Robert J. Maxwell Nothing much really happens in this fifteen-minute short by David Lynch. Yet I couldn't take my eyes off the nothing much.Another reviewer claims this is a dull movie but a fine commercial. If I hadn't been told it was a commercial for Lady Dior or Luis Vuitton or Sigfried Sassoon or Max Factor, I wouldn't have known.Yes, the bespoke handbag features prominently in the film, but not TOO prominently, and it functions in the film as a link between a phantasmagorical past love and the present circumstances of the curiously boffo Marion Cotillard. She enters her hotel room, a tango from the 1920s playing on the radio, and finds this glittering handbag on the floor of her room Shanghai and two Chinese house detectives appear and ask her about it. Then they stand motionless, speechless, while she spins out this tale of experiencing deja vu at lunch. The story involves her and a lover escaping a room in 1920s Shanghai and landing on a rooftop, at which point the lover says he can't be with her and fades away while handing her a blue flower.Back to the present. Under the eyes of the two statuesque investigators, she finally opens the bag. Guess what's in it.

Horst in Translation ([email protected]) I really love Marion Cotillard and her being in a David Lynch movie could be truly something special, even if it only goes for 15 minutes. This is part of Cotillard's Dior campaign, where each film represents one color. This one about the color blue is actually the longest of them. However, there really wasn't that much focus on the color as I thought there would be. Obviously the rose in the end, then maybe the blue tower and the lights of the cameras, but that's pretty much it. I guess Lynch didn't really know how to use the color best, so he simply used the rose in the end.A woman comes to her hotel room, but music is running and somebody must have been there as there is an item in her room which doesn't belong there. The woman is worried and calls security only to tell them the story of her and her significant other. I have to say the mystery parts early on were solid, but when this turned into a film about Cotillard and her Asian friend, it really got worse. What a shame. I truly wanted this to be better. I have to say, I even enjoyed Cotillard's one minute comedy short "Forehead Tittaes" from 2010 even more. "Lady Blue Shanghai", not recommended.

CUDIU Let's get it straight first off: I am a big fan of Lynch's and I know that this is supposed to be a long ad.But that does not stop me from thinking that this short film is a ludicrous effort that only serves the purpose of reminding the viewer how great Lynch used to be, at least up to Mulholland Dr., which is now more than ten years ago! Everything, maybe except for the music, is wrong in this short. As usual the plot makes no sense at all, which could be bearable in itself, but no atmosphere is built out of the plot less story either, so the fact that there is no or little story does become a problem. Second, the Chinese actors are terrible, they are so bad that it looks like Lynch cast the first two guys he saw walking down the street. On we go. The bag as mysterious, symptomatic object (see blue box from Mulholland Dr.) is used in a ridiculous way, both when it is seen in the hotel room and on the billboard. Cotillard tries hard but there is little to do with a character that has to deliver useless "I love you" lines to a random Chinese guy waving a blue napkin (or was it a rose).Finally a word on the digital video cameras. I already disliked Inland Empire because it used them. I think Lynch should abandon this idea and go back to a more traditional technique. The sexiness of movies such as Mulholland and Lost Highway was also due to the fantastic way they were photographed. We do not need the shakiness and the low resolution of Inland Empire and of this short, they just don't add anything while they take away a lot.Now, Mr Lynch, please go back to make feature films and return to your old standards, we are tired of pointless digital video shorts.

david I got very excited when I saw the new credit to David Lynch's filmography, but after seeing this short film I think the truth has to be said: This is not a film, it's a 16 minute commercial for Christian Dior. I'm still not sure what the product is, maybe it's just the brand. So, when criticizing this title one must do it on 2 different levels: as a commercial and then as a short film.As a commercial, this is pretty good. Everything is in place: the bag, the dress, the make up, and probably even the perfume, although this is one thing we cannot be certain of.As a short film, this is pretty dull. It seems that David Lynch has completely run out of ideas, and he once again makes a film about "a woman in trouble". Lynch's films of this decade were all about women in trouble. Beginning with "Mulholland Drive" and ending with this piece. Unfortunately, the music and atmosphere cannot hide the fact that Lynch is out of inspiration. This little short film adds nothing to what we've already seen from the man. It doesn't really matter if you don't watch this. Watch "Inland Empire" instead.I believe that Christian Dior just wanted to exploit poor Lynch's surreal approach to promote their products. I also believe that Lynch. lacking the opportunity to make another feature film, desperately needed the money. I can see no better reason for the making of this film.And all this I say as a David Lynch fan who thinks Lynch is one of the greatest filmmakers alive today.