Customer Reviews

Mulholland Drive

5 star:		(372)
4 star:		(124)
3 star:		(63)
2 star:		(66)
1 star:		(155)

 

 

"Mulholland Drive" is an excellent movie filmed in the vein of "Lost Highway" and "Blue Velvet," two earlier masterpieces by Lynch. I'm getting sick and tired of people who badmouth a perfect cinematic gem because they just "don't get it." If you don't understand why and when and where, why did you decide to watch this film in the first place?

The chronological timeline of the story is not that hard to figure out:
(01.) First, Diane wins the jitterbug competition in Canada, where she's crowned and cheered for by two old people (her parents). This is some time before any other scenes in the movie.
(02.) Camilla and her director/lover Adam Kesher kiss in the car, making Diane witness the scene.
(03.) Camilla and Diane are on the couch. Camilla says they should break up and Diane puts the pieces of what she's seen together and asks, "It's him, isn't it?"
(04.) Camilla calls Diane in an attempt to reconcile with her and tells her to get into the car that's come for her. Diane comes to Adam's party where he announces his engagement to Camilla.
(05.) Diane talks to the hitman at Winkie's and he agrees to murder Camilla.
(06.) Diane returns home, overcome with guilt and frustration, and falls asleep on her untidy bed.
(07.) She has a long dream (the first two hours of the movie). The prime thing to notice here is Diane's selfish wish-fulfillment- she has her lover back with her, tender and loving, and amnesiac to boot, allowing Diane/Betty to do what she pleases with her. Diane gets her revenge by humiliating Adam in her dream- he's deceived by his wife, knocked over by her lover, stepped on by both of them, etc, etc. The last hallucination Diane has is of the Cowboy who appears in her bedroom to wake her up.
(08.) Diane's neighbor/ex-lover wakes her up. She's come for the ashtray and the rest of her "stuff." Diane sees the blue key shown to her by the hitman lying on the coffee-table, indicating that Camilla is dead. She learns that two detectives have been asking about her.
(09.) Diane stands next to her coffee-maker and has a brief vision of Camilla, conjured up by her guilty conscience.
(10.) Diane is sitting on the couch and staring at the blue key. She is completely consumed by self-mortification now. She sees two tiny figures of her parents (representing both her unconscious fear of them and her inner guilty Self, as opposed to the selfish Ego) that seem to become real and dangerous, attacking their daughter with tearing fingers and crude laughter. Diane runs into her bedroom and shoots herself in the mouth.

END OF STORY. Is that so hard to figure out? Please... As much as I respect what other people have to say, I still don't think that saying "This movie is one of the worst films ever, because I didn't understand any of it" is a good reason to revile such a great film. And as far as criticizing David Lynch goes, I have only one thing to say: Any filmmaker who happens to stir the public opinion, and to lay foundation for so many conflicting views (two years after the film's release!) and to cause our fellow-moviegoers to write 770+ reviews on the subject of whether or not the film is a work of art or a piece of junk, is, I think, a genius without peer.

This film has a haunting beauty that is akin to experiencing Klee upon the first time. The mystery and sensuality wrecks havoc of all your senses. I relished the experience.

Like Kevin Smith, the first time I saw this film I was stupefied. "What?!" Repeated viewings disabused me of the notion that there was nothing in this film to understand. I now think this is a work of absolute genius

Originally written and filmed as a TV pilot, the ending was only written after the show was rejected. Knowing the history of the genesis of the film only increased my appreciation for its craft, because the ending qualitatively transforms the entire first three quarters of the film. I cannot comprehend how Lynch was able to think of an ending that turned the whole first part of the film on its head, making it meaningful on a completely different, and more subtle layer.

For first time viewers, I can only say that it's important to pay attention to the whole film. Every shot. Colours, symbols, recurring objects and motifs, all play a part in revealing the film's secrets. I can't recommend this movie highly enough.

Like Kevin Smith, the first time I saw this film I was stupefied. "What?!" Repeated viewings disabused me of the notion that there was nothing in this film to understand. I now think this is a work of absolute genius

Originally written and filmed as a TV pilot, the ending was only written after the show was rejected. Knowing the history of the genesis of the film only increased my appreciation for its craft, because the ending qualitatively transforms the entire first three quarters of the film. I cannot comprehend how Lynch was able to think of an ending that turned the whole first part of the film on its head, making it meaningful on a completely different, and more subtle layer.

For first time viewers, I can only say that it's important to pay attention to the whole film. Every shot. Colours, symbols, recurring objects and motifs, all play a part in revealing the film's secrets. I can't recommend this movie highly enough.

I've seen this movie a few times and it's been very enjoyable. Film critics who value the avant-garde and the experimental are often very fond of this one. It's a well-crafted drama with significant elements of surrealism as well as eccentric occurences. I think it's positive reputation comes mostly from its component of mystery - audiences are now able to value films which are challenging and not fully explained. It has a quite a bit of psychological content that is interesting for those who appreciate this film by David Lynch.

My husband and I loved this movie. Of course, the first time we watched it, we were both totally confused at the end. Hubby immediately logged on to the internet to find out a bit more about this movie. He came back with some very intriguing theories. We spent the next day talking about this movie and discussing out thoughts. We then realized that we had to watch it again with 'fresh' eyes. This time, we noticed all kinds of things that had passed by unnoticed during the first viewing. We would have watched it again but it was already overdue at the store...

This movie is beautiful to watch and filled with amazing performances. You will never be completely sure of the real story. But that is part of the fun of this movie. My husband and I have never watched a movie that had us in its grip like this. We are still talking about it a week later...

There are no car chases or nice tidy resolutions at the end. Yes, there is a lesbian love scene but that is not why we watched the movie more than once as one reviewer suggested ;).

You just can't find this kind of movie in mainstream Hollywood. It's original, artistic and unpredictable all the way through. "Mulholland Drive" is gorgeously shot, and David Lynch truly deserved that Oscar nomination for Best Director. Naomi Watts, Laura Elena Harring and Justin Theroux are well-cast as the three leads.

There is never a boring moment: I became engrossed (and entangled) in the plot, paying attention to the slightest detail and hoping that I could piece together the surreal mystery. Lynch, the Master of Tension, can make your muscles tighten with almost no effort at what would have otherwise been a rather mundane scene under the hands of a lesser director. He keeps you guessing at every step of the way as the story unravels. And despite the film's serious tone, there is still humour to be found.

Most people found the second part of the movie confusing, and I had to rewatch the whole thing several times over before I was able to figure out what Lynch might have intended to tell us. However, this process didn't frustrate me at all, and if anything, it made me appreciate his talent even more. Only a true artist can inspire an outside observer to obsessively pick apart every layer to uncover the work's full meaning.

Just so you know, the DVD itself doesn't contain much in terms of extras (only a trailer and cast profiles), and there are no scene selections. Apparently, this was done on Lynch's insistence that "Mulholland Drive" be watched in a single sitting.

Los Angeles is not known for being a spooky town, with the palm trees, sunshine and Hollywood. But David Lynch makes it so in "Mulholland Drive," a brilliantly elliptical film where nothing is as it seems. With outstanding acting, eerie direction and a thoroughly strange plotline, this is a brain-bender of the best kind.

The movie opens with heavy breathing, visions of a lovely young girl being awarded, many teen couples dancing, and a slow descent toward a pillow. Then we cut to a three-way car crash, followed by a pretty young woman (Laura Harring) wandering down the hill to an upscale apartment. But she soon encounters the owner's niece, pretty plucky Betty (Naomi Watts). When Betty learns that the mysterious young lady -- who is calling herself Rita -- has amnesia, she decides to help her find out what is going on.

Elsewhere, a promising young film director's life is falling to pieces, because of a pair of malevolent brothers who want a particular young lady to star in his film. And when Betty begins to explore the strange car accident that Rita walked away from, they find that there is a bizarre conspiracy brewing in L.A. Or is there? The path gets more and more twisted, as the boundaries of reality and dreams blur.... and it all centers on a mysterious name: Diane Selwyn.

This is a movie that doesn't make sense on the first viewing -- at first it just seems to be a straightforward suspense movie. But David Lynch completely turns that on its ear. Not everything makes sense in this film -- such as the monstrous man behind the restaurant -- but the pieces start to slowly click together as we find out who Diane Selwyn is.

When you realize what the first two hours actually are, the film makes much more sense -- a muddied look at Diane Selwyn's life, but fragmented and twisted by her desires. Multiple alter-egos, wishful thinking, obsessive lesbian love, jealousy, rage, and random people and places come into her dream, but reflected as she wants to see them, and tainted by her own guilt.

And even the sunny opening scenes, with the starry-eyed Betty arriving in sunny L.A. for an audition, take on a dark tinge when you discover who Diane was, and that she had the same experience. Naomi Watts plays both Betty and Diane, one sweet and innocent, the other bitter and unbalanced. And she's marvelous as both, whether playing a sweet young girl, or a hardened, obsessive starlet. Harding does almost as good a job as Rita, especially as the film starts, but the focus slowly and inexorable shifts to Watts.

David Lynch ignores the shiny warmth of L.A., focusing on back-alley monsters, creepy dreams and hit men. He's known for being incredibly weird, and here he doesn't disappoint -- ordinary words and occurances are sinister, and the camerawork is insanely good. The camera slowly descends, wanders down hallways, and creeps to reveal something horrible. A few scenes -- the lesbian love scene, the monstrous restaurant creature that is implied to be in the middle of it -- seem a bit out of place, but then again, their presence could be interpreted in multiple ways.

Surrealistic noir is the best way to describe "Mulholland Drive," an exceptionally strange mind-bender of a movie. Creepy, beautiful and very very unreal, and not something forgotten easily.

This film is David Lynch doing what he does best: screwing with people's heads until they want to smash their VCRs. There's everything you expect from Lynch; bizarre, dreamlike situations, whacked-out characters with no clearly defined purpose, an inexplicably foreboding atmosphere. Oh, and of course, the entire cast shifting identities in the last half hour. While I loved it, there was one particular moment which was a bit too unsettling, even for Lynch. You see, there's this elderly couple who appear at the beginning. They're kind of strange, and have smiles plastered on their faces. They disappear for the next two hours, which is nothing new. Near the end, they show up again - as...hyperactive two-inch tall midgets. Even Eraserhead's singing worm creature didn't disturb me as much. I mean, midgets are kind of disturbing, and old people who can't keep smiling are also kind of disturbing, and when you combine the two...

... Because apparently that's all you know.
Your recent attacks on 'Age' for her response to your original aggresively offensive review attacking anyone who has a taste for Lynch's art are as 'ignorant' as your original review was.
Age, as most people who admire Lynch's art, has a passion for the art of film and music.
Dirge9 (whom I do not know!) recently wrote a superb review of Mulholland and what it truly is.
A lot of reviewers (besides myself and my group of 7 artists)
have responded to your 'movies are just movies mentality'.
And, your conservatism shows IT'S age.
Comparing the art of Lynch to the 'art' of someone like Charlton Heston is excrutiatingly laughable.
I can see why, as an American conservative, you 'get' Heston, the most arrogant Hollywood actor of all time. There's even an 'in joke' in Mulholland with the casting of Chad Everett (who brilliantly parodies his own Hollywood image) that is comparable to the like and mentality of Heston, the once president of the Hollywood Actors Union who blatantly attacked Ed Asner for his political stances and had enough Hollywood clout to see to it that 'Lou Grant' was taken off the air.
Mulholland is so anti-Hollywood in every frame. It mocks Hollwood's 'The story must be clear, cohesive and literal' mentality.
This film pulls the rug out from under the Hollywood type viewer's feet in every sense imaginable.
Hollywood is a facade and Mulholland mocks that facade. Nothing is as it seems, hence the two halves of the film. First, we have the facade, then the ugly truth comes out and does so in such a way that it brilliantly leaves the viewer scratching his head.
'What the hell just happened?' is the typical response.
Admittedly, this film is not at all friendly to the Hollywood type viewer (aka yourself).
it's amusing too that in looking now at all of your reviews that you liked 'The Shining' (another anti-Hollywood film), anD detested both 'Twister' and 'Zardoz'.
'Age', in the college we attended, wrote reviews very similar to your views on those three films.
And yet,even though you, like her, pointed out the downright ignorance of 'Twister', and the Hollywood hyper pretentiousness of Zardoz, and praised the brillance of that horror epic, 'The Shining' you did not 'get' the similar sentiments of Lynch's 'Mulholland and 'Lost Highway'.
There are movies and there are films and Mulholland fits squarely into the latter.
Film is as much a visual 'art form' as painting is, while 'movies' are valid forms of entertainment, usually created by Hollywood business men.
Europe is far more advanced in it's thinking regarding film as an art form and Lynch has a very European artist's frame of thinking.
Another reviewer recently wrote of 'elitistic taste' and wrote that this is something to strive for.
Mulholland is a perfect example of a film being for 'eltistic taste' and like Dirge9 I agree that the fact that this film gets the passionate reviews that it does, is refreshing because it proves that Lynch's art is indeed challenging and every negative review you give it further proves this point.