<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Anyone else reminded of Inland Empire?]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><em>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Session 9</em></p>
<hr />
<p dir="auto"><strong>Don_Cheech</strong> — <em>10 years ago(February 24, 2016 10:05 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">As soon as I started watching<br />
Session 9<br />
, I noticed its interesting cinematography. It was quite obvious it was filmed with a digital camera. The natural lighting and odd focus of certain shots just gave off a very nightmarish vibe. The blur is something you dont see in movies shot on film. Its almost like youre looking through a door's peephole- or a security camera.  Especially the shots of the long hallways- also reminiscent of<br />
The Shining<br />
(even though that was shot on film). But not too many horror films look like this. Now, if you havent seen<br />
Inland Empire<br />
, directed by the legendary David Lynch, I highly suggest you do so. Its an experience to say the very least. Its literally a nightmare. And one of the most labyrinthian<br />
films I have ever seen. Im still figuring out 2 years after seeing it.<br />
So, anywayusing IMDB, I looked into the technical aspects of<br />
Session 9<br />
, and compared it to the info on<br />
Inland Empire<br />
. Turns out- there are more technical similarities than I thought.</p>
<ul>
<li>They are both filmed with Sony digital cameras.</li>
<li>Both films use the same Cinematographic Process. HDCAM (1080p/24)</li>
<li>Both films even used the same "laboratories" to process. (LaserPacific (high definition laboratory) FotoKem Laboratory, Burbank (CA), USA (prints)</li>
<li>Both have dolby digital sound</li>
<li>Both have the same print format 35 mm (which isnt rare, but still).<br />
So, what can we extract from this? Im not really sure. But; for some reason- this type of format really works well with these type of films. I hope its not just a thing of the past.<br />
Does anyone know any other films that use a similar format? And did anyone else notice the similarities in cinematography?</li>
</ul>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/233697/anyone-else-reminded-of-inland-empire</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 08:34:05 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/233697.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2026 19:09:40 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Anyone else reminded of Inland Empire? on Sun, 03 May 2026 19:09:42 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>somesunnyday</strong> — <em>10 years ago(March 22, 2016 08:16 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">That's the spirit</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1955910</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1955910</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2026 19:09:42 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Anyone else reminded of Inland Empire? on Sun, 03 May 2026 19:09:41 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>pantsronfire</strong> — <em>10 years ago(March 17, 2016 10:15 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">Dude, you're on IMDb. Half of these people are trolls and the other half are more likely to point out poor grammar and punctuation than give a rip about cameras. Were not talking Kubrick here.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1955909</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1955909</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2026 19:09:41 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>