Has anyone ever seen Mulholland Dr.?

[Kevin Lepp]

I thought this was supposed to be a good movie.

This is one of those movies that sucked so bad that I had to write something about it.

And its not even the kind of bad that I can just let go of- It seemed to have a decent budget, but the writing, the plot, .... the moves from one scene to the next..., theyre just terrible.

I guess its just that I had expectations that this was supposed to be a good movie. I dont know why i thought that, but i was definitely wrong.

owell- for all you who havent seen this movie, dont.

[Joe Calalang]

I liked it a lot. That won France's Best Foriegn Film Award in their own version of the Academy Awards. It's a very ambiguous movie but most of it can be figured out.

[Boyd Ostroff]

I liked its style, sense of mystery and atmosphere. By the time it was over I was pretty confused about a number of things and figured I'd need to watch it again to understand them, but wasn't willing to make the effort.

So I don't share your dislike of the film, but wouldn't call it a masterpiece either. I'd call it "interesting."

[Dave Perry]

David Lynch is an odd fellow. I like his work and I liked Mulholland Dr. a lot. Not on par with Blue Velvet or Eraser Head but still a good movie.

If you haven't seen it, I would strongly advise that you rent it ASAP.

[Joe Collins]

Here is an interesting article in Salon that cleared up some of the confusion for me and made it fun to watch the DVD again:

http://dir.salon.com/ent/movies/feat...sis/index.html

[Ryan Mattos]

I am totally in love with this film. All of David Lynch's work is jarring at first, and if you haven't seen anything else of his I can understand why you don't like it. But really if you take the time to think about and really enjoy the movie it's great. There are many clues as to its meaning that you only pick up the second or third time watching. I would agree though that it is not as good inspired as Eraserhead

[Rob Lohman]

<<<-- And its not even the kind of bad that I can just let go of- It seemed to have a decent budget, but the writing, the plot, .... the moves from one scene to the next..., theyre just terrible. -->>>

What you are describing is basically David Lynch. This is a known
thing. Basically you can follow and understand it or you have to
do a lot of work to understand or perhaps get a grasp or you
just don't follow it and mostly don't like it (as you have).

I think it was an interesting movie. I have it on DVD here and it
definitely takes multiple viewings to get a grasp of what is going
on (at least for me).

But hey, to each his or her own!

[Kevin Lepp]

didnt anyone think that the writing was bad????? The writing was the main thing that turned me off- dialogue reminded me of a B or C quality movie.

owell

[Shawn Mielke]

Heh,

define "good" and "bad" (and "ugly").
Define for yourself as explicitly as possible what you expect, and what you're used to in a film because these qualities inherently inform you about what you think you think, and feel.

I too struggle with this film. Overall, I do appreciate it very much, but have had some assistance in order to get there, namely an essay on Mullholand Dr. published by Film Quarterly magazine. Overall, I think it's David Lynch's best film, his most risk taking, and his most ambitious. I don't particularly like his style, his way of portraying darkness and moodiness, it's a highly polished approach to atmospherics that I feel he doesn't quite own, or maybe I just can't relate quite as viscerally as he does. It feels like moviemaking (dated, imo, obtuse, American moviemaking), atmosphere that is to be intellectualized because it isn't really spontaneous or intuitive (my interpretation). And yet it does haunt me, but more like a B+ psychological horror film does. It takes it's forms from popular notions of beauty, fear, nonsense, dreams, ideals, conflict, yea, his films seem to be the dopplegangers of pop culture fantasies.

In my opinion, Lynch has been, by and large, a conventional American filmmaker, his films aren't very odd at all, which is why I like Mullholand Dr. Because I empathize with what he is trying to do, trying to push his own boundaries within the Hollywood system (what the film is about?). It's Lynch's personal journey, don't forget that. This film is similar to Fellini's 8 1/2, just in the way that it's a personal benchmark film for the artist, a reconstitution of personality, style, rationality, and ideology. They are both films about struggle and risk. I am looking forward to where Mr. Lynch goes next, even if I don't immediately relate to his cinematic principles.

[John Hudson]

I personally think LYNCH is one of the most overrated filmmakers working (Guy even charges money for his own personal site :P ). Never been a big fan of his work other than TWIN PEAKS. MDrive is one of the most boring films I have ever watched. The only good surprise about that film was the scene; well, for those of you that know it, yeah, that scene on the couch.

[Dan Uneken]

I found the film arrogant in the way a lot of modern architecture is arrogant: "you little people don't need to understand my lofty ways of making art".
History will decide whether is is art at all or just the scribblings of an overrated TV series director.
Anyway: I don't get it and I want my money back.

[Kevin Lepp]

I have to agree with the "boring" statement. I'm a person who usually likes most movies- im just easy to entertain I guess- but I really found this movie to be uninteresting and boring. -- but if that was the only thing I had against it, then I would have finished watching it, but the thing that made me turn it off was when one (in my opinion) scene after another had- either bad acting, or bad dialogue writing- and then I just couldnt take it anymore- it was no longer entertaining me, nor intriguing me enough to watch anymore. So I turned it off- That was about 2/3 of the way through.--- and before anyone says that that was the reason I didnt like it "because I didnt finish it"- remember that the story wasnt the reason I didnt like it- it was either the lack of good acting or the lack of good screen writing and dialogue (I lean more to this one)--- at times it was both- but I know it was atleast one, because at times I was literally laughing at how cheezy and unimaginative the characters and their lines were. It felt like the characters were so ... how can I say it,... flat and cliche.--

And understand, I came into this movie thinking I was going to see a good artsy type movie, but this more reminded me of an attempt at an artsy movie, rather than a succesful one.

I went to college at Ringling School of Art and Design for illustration type stuff, and while I was there I learned alot about seeing and appreciating the "fine art" kind of art in this world- but I also came to be able to see when something was trying to be successfully invoking, imaginative, thought provoking, etc.. compared to when it actually was. And the difference seemed to always be the same- and it was when the piece of art (whether it was a painting, sculpture, film, photograph, etc.) had not only an idea, style, and message that was consitent and intriguing, but the critical difference always was whether this was all combined with the talent to be able to exemplify everything else. And it seemed to me when I was watching this movie that it was like looking at a painting or something back in college, and the piece had a great idea, good composition, great color and so on, but when it came down to it, the drawing wasnt good.- and in the world of illustration and painting and anything 2d, your drawing is like the structure of your house- you can do everything right, but if the structure is shotty, then no matter how beautiful you decorate the house, its still unfitting for its purpose. And this movie felt like the drawing was off- and the drawing is always what matters most.

You know Picasso could paint amazingly realitic when he was 15 or so, and later as most people know he got into abstract art- but the only reason his abstract work was so amazing and beautiful was because underlying the tremendous amount of emotion and feeling he inserted into his paintings, he had the talent in his drawing and painting skills to be able to create exactly what he invisioned.- and that ability is the same in every single field in life- its what separates bad from good from great-- pure natural talent- everything else builds from that.

But without Great pure natural talent, I dont believe you can make something great- Its like a sprinter- one can train his whole life and never be the best, unless he's got the genes.

Somebody with great natural talent may not always do great things (because of initiative), but all great things will always be done by somebody with great natural talent.

And obviously I'm not talking about things which include human opinions as much, but more of things that deal with concrete facts and understandings.- because opinions can like or dislike things that are good and bad, but whether someone likes or dislikes a drawing of a cat by a talented and skilled artist, both can acknowledge that the drawing is technically well done.

[Dan Uneken]

Hear hear, Kevin! Well put!

[Kevin Lepp]

ok, i just read that link that was posted explaining the movie-

It did explain some stuff- the only thing Im really wondering now is if the writing was bad on purpose, since it was kind of a dream like hollywood- you know- cliche kindof hollywood crap- maybe that was on purpose... i dont know. owell-

Man, it looks like I turned it off right before things got really weird!

But, I really do hope that the reason the writing and dialogue was kind of cheezy was because it was that dream like hollywood.. again, owell. Only Lynch knows i guess.

Next movie.

[Rob Lohman]

Yes, the first 75% of the movie is pretty "normal" (for Lynch' standards),
after that it gets really weird <g>