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?