Mulholland Drive (film review)

To all those subscribers who I'll probably piss off with this review, I apologise in advance. Oh, and I apologise to Keith for the Ke$ha reference.
In 1977, David Lynch directed Eraserhead, which I consider to be a great movie. Lynch has also made some good movies, including Dune and The Elephant Man, which I reviewed only a few days ago. But Blue Velvet and now Mulholland Drive are two of the most atrocious, hateful movies I've ever seen. You probably already know why I hate Blue Velvet, but Mulholland Drive has poor acting from star Naomi Watts and much of the supporting cast, vague and undefined characters and an incoherent, nonsensical narrative that shifts focus and drops plot threads without warning. And do you want to know how much I paid for this movie? $10! That is $10 and 2 hours that I will never get back.

(Note: Aside from my YouTube avatar, I do not own any of the media in this video. Mulholland Drive is owned by Studio Canal and Universal Pictures.)

Cheers!

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• Mulholland
• Drive
• David
• Lynch
• surrealism
• psychological
• horror
• Naomi
• Watts
• Laura
• Elena
• Harring
• Justin
• Theroux

[Bassbait]

But Lynch's mind is messed up. He likes IDEAS, not as a coherent story, but as a medley of tidbits. He takes his many odd ideas and forms a basis around that. Similar to how Eraserhead goes off on WEIRD tangents, his most recent films like to put you in Lynch's head putting what's in his head directly onto the film. P.S., did you know that your thoughts are very non-structured? Lynch's mind is at work on his films, and that's why it's so fragmented. The ideas are most important to him.

[QUANTUMJOKER]

@Bassbait

I can appreciate Lynch's motivations, and I do view ideas in movies as important (the ideas are a bigger strength than the story in 2001), but I simply don't like the way he broke conventions. He might have done it to provide a new perspective on storytelling, but I think he provided a BAD perspective on storytelling.

[QUANTUMJOKER]

@Bassbait

I can appreciate Lynch's motivations, and I do view ideas in movies as important (the ideas are a bigger strength than the story in 2001), but I simply don't like the way he broke conventions. He might have done it to provide a new perspective on storytelling, but I think he provided a BAD perspective on storytelling.

[mwhite148]

Did you intend to do this review on David Lynch's birthday?

[QUANTUMJOKER]

@mwhite148

Actually, I watched the film on my birthday (January 19), then wrote and uploaded the review the next day.

I didn't realize that January 20 was Lynch's birthday. Thanks for pointing it out!

Though I realise that this would be a pretty spiteful birthday present.

[TheCriticalTwins]

I'm not surprised :) But I guess you aren't surprised we're quite fond of that movie. But that's okay. One thing I'd like to add, though: Lynch's movies tend to grow on you, so you might like movies like Blue Velvet or Mulholland Dr. more if you rewatch it in a couple of years. You might start noticing that things are not as random as one is lead to believe during the (admittedly always confusing) first watching.

[QUANTUMJOKER]

@TheCriticalTwins

You could be right. I will rewatch Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive sometime in the future, as I don't like hating movies, especially from a director who has made some very good movies.

[alexmax2467]

Shut the f**k up, it's an allegory.

[lebell79]

wow...' oh hai, I'm qualified to do reviews, hey, whaddaya know? each of David Lynch's movies have nonsensical narratives?! lololol'

do you realise just how big of a moron you are?

[lazlo214]

You clearly don't understand this film. Thanks for the review though.

[dustygrady]

I like that. Intentional crap is still crap. Lynch doesn't have to worry about everything in the movie tying together. Most people will assume there is a tie somewhere & will piece it together with their own feeble imaginations. Even Lynch isn't sure, but he knows that his rabid fans will attempt to make some false sense out of it, and then start calling the movie "genius" by vitrue of it being surreal, disjointed and incoherent. No wonder Lynch refuses to explain many scenes, he doesn't have to

[BearWindAppleyard]

"... What the fuck is going on?"

Read Rob Agers film analysis.

It makes so much sense to me, on what the plot of this movie might be.

[1HalfASSreViewer]

@QUANTUMJOKER your review of Mulholland Dr. is acually my exact spot - on opinion on Lynch's Lost Highway. I disagree though with Mulholland Dr. and Blue Velvet, especially in regards to the acting. bad acting exists without a doubt, but there are many different types of styles of good and/or great acting all depending on your own tastes. Both films especially blue velvet, have them.

[nunobelo]

lol you should try to review Inland Empire. That movie is insane!

[SanVanSkater]

Nonsensical motivations? Do you mean like real life? A lot of films are unrealistic, most in fact, in the manner in which they convey motivations. Why should every character have a motivation? Many people have no clue on why they do certain things. Also, the acting is intentionally overdone to show that something is not quite right within the films realm. The diner scene also serves a purpose in showing that the whole first portion of the film is in fact a dream.

[Johnlindsey289]

Brilliant movie! this with Elephant Man, Blue Velvet and Lost Highway are my faves! his only real clunker was Dune, OUCH. I mean hollywood blockbusters isn't his thing when his only good hollywood product was Elephant Man

[dcj28]

What? They never tried to get him to hire Betty. Did you even watch the film?