or maybe especially after) we discover (SPOILER) that Frank the demonic bunny is nothing more than a guy in a bunny suit on his way to a costume party.

12. Darren Aronovsky’s Pi (1998). Hijinks ensue when a math-whiz successfully gets God’s digits. I go back and forth on this one: pretentious claptrap or perfectly crafted mindfuck. Either way, it makes my head spin.

11. Shane Carruth’s Primer (2004). Hijinks ensue when two guys invent the world’s most confusing time machine. I’ve got to admit: I’ve read the plot synopsis, I’ve studied the diagram, and I still don’t understand the sequence of events in this movie. It’s got to be some sort of testimony to Shane Carruth that I don’t hold him at fault for this; somehow I’m convinced the shortcoming is mine.

10. Jim Jarmusch’s Dead Man (1995). Hijinks ensue as the white man rapes the land. There is a mystery at the center of this movie, not necessarily the ‘twist’ question of “Is William Black alive or is he dead,” but something deeper and more profound, an unblinking depiction of the true cost of Manifest Destiny and the taming of this continent, as well as a contemplation of our place in the natural world and the passage from one world to the next. Plus it’s got Iggy Pop in a bonnet.

9. Shinya Tsukamoto’s Tetsuo: the Iron Man (1989). Hijinks ensue as a man turns into scrap metal. Then his penis transform into a gigantic, murderous drill. And yet somehow this is not the strangest scene in the movie. Oddly enough given the plot synopsis, this movie was not directed by David Cronenberg, though the next one was.

8. David Cronenberg’s eXistenZ (1999). Hijinks ensue as a game designer retreats into her own imagined world. Or does she? (cue ominous music.) Now that Cronenberg has gone legit with Eastern Promises and A History of Violence, it’s good to go back and remember when his id was still running things. eXistenZ takes the whole ‘are we still in the dream?’ angle that Inception mines so thoroughly and gives it that old Cronenberg kink. So we get gaming bioports that look like orifices, game pods that resemble writhing alien embryos, and organic guns that come hidden in the special of the day:

7. David Lynch’s Blue Velvet (1986). Hijinks ensue when Dennis Hopper gets his hands on a canister of nitrous oxide and a human ear. Full disclosure: I am not much of a David Lynch fan. Going all the way back to Wild At Heart, I stopped being able to find much of anything in his movies that was recognizably human. That said, ginormous, candy-colored props must be paid to Blue Velvet. When this movie came out in the mid-eighties, there had never been anything else like it. It was a true cultural watershed that instantly raised the stakes on everything that came after. Here was a new style of surrealism, embodied in a film that followed the tropes of a conventional mystery but filtered everything through an entirely unique, obsessive, claustrophobic, and fetishistic personal vision. David Foster Wallace was a huge fan of the film, crediting it with pushing him toward being a writer.

6. Ingmar Bergman’s The Seventh Seal (1957). Hijinks ensue as a medieval knight challenges Death to a game of chess (as Connect Four wasn’t invented yet). Dark, despairing, and uncommonly Swedish, the film ends with the famous and widely parodied Dance of Death, which incidentally is what my family calls the last time I danced at a wedding. Here is a version of the trailer with new subtitles; not sure how close these are to the original as I am not a native Swedish speaker.

5. Peter Greenaway’s A Zed and Two Noughts (1985). Hijinks ensue as twin zoologists set out to study the process of decomposition, working their way up the food chain to . . . themselves. Nearly any of Peter Greenaway’s beautiful and meticulous movies could have made the list, but I went with this one because it seems to most perfectly embody the obsessions that drive his work. Here he is explaining some of the themes that run through this unique and confounding film.

4. Alain Resnais’s & Alain Robbe-Grillet’s Last Year at Marienbad (1961). Hijinks ensue and then ensue again and then ensue again in a slightly different way as a man and a woman endlessly roam the cold, empty hallways of a vast, soulless estate. Kind of like my last trip to Ikea.

3. Luis Bunuel’s The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972). Hijinks ensue as a bunch of rich people are continually thwarted in their attempt to have a nice dinner. Younger viewers may not be aware of the profound effect this film had upon its release. It so effectively skewered the foibles and follies of the bourgeoisie that entire social class died of shame and embarrassment, thus directly paving the way for the proletarian worker’s paradise that we enjoy today.

2. Andrei Tarkovsky’s Solaris (1972). Hijinks ensue as some Soviet cosmonauts orbit a sentient planet that can make their dreams become real. Often billed as the Russian 2001, this existentialist bon bon with a crunchy science fiction crust is not only impenetrable but quite possibly the slowest moving film ever made. How slow moving? Well this is its big action sequence:

Whew! Do you need a moment to catch your breath? Readers should keep in mind that this film was made under the auspices of the former Soviet Union, so its running time of 165 minutes was not excessive since every minute spent in the theater was one minute that the average Soviet citizen did not have to spend meeting their monthly beet production quotas at the local collective farm. Curiously, Steven Soderbergh’s 2002 remake of Solaris is straightforward and quite enjoyable, though in the audio commentary for that movie Soderbergh barely mentions Tarkovsky and says that he went back to the Stanislav Lem novel for his treatment. Below is the original Russian trailer for Tarkovsky’s version. Believe me, it doesn’t make any more sense with subtitles.

1. Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). Hijinks ensue as humanity makes several great evolutionary leaps forward with the help of some conveniently placed black monoliths. This one has to be number one, because it’s not that the ending doesn’t make sense, it’s that it makes sense at a level just beyond our understanding. I get it that Dave exists in this place at three different ages simultaneously, and that, after some period of time has passed (moments? years?), his aged self encounters the monolith and so takes the next evolutionary leap to whatever is beyond humans (no, not Space Homer). Still, questions abound. Why the Baroque decor? What is the significance of the broken glass? Who changes Space Baby’s diaper? And, since there’s only one, how does Space Baby reproduce? Don’t tell me that we as a species can look forward to mitosis in our future. Regardless of what this scene is all about, the first shot of the lunar module in the sitting room is one of the most startling images in the history of cinema. God, it’s beautiful.

_____________________
Update: Thanks for the comments. Not sure why I remembered Eraserhead (89 minutes) as a short – it just seemed that way in my mind, I guess. I hope they don’t revoke my Internet Movie Reviewer license for that mistake! That said, I would argue for Blue Velvet over Eraserhead because, with Blue Velvet, David Lynch reached the perfect balance between his inner vision/compulsions and the need to tell a coherent story. Eraserhead is certainly ground-breaking, but it doesn’t really try to tell a narrative story that I can discern.

Of course, this is not really a list of “the best” but really just my favorites, or more accurately, “movie’s I’ve seen that are inscrutable.” Also can’t believe I left Nicholas Roeg off the list entirely – looks like it’s time to begin compiling “Even More Inscrutable Movies.”

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Humor, Movie Corner. Bookmark the permalink.

95 Responses to The Thirteen Most Confusing and/or Inscrutable Movies of All Time

  1. Yes yes yes, thanks! Finally I found a GOOD post about movies πŸ™‚

  2. There are some great films on that list. Some of them are pretty “mainstream.” I feel there are plenty films that are way more “inscrutable”, you just have to dig a little deeper.

    PS. Eraserhead is not a short. πŸ™‚

  3. Todd Pack says:

    I’ve always heard that Solaris is a classic, but I’ve tried to watch it several times, and I always give up after about 20 minutes of nothing interesting happening. I like Soderberg’s version, though. That doesn’t make a shallow person, does it?

    • sheikhjahbooty says:

      I also like the Soderberg version because it’s more ridiculous than the Russian version. The end of the Russian movie is clear and horrifying. The end of the American one makes absolutely no sense (although I’m not sure if it’s on purpose), and for me that keeps truer to the premise of “an encounter with a truly alien intelligence will be an incomprehensible mind scramble.”

  4. Great post, though I think should have added a spot for “Alphaville.”

  5. Jim says:

    You missed everything my Nicholas Roeg. For example why would anyone want to see Albert Einstein’s legs?

  6. Love the post, though must confess was slightly annoyed by sheer volume of times a description of a movie began with “Hijinks ensue”.

    • libertiness says:

      Which was….every time? *laughs* I think that was deliberate, and my favourite part of the post, which is saying something. Double, double jointed, two thumbs up.

  7. 1minionsopinion says:

    I’m pleased to say I’ve seen half of these. A few more I can certainly get at my local library (love my library). A few will likely never be seen, sadly.

    I tried Marianbad last month but had a very hard time getting into it. Too much talking head. But I’ll give it another go. This is the second blog post I’ve seen lately to mention how great it is.

    I think Existenz was better than Inception at creating a real sense of not knowing what to trust.

    I agree on Solaris, too. The original was brilliant. That mockery with Clooney never should have happened.

  8. I, too, prefer the Soderbergh Solaris to Tarkovsky’s original. I’m a heathen, I know!

    Also, back to Lynch, I think most people would find Lost Highway and Mulholland Dr. way more “inscrutable” than Blue Velvet.

  9. I was a little surprised that the ‘release dates’ got older and older as the list got closer to the top. I wonder if filmmaker’s are losing their edge in trying to PUSH the edge or if it’s just that people don’t make films like these anymore. Hmm….

    With Love and Gratitude,

    The Intentional Sage

    • Agreed. It doesn’t seem that films receive financial backing if they can’t be spoonfed to audiences or there isn’t a good merchandise deal to be had. If writers/directors would pursue beyond the norm instead of trying to keep up with the latest fad (i.e. 3D), perhaps our minds would be blown a little more often.

  10. Space Odyssey is the only one I’ve seen. I will stay away from the others.

  11. GiantQtipz says:

    ive only seen 3/13, thanks for the list, I’ll check them out and hopefully my brain wont fry! πŸ˜€

  12. I’ve seen a lot of those, and totally agree, although I think you missed Mulholland Drive!
    http://www.denwrites.com

  13. Ross McG says:

    I’m still trying to get my head round Toy Story 2. I would have no hope with this lot

  14. Up Chuck'd says:

    That was brilliant! I’ve watch about half of the movies you mentioned, and I can’t figure them out either.

  15. Full disclosure: I’m a professor of film, so I mean all of this sincerely. I’m still not sure what you mean by “confusing”, a complaint I often hear from eighteen-year-old college students. I’d encourage you to purchase anything by David Bordwell, for you do need a more coherent and flexible film vocabulary.

    Already been said, but it’s hard to see your work as purposeful (even comically purposeful) when you undermine every description with “hijinks ensue,” a glib descriptor that film reviewers often use as a leveling device for serious cinema they don’t understand.

    As a professor I’ve heard it all: “You take this too seriously,” “They’re just movies,” “Can’t we just watch this and enjoy it,” “I used to enjoy movies and now you’ve ruined them for me.” And then I remind them they enrolled in a film class, at a university, for credit.

    • Chris says:

      Agree 100%. I’m not a professor of film but had much the same reaction.

    • There’s more than one way of enjoying, questioning or considering something, you know. I’m a literary dork, but I don’t expect everybody who reads Cormac McCarthy to instantly recognise his polysyndetic syntax.

      By your estimation, the only person who is ostensibly viable to discuss fim, therefore, is the person who knows the most about that subject in the world, and no-one else.

      Oh, and that fact that you’re a professor impressses nobody, so there’s no need to repeated it.

      • alastor993 says:

        YES! I’ve seen a lot of the movies listed above, I’m not a professor but a film lover and I feel I don’t need a doctorate to discuss or appriciate movies.
        I’m an artist and a teacher, so I tend to pay a lot of attention to scenematics, how things look and “feel”. So that is important for me, other people think other things are more important, which is great (imagine if everyone would view things in the same way).
        But on the other hand I do try to make my students analyse some (artistic) movies, but on a more base level.
        For people who aren’t professors or enrolled in film school, I think watching a film attentively and enjoying it is plenty enough.

      • @Tomcat. The words “full disclosure” means admission of perspective, as in here’s where I come from, as in honesty, as in not trying to impress anyone. That would have taken the form of “Well, I’m a film professor . . . .”

        Moreover, I don’t have any particular “estimation” of who should or should not be “viable” to discuss film. I said nothing of the sort, “estimated” or otherwise. I do think, however, (and clearly I’m not alone on this) that this blogger undermines his thinking with poor film writing. You don’t need a doctorate to realize that either.

    • Possibly, this post was written for entertainment purposes only, and not as a part of a college level film course curriculum. I could be wrong, since I’m not a professor of film.

      As a non-professional cinephile, I “get” 2001, The Seventh Seal, Primer, and The Discreet Charm of The Bourgeosie, but some of these films (e.g. Donnie Darko) are inscrutable on purpose. As this is a subjective list from a non-professor of film, maybe your comments could spell out exactly what certain of these films mean. Clearly you have knowledge the rest of us don’t, and it would be great if you shared with hoi polloi your knowledge.

      I’d love to know what I was supposed to take away from “Pi”. I really loved it, but I’m not sure what it meant.

  16. Thank you so much for explaining Donnie Darko. I have watched it more times than I wanted (which would be any amount more than 20 minutes of once) because my husband loves it, and I have never understood what was going on! I liked that song in it, though.

  17. Curtis says:

    Thanks for cluing me in on some films I’ve not heard of, but will have to check out.

    To me, criticizing Tarkovsky for being slow is like criticizing a Mozart symphony for being written for orchestra. There’s no doubt it’s slow. The absurd stillness of life on a remote space station should be told slowly and inscrutably. πŸ™‚ I thought Soderberg’s version was a nice, blandly entertaining movie, but it totally romancified the story and shifted the focus of the narrative parsecs away from what Lem intended. I recommend the novel for sci-fi readers, and also Tarkovsky’s The Sacrifice, which I think is a more interesting film anyway.

  18. Space Odyssey is perfect for the number one slot. My boyfriend and I read the book (based on the movie) and couldn’t wait to see it. The book was great. After 30 minutes I fell asleep but woke up to find my boyfriend in disbelief.

  19. Great article; you’ve inspired to me watch some of these films, many of which I’ve never heard of. That’s why the blogosphere is such an awesome place…

  20. CrystalSpins says:

    I like your style! And I agree about these movies (at least the ones in the list that I have seen!)

    http://www.crystalspins.com

  21. Ok Amazon orders here I come! πŸ™‚

  22. 365 Augenblicke says:

    Once you’ve watched Jaco Van Dormael’s latest film, ‘Mr. Nobody’ you will add it as #14 and I dare to predict that you will love it πŸ˜‰

  23. I’ve only seen 7 and 3. I guess I have to check out the others.

  24. bradenbost says:

    Primer’s time machine is definitely confusing, but once you figure it out, it makes more sense than any other time machine in any story. Still completely implausible, of course, but it has the illusion of being possible.

    Excellent post!

    http://bradenbost.wordpress.com

  25. wolke205 says:

    I have just seen Donnie Darko, after this good written blog from you, i will stay away from the others;)

    Greets, Frauke

  26. pt dismal says:

    wow, kamper, you certainly stirred the pot!

    i think this is a list of your *greatest* or *favorite* confusing/inscrutible movies–as some of the other comments point out, there are more confusing Lynch films, Roeg films, etc. (which do try to tell a story) but you also seem to have a genuine interest and respect for these movies as well as an understandable befuddlement about them.

    i liked the “hijinx ensue. . .”–got funnier each time.

    ptd

  27. nerdythings says:

    GREAT post! I have a blog about movies that you might be interested in checking out. Also, have you seen The Fountain by Darren Aronovsky? It’s mindblowingly amazing. Plus, he used almost no CGI.

    • The Fountain is one of those films that I just about get, just after I’m watching it…and then it’s gone again. If somebody asked me to fully explain it, and I hadn’t seen it recently, I wouldn’t be able to.

  28. freedomactionnow says:

    Congratulations on (1) making the Freshly Pressed page, and (2) not buckling down under the “top 10” cutoff.

    Happily, I’ve only seen 4 of those, including the latest addtion – Inception. It’s got everything a young lad would want: car chases, shootouts, fistfights, thengs being blown up real good, and even a major star (Michael Caine), and of course the incredibly original “is it or isn’t it” ending – all connected into a seamlessly incoherent medly. You really have to go to the IMBD trivia page to grasp the full meaning of the film (it’s simply too sophisticated to be called a “movie”). F’R’instance, Marion Cotillard played Edith Piaf in a 2007 movie – so of course, they end with the Piaf song.

    Bryan Johnson: The problem with today’s audiences ( for evidence, I submit the daily TV schedules) is that they’re brought up on car chases, shootouts, and things blowing up. Not too many are willing to sit through “My Dinner With Andre”. I’ll bet that this is at least partly because our so-called educational system, from kindergarten on, has found it either inconvenient or unhelpful to teach real writing and literature (from Lewis Carroll to Flannery O’Connor to Dostoevsky). There’s no background, no referents. So we go see movies with Adam Sandler.

  29. kyknoord says:

    Hijinks ensue when Bryan Johnson (aka “The Professor”) takes a blog entry about movies a little too personally.

  30. LOL!!

    Great Post!

    I actually have not seen Primer or existenz…well, I haven’t seen the Drill Penis one either, but that trailer didn’t catch my attention =oS

    Thanks for the List…Oh, and Keep up the Humor.

    BTW, Congrats on the Comments and Reactions! You SHOULD be quite Proud! =o)

  31. You forgot Harmony Korine’s Gummo. WTF is that all about, I ask you?????

  32. Slider says:

    Yeah, Space Odyssey and Solaris are great movies but simply very confusing.

  33. sayitinasong says:

    I so agree with you on Luis Bunuel… I have never ever been able to understand any of his films…

  34. Rong MeiShan says:

    I have not seen any of those. Sorry you had to sit through them. I would put “The White Ribbon”. I saw it on dvd last week and hated it. I disagree about Inception. It was amazing and part of it’s brilliance was in the writing. It’s the kind of movie that could be confusing, but was so well put together that I was never lost.

    • Mat Jacobson says:

      OK so explain to me 1) why they needed to keep using the actual machine that moves them up and down levels if they were in a dream where they could make their own reality; and 2) why everyone’s dreams in the movie were linear and coherent as opposed to everyone I lknow’s dreams where its, I was in this house, which was my house, but not really my house, and this guy was there who was my father, but also my 5th grade gym teacher, but then the house turned into a summer camp and I was there with this monkey who was also my first boyfriend?

  35. A very good read, and a very good list. I’ve seen a few of these…Darko, Pi, Primer (which I loved), eXistenZ, 2001…excellent examples! Inception definitely fits the bill as well. I almost would like to suggest another film to add to the list…not terribly difficult to figure out what’s going on, but moreso the “what exactly is happening here” kind of questions will arise…Geoff Murphy’s “The Quiet Earth”. Worth a look if you can tolerate the cheesy 80s acting and Saturday-night-on-cable love scene. I’ll be seeking out some of these others you’ve listed – I prefer to be confused most of the time. Keeps things interesting… πŸ˜‰

  36. Pingback: When did it become illegal to marry your cousin? | girls wedding

  37. mindslam says:

    Pretty good list…what about “Lost Highway”…that was a pretty weird one too?

  38. jscheer88 says:

    There’s abig BIG lack in this list : Koyaanisqatsi, 1983, produced by Francis Ford Coppola.

  39. Catherine says:

    Perhaps I’m not smart enough for inscrutable movies (maybe I don’t challenge myself enough) but I haven’t seen any of these movies :). Oh well, now at least I know it will probably be a waste of time because I’ll have no idea what they are about!

  40. Great post! I’m not familiar with all of them but soon will be. Thanks.

  41. oldancestor says:

    To jscheer88:

    Koyaanisqatsi has no plot, thus, per the criteria explained at the top, it doesn’t belong on the list.

    Nice call on ExistenZ. That’s a movie ahead if its time, though the lack of high-tech effects means it won’t appeal to most people who grew up on CGI.

    You could easily put Naked Lunch and Deadringer, both Cronenberg films, on this list as well.

  42. missk17 says:

    I’ve not seen any of this movies, hehe!

  43. evilcyber says:

    I think what’s missing from this list is “Naked Lunch”.

    Granted, you can read the book and still don’t understand a thing πŸ˜‰

  44. Yes. Thank you. Validation. I thought I was the only one that thought 2001: Space Odyssey was a confusing series of images lasting 2 hours ( and beautiful images they are). And I so wanted to like it.

  45. Don’t forget Roman Polanski’s debut–Knife in the Water.

  46. I would put Belle Du Jour on this list, but that may just be because I watched it really out of order as the dvd kept jumping πŸ™‚
    Does that count?

  47. Anonymous says:

    Hijinks ensue as you over use that word at annoying rate -_-

  48. johnjacobh says:

    Blue Velvet, one of my all time favorite movies. Hardly inscrutable once you realize it is little more than a dressed up version of a Hardy Boys Mystery.

    In Liberty,
    JJH

    http://www.johnjacobh.wordpress.com

  49. The Brain says:

    I would also like to add David Lynch’s 2001 disaster – Mulholland Drive. Does anyone have any idea what this damn thing was about?

    On another note, I love Pi – one of my very favorites…I guess that says a little more than I’d like about me.

    • John O'Brien says:

      I didn’t understand Mulholland Drive – but my girlfriend did. SPOILER. The first half of the film was the 24 hours she got to be with her girlfriend again – living a fantasy life, scoring a great role, avenging her humiliation at the film director’s hands – thanks to the fact that she sold her soul to the devil. At the end the nice old couple (demons) torment her into killing herself.

  50. catrinam says:

    I love Existenz (but had forgotten about it, so thanks!) and can’t wait to see Inception….I’ve never heard of half the others so thanks for keeping me on you tube….http://loveittoday.wordpress.com/

  51. What about You The Living? That movie did not tie in well at all.

  52. Anonymous says:

    Uh, Dune. I watched that movie a few times and still, man. I get it in that I kind of understand the storyline, but my mind can’t wrap itself around the movie. And though I get Brazil, it took a few views to make it click.

  53. Mollee says:

    Excellent list! You should definitely check out The Fountain. In my opinion, it deserves a place on that list as well!

  54. Six_33 says:

    Inception – Loved it!
    Solaris – the modern version with George Cooney was boring, so no chance of me seeing the older versions.
    eXistenZ – Loved it!
    Donnie Darker trailer scares me so much, I will never see it and have to run from the room.
    I’ll have to see the other movies.
    Thanks for the posting of the list.

  55. nyphti says:

    Interesting post; a few movies here I’ve been meaning to see for ages, a few I didn’t really know enough about to know if I wanted to watch them or not.
    Regarding Inception, I didn’t find it to really be confusing, in fact it seemed very linear to me, that said I am very much into speculative fiction and used to things not being spelt out.. This is not a criticism of the film; I loved it, but rather an expression of confusion at the fact that people found it confusing.
    Nice to see a nod to Primer, I’ve seen it at least 5 times, read all the help and still find it immensely convoluted…

  56. tifmoonfany says:

    Great post!
    I’ll try to see some of them in the next weekend

  57. rocha says:

    There is a strange pleasure to be gained by not understanding everything we see. Moviemakers and Artist know this. I have seen most of the above and loved them for that reason. They gives us a riddles to solve and we each have our own answers.
    Lovely blog.

  58. 1sttime2010 says:

    Oh my days. Have you watched Mulholland Drive. I have. Three times. And it is still puzzling. Even when I read the online ‘translation’ of it, I remained confused.

  59. Mike says:

    Just a quick tip: The DVD for Donnie Darko contains the full text of the “Philosophy of Time Travel”, which clears up the story immensely.

    Good for some, bad for others…

  60. Pingback: 13 Confusing Movies « SLK's Blog

  61. A. M. Leal says:

    I’ve been wanting to see a good, confusing movie. The last one that was both confusing and frustrating proved to be: “Doubt” and “Shutter Island”

    Thanks for sharing!

  62. travelsaurus says:

    I love Pi. Aronofsky never really got back to that level of pure insanity, I think, not even with Requiem for a Dream.

  63. Yormsane says:

    Donald Cammell’s “White of The Eye” always makes my ‘oddball’ list.

    Starts out strange, and then gets a whole lot creepier….

  64. I always interested with old classic movie

  65. anyone says:

    you’re stupid

  66. very nice site. Thanks Admin !

  67. Tilly Bud says:

    Oh dear. I haven’t seen one of those movies. Not one. I must see ‘inscrutable’ and read ‘incomprehensible; not worth bothering’.

  68. Anonymous says:

    I haven’t seen either of these, but from what I read, “Last Year in Marienbad” and “Trees” are in the “inscrutable” category. This is confirmed by Sean Penn telling us that he still has no idea what the movieis about.

    Anonymous, Aug 3: “Dune” the movie was probably as bad asanythingcould be. They cut up three volumes, threw the pagesin a bucket, pulled them out and started shooting. The first book (Dune) might be worth reading, if you like epic science fiction.

    So many movies, so little time…..

  69. Hijinx ensue when bloggers and readers critique a post on…
    Enjoy the post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s