Dorathen Better Late Then Never

Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Joanna Mccarty Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Leoni Haney Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

CinefanR After Twin Peaks – the movie, Lynch got completely off track. Everything that followed was unwatchable for me. The problem with "Rabbits", as with his entire post-Twin Peaks work, is that it's really boring and unintelligible. Plot less ramblings are fine as long as there is something to keep you engaged. I bet Lynch gets a big laugh every time fans or critics try to "decipher" his mysteries, symbols and intentions in places where he didn't have any. Lynch is playing on absurdity here (something he used to do very well) and I was hoping for more clues, but no, he is cheating. "Rabbits" ends up as a self-indulging, pretty boring and annoying little experiment. Yes, I guess it could be some sort of social commentary combining American sitcom with… something. Or maybe it's just Lynch jerking around.

NAVEEN YADAV David Lynch comes up with a unusual style of storytelling and this movie extend that style very far.There is no story to start with just humanoid rabbits irrelevantly talking about some thing that happened . In two shots there appears a mouth and a match stick.One can see the same match stick reference in "Inland Empire". This movies gives the more of Lynch taste of exploring the abstract unknown.The Lynch always keeps the audience of the movie to generalize the movie based on his or her experiences which this movie has potential but movie is not made to make any generalization. Quite a time seems boring but worth a watch for die hard David Lynch fans.

nanofish-1 This work must represent Lynch's musings on his craft. We see a sitcom. Actors are garbed as rabbits that are dressed as people. That is, they are not rabbits, "per se"; they are only (badly) dressed as pantomime bunnies within the sitcom, set obviously on a stage. Like Shakespeare's play within a play, we see a sitcom in a video (in a movie, inside Inland Empire). It is presented as an ironic "meta-tale". If we try to follow the sitcom we are misled. The laugh track isn't tracking identifiable punch lines. The dialog is out of order and seemingly not in sync with the present action. There is a narcotic dreaminess about watching the actors in the video playing characters in a sitcom. We lose context. What exactly are we witnessing? The meaning of the sitcom is not the meaning of the video, and therein lies the disturbing ambiguity of the unfolding story. The medium is not the message. Lynch knows his audience interprets him through the tropes of movie-making. He knows he must express his ideas within the boundaries of its form, subject to the expectations of his audience, who are likely to impose their own prejudices. The rabbits exist in a created exigency outside of real experience. They are motivated by their own ephemeral mythos, informed to action only for this short performance we are witnessing. The author feeds them soliloquy, to bridge the distance between himself and the audience, but with an absurd result. Will we ever know what they are thinking? No, because they are not thinking in reality, they are acting out roles in a disordered sitcom. This being said: The sitcom is about patricide. The mother waits for him, but Suzie and Jack have killed the father figure. It is an unspeakable crime that masks another. Dear dad may have had designs on young Suzie. Of course, it explains the dread and shame. I cannot prove it conclusively. On first viewing I was entirely riveted by it. On second viewing I was analyzing the heck out of it. On third viewing it struck me how absurd the whole thing was and I started to laugh at it. I began to think, this is what Beatrix Potters' recurring nightmare looks like.If you know who Luis Buñuel is, then you probably already own a bootleg copy of this video. If you can walk through a modern art exhibit without giggling then this movie is most likely for you. If Jackson Pollack reminds you of the oil stains on your driveway, then you probably want to steer clear.Lynch removes the burden of narrative from the story and fragments dialog out-of-sequence so you are free to get popcorn during any phase of the showing without fear of missing something.SPOILER ALERT!!: Nothing really happens. Well, a woman screams. And no, I have no idea what that means.

billchiu the misplaced dialog, off-timed schizo audience tracks, blurred thundering somewhere, sustained cigarette burns, menacing appearance of chanting mouth cut-out, characters fading in and out, unmoving camera position, repetitive character and dialog configurations - watching rabbits is like slumbering in someone else's head - there is no danger only repetitive surprises and soothing crashes of events on our retina; nothing connects and everything for sure was connected once. to repeat, the misplaced dialog, off-timed schizo audience tracks, blurred thundering somewhere, sustained cigarette burns, menacing appearance of chanting mouth cut-out, characters fading in and out, unmoving camera position, repetitive character and dialog configurations - watching rabbits is like slumbering in someone else's head - there is no danger only repetitive surprises and soothing crashes of events on our retina; nothing connects and everything for sure was connected once.