Lung II (2016) User Reviews

Why did I keep watching?

[isobellefox · 15 August 2018]

This movie makes the refrigerator in Requiem For a Dream seem friendly and welcoming.

I have never had such a hard time with a film. I literally have no idea why I watched the entire thing. I know that there are likely worse things, but I think I found my limit here. It is atrocious and disturbing.

That said, as the other reviewer has pointed out, there is a certain artistic integrity evident in this production. The theme does not waver. It is hideous and discombobulating. It is rabid and repulsive. It is focused and driven and never stops being awful.

If Cronenberg, Lynch, Barker, and Throbbing Gristle conspired to make something without hope, something bleak and brutal, angry, confused, and desperate that almost no one could stand to watch, they could hardly have done any better.

Personally, I did not enjoy it, but I doubt it was meant to be enjoyed. In the end though, I found it difficult to escape from this wretched thing until it was done, and this says something for it - though I don't know what.

I just can't hate it

[saberkoi · 2/10 · 12 April 2021]

So here's the deal: Lung II is not a good movie. It's not, so let's just get that out of the way. It is indeed, I dare say, bad. But even as I sat through this wannabe-enigmatic movie, I couldn't bring myself to turn it off. I didn't really feel anything positive for it, but I could empathize with its creation at points. It's clear that the director had a vision, and from what I can tell he did his darnedest to realize that vision...even if it had previously been realized by David Lynch in a much more famous and artistically fulfilling black and white film. On that note, please future filmmakers know that you can't just switch your digital camera to black and white mode and film. You have to light your film accordingly to accentuate light and shadow properly with the lack of color. But I digress.

I think there were hints of potential in Lung II. The props were well-made, but the effectiveness of the gore was lost because, again, the movie wasn't properly lit for black and white. Also I would love to know how much of the budget went to paying a butcher for animal offal. The story is...I mean yeah I guess it's a story. It's not a very deep one, but it's there. I didn't find the protagonist particularly compelling, because even though his true motivation was withheld from us until the end, he didn't really seem to have any compelling goal in the meantime outside of finding a first-aid kit.

This movie isn't so-bad-it's-good, and it's not so-baffling-it's-charming. It's on the pedestrian side of filmmaking, but I legitimately hope those involved creatively continue to pursue their artistic visions. Yeah, I said it and I meant it. You can make a million bad movies, but at the end of the day you're still making movies, and that's more than I can say for a lot of people.

...but seriously what is it with indie directors wanting us to see them nude?

dont wast your money

[koddie-83753 · 1/10 · 17 February 2020]

I like extreme horror like atroz but this is not horror to me, almost nothing happens. This is a real waste of time, i have seen much better movies that have less stars than this, i dont get that. Anyway, dont waste your money or time on this

LUNG leaves you Breathless

[maniak177 · 10/10 · 9 July 2018]

It takes a special mind to achieve actual art through film. It is even more difficult to do that very thing through horror. It is very rare that a person can combine the two and leave you breathless, horrified and wanting more. Phil Stevens has mastered that very skill.

The second entry to his FLOWERS trilogy, LUNG II is yet another example of how "Silence is Golden".

Confusion and fear takes hold of a man who wakes up in a park without a clue of who he is or where he is. As he struggles to piece together the puzzle of his own strange and obscene reality, he wanders aimlessly through the city streets hoping to find even the slightest of answers. Suffering from horrific visions and dreams, he finds strange signs that they may just be memories of a nightmarish reality. Each clue leading him further down to hell. Was he just a poor lost soul with amnesia? Or something far, far worse... Phil Stevens once again proves that dialogue, a star studded cast and a ridiculously high budget isnt always needed to make something truly special. LUNG II is a confusing film, but only because it's supposed to be. You're meant to be just as lost as the main character. But in the end, you are left astounded and breathless in all the greatest of ways. Most art films come off as pretentious and have the feel that sometimes the director may have tried too hard. This NOT the case with this film.

I can not recommend this movie enough to those that have an appreciation for both art and horror. Is it for the average horror fan? Absolutely not, but is another factor that makes Phil's work all the more special.