Benutzerrezensionen

I feel it's hypocritical to call a movie a "masterpiece" (which this is), while at the same time slapping it a bit for the very essence of what it is and tries to achieve... but that's what keeps this from being a "10" for me. Because, after watching and then exhaustingly reading about the film (and understanding more about it that way), it's pretty obvious that many/most people won't "get it" fully the first time... and that detracts a little... even though the complexities are what ultimately makes it great. Does that make sense?

It's a Catch-22. You can't KNOW about it before you start... that would ruin the presentation... and yet there's a very legit chance you won't fully understand it either if you go in cold. It needs either a 2nd viewing, or the post-movie research to understand (if you're willing to do that, and even if you DO, you're going to want to watch it again anyway). All the clues are there and it all makes sense, once you know. But it is so intentionally deceptive, it's hard to know what you don't know.

But it's brilliant, artistic, evocative, and clever. It slaps hard at Hollywood and the dream machine, and the disillusionment of aspiration. There is quite simply nothing like it. It has been called "the best film of the 21st Century," and I won't dispute that. But it IS hard to follow and understand and demands more of the viewer than almost any film I've ever seen. So I'd say watch it, draw your own conclusions, read about it, hear what others think and believe... and then watch it again. You will be rewarded

But there is no denying that it is absolute brilliance, and David Lynch's crowning achievement.

10/10

Recently, I read an excerpt from a book by Dennis Lim called "David Lynch: The Man from Another Place." In it, the author mentions how much Lynch despises interpretation of his work. He writes:

"Writing about David Lynch, it can be hard not to hear his voice in your head, protesting the violence being done to his work. 'As soon as you put things in words, no one ever sees the film the same way,' he once told me. 'And that's what I hate, you know. Talking—it's real dangerous.' Not for nothing does "Mulholland Drive," the Lynch movie that has invited the most fervent flurry of explication, end with a word of caution: 'Silencio.'"

This reminded me that 11 years before this edit I had written this very review on IMDb, which contained an interpretation of the film's plot. I've decided to remove all of that. Whether or not you are satisfied with a particular interpretation of the plot should be irrelevant to your enjoyment of the film. I enjoyed it before I had that satisfying interpretation. And I'm hoping that I can clear it from my mind the next time I watch "Mulholland Dr."

I will leave one thing from my original post. A quote by Peter Greenaway. "I would argue that if you want to write narratives, be an author, be a novelist, don't be a film maker. Because I believe film making is so much more exciting in areas which aren't primarily to do with narrative."

This was my first David Lynch film and it left me completely stunned and amazed. You will have to come up with your own interpretation of the movie and that changed my view on movies and art as a whole. Recommended for everyone who wishes to see something truly unique and interesting.

Originally filmed in 1999 as a TV pilot, "Mulholland Dr." was rejected. The next year, David Lynch received money to film new scenes to make the movie suitable to be shown in theaters. He did so - and created one of the greatest, most bizarre and nightmarish films ever made.

The film really doesn't have main characters, but if there were main characters, they would be Betty (Naomi Watts) and Rita (Laura Elena Harring). Betty is a perky blonde who's staying in her aunt's apartment while she auditions for parts in movies. She finds Rita in her aunt's apartment and decides to help her. You see, Rita's lost her memory. She has no clue who she is. She takes her name, Rita, from a "Gilda" poster in the bathroom. So the two set out to discover who Rita really is.

David Lynch has been known for making some weird movies, but this film is the definition of weird. It's bizarre, nightmarish, and absolute indescribable. It's like a dream captured on film. By the 100-minute point, the film has become extremely confusing - but if you've been watching closely, it will make perfect sense. Having watched the movie and then read an article on the Internet pointing out things in the film, I now understand the movie completely.

The acting is very good. Watts is terrific. Justin Theroux is very good as a Hollywood director facing problems with the local mob. The music is excellent. Angelo Badalamenti delivers one of his finest scores. And the directing - hah! David Lynch is as masterful a filmmaker as ever there was.

Is this your type of film? Well, that depends. You should probably view more of Lynch's work before watching this movie. You'll need to be patient with the film, and probably watch it a second time to pick up the many clues Lynch has left throughout the movie. For Lynch fans, this is a dream come true.

"Mulholland Dr." is a masterpiece. It's brilliant, enigmatic, and masterfully filmed. I love it.

Imagine enjoying a world-class symphony orchestra, and just as the music reaches the crescendo of the final movement, the conductor lowers the baton and a cacophony of sound spews forth. This is my impression of Mulholland Drive.

The acting and cinematography are superb. Suspense builds in the first 75% of the movie in a consistent and engrossing manner. But in the end we find the movie devolves into a typically Lynch morass of plot twists and vexatious imagery.

For most people who prefer to watch a movie ONCE and completely "get it", this movie is frustrating and unsatisfying. However, for the viewer who enjoys the challenge, there are sufficient details, clues, and hints dispersed throughout the movie which may be aggregated to piece together a unified interpretation.

If you are a fan of David Lynch, you will probably love this movie. If you are not, you will likely want to avoid it.

I've been trying to wean myself off writing IMDB reviews. But felt I had to respond to the reviews for Mulholland Drive.

"It's an art film and I got it! 10/10!" "It's an art film and I didn't get it! 1/10!"

I'm right in the middle.

It's an art film. I got the bits that it is possible to get. I didn't get the bits it isn't possible to get. 5/10.

The premise is about a car accident that leaves a woman (Laura Harring) with amnesia, who then finds a friend in an actress (the excellent Naomi Watts) who has just arrived in a Hollywood that is full of danger and mystery. But this narrative is only loosely followed.

For nearly 2 hours Lynch leads us on a dreamlike journey through the women's search for truth, with plenty of detours via a film director under pressure (Justin Theroux) and strange, often horrifying characters lurking in the shadows.

And then in the last half an hour the movie flips everything on its head and goes to a completely different place.

And it's this final half hour that is the movie's undoing. It just doesn't tie in well enough with the first part of the film. Certainly you can see the connections, but they don't stand up to scrutiny. There are far too many loose ends. And justifying it by saying it's "surreal art" isn't a good enough excuse.

The real masterpiece would have been a film that tied everything together. Mulholland Drive could have been a spectacular mystery thriller, but instead it hides behind it's artistry.

"twin peaks" and "blue velvet" have always been two of my favourite pieces of film-making, and even though past films by lynch have been slightly disappointing for me they have always been worth watching a number of times. to be pretentious, lynch can be like a good wine - he must be savoured and mulled over. but in the end you must make up your own mind about what you have seen, for lynch never gives you the full answers.

many people will walk out of "mulholland drive" possibly wanting to throttle themselves over the mind-bending visual jigsaw puzzle that has just unfolded before them. but there is a twisted logic to this film, you just have to look for the clues. betty (naomi watts) arrives in hollywood, doe-eyed and in search of stardom. she then finds an amnesiac in her bathroom who has escaped from an attempted murder on mulholland drive. together they try to uncover the secrets behind the amnesiac's life. this all leads to a club called silencio, where a blue box will reveal all. and that is when the film throws everything out the window. people we thought we knew are entirely different people altogether... is it a dream? a reminiscence about life's previous escapades? you will either love this film or hate it. david lynch always draws such extreme reactions from his viewers. but as his universe itself is always about extremes, it is fitting that his films provoke such reactions.

It is best to look at this film thematically, rather than as a straight-forward narrative. and appreciate the fact that lynch is a film-maker who will still let you draw your own conclusions. he has had many imitators as of late, particularly in "vanilla sky", where a mind-bending film decides to give you all the answers in the last rushed five minutes, and you will probably forget about that film as soon as you walk out of the cinema. mulholland drive will haunt you.

Hitchcock would be proud of this movie. Even when nothing happens, it is suspenseful. Director David Lynch overuses a few cheap thrill tricks here and there, but he intersperses them with other cinematographic techniques to keep it from becoming obtuse.

Altogether surreal, this movie is like waking up and remembering most of a dream but not enough to make it sensible. I am still trying to figure it all out and will probably have to see it again to catch things I missed and which may help me understand it better. It is a very detailed plot that very slowly comes together, so you must be patient and pay attention. Get your bathroom trip out of the way before it starts. And yet, the plot is overshadowed by the theme, the mood, the character development, and the filming techniques.

The dual roles of the main actress, Naomi Watts, showcase her enormous talent. That is, when I could get my eyes off of her co-star. What an acting pair.

Lynch surprises throughout the movie with unusual camera angles, the length/timing of editing cuts, jumping back and forth between scenes. Combined with smart use of music and sounds, it all helps to build suspense in our minds, doubtless a major objective of the director. Well, he kept me on the edge of my seat, even had me talking to the actors to be careful here, and not be so naive there. You know, the kind of stuff you want to smack your kids for doing at the movies.

Getting through David Lynch's catalogue and not all of his films have done it for me (or even been watchable for me). Mulholland Drive, though, was a mesmerising experience, which I thoroughly enjoyed. The fantastic third act revelations make rewatching it urgent!

The case history of 'Mulholland Dr.' is known: What should had been another excursion (after 'Twin Peaks') into the rivaled field of TV-series ended up abruptly after completing the pilot. It was too risky and twisted for the producers to venture an investment. Lynch used all the filmed and cut material and started new shootings to finish a completely new feature film. The result: One of the most impressive cinema experiences of this decade which can be ranked among the best works of David Lynch. His earlier movies 'Eraserhead', 'Blue Velvet' or 'Wild at Heart' kept aloof in an irritating way which hustled the viewer into the role of a voyeur, but never involved him as part of the plot happening such as here.

'Mulholland Dr.' is a puzzle where pieces are missing, others obviously were taken from 'Eraserhead' and 'Lost Highway', but it never seemed to be unfinished work. In the internet I came across with a lot of instructions and essays to explain this film. I am aware now that it loses its magic when you try to decipher it completely. All those detailed solution explanations are not only waste but also the questionable attempt to offer an answer where no such thing is completely required. Imagine this scenario: A little child is dissecting his teddy bear to find out where the secret and the specific of that bear lies. Is it because it wants to destroy his toy? Does the secret lie in the teddy bear or actually in the heart of the child? Transferring this to 'Mulholland Dr.' it means innocence is one of the most important conditions to watch and appreciate it.

David Lynch succeeds not only to picture the surface of human behavior life but also to grapple with everything beneath that. Human desires, dreams, obsessions and fears - all that what remains unspoken; emotions that are often repressed. 'Mulholland Dr.' has the intensity calling for a cast that completely takes issue with the substance. Actresses and actors who are ready to follow the visions of the director selflessly.Laura Elena Harring, Naomi Watts, Justin Theroux solve their task in such an impressing way that you wouldn't want or couldn't imagine another cast. While their acting at the beginning seems to be a little superimposed you soon will realize that this stereo typing is set in with a purpose to manipulate the viewer and to baffle him as soon as the red thread of the film is visible.

When you claim the criterion of a well made film in being able to lose yourself and dive into what you see on screen than Lynch succeeded in making a masterpiece. A modern masterpiece that manifest David Lynch's status as one of the most important, creative and courageous directors of the present. Like every film maker who go beyond the limits he is confronted with criticism and ignorance. This will fade as soon as you find the individual key to Lynch's world of films. 'Mulholland Dr.' is more than just a sleeper – it is a must see for everyone who loves ambitious cinema. And besides, the film is a pay-off with Hollywood, in form and content, which in that distinctness was hardly dared before.

Betty Elms (Naomi Watts) is a naive Canadian aspiring actress who arrives in L.A. to stay at her aunt Ruth's Hollywood home while she's away filming in Vancouver. She finds a dark-haired beauty in the shower. She (Laura Elena Harring) has amnesia after a car crash on Mulholland Drive and takes on the name Rita. There's a diner called Winkies. There's director Adam Kesher (Justin Theroux). There's a hit man (Mark Pellegrino) who has a hit that keeps going wrong. Rita remembers the name Diane Selwyn and Betty joins her to find the dead woman.

This film is maddening. David Lynch has created a confusing surreal tale. I'm sure someone has dissected this to make sense of everything. I can't tie the whole movie down. The pairing of Watts and Harring is great. Watts is especially terrific. If this comes with explanations, I may just like this more.

Mulholland Drive ( David Lynch, 2001), one of the most ambiguous films to be unleashed upon contemporary audiences, dare one say "abstract" even. In an era where simplicity is preferred over mystery and intrigue, the average audience member may find such a film angering in all respects. It resembles the classic noir genre, in so much that the infamous street Sunset Boulevard even appears in the movie as an ominous homage to the Billy Wilder film of the same name. Like that 1950 film, this movie's themes and tone is dark, but nowhere near as formulaic, per say. Classic film noir still relied on a certain pattern of events and character niches; the femme fatale, the unsuspecting victim most often our male protagonist and of course the incorruptible detective figure. This narrative method follows the invisible style, making it generally easy to understand. Mulholland Drive breaks many of these rules without a second glance, clarity being at the very bottom of its intentions if at all. Director David Lynch sets this in motion in a number of ways.

The music by Angelo Badalamenti electronic yet menacing, and creates a mood of a near horror-film like aura.

One of the most startling traits of Mulholland Drive is its complete disregard for the traditional Hollywood narrative style. Clarity, it ignores in throughout the movie, as new characters and plot lines are constantly introduced, some not followed up on till much later. The unity is leaves one even more bewilderment. Over an hour into the movie one still has no real idea how all these characters are connected, and certain events and objects even mean. The characters themselves are left to the willful imagination of the audience, as the story progresses it giving off the feeling of a mystery combined with pressing psychological puzzles. The goals of the many characters are very obscure, and the threatening world around them is even more mysterious. As for the style of the story telling, many of the house hold techniques are used: such as the foreshadowing when the ominous stranger, Louise Bonner, warns Naomi Watts of impending "danger". Closure is practically rhetorical in the film and in the same sense as Donnie Darko (Richard Kelly, 2001) most is left to the viewers to discern.

In the same fashion as Sunset Boulevard (Billy Wilder, 1950), one of the focal points of the film appears to be the decadence of Hollywood. The overhead shots of the city are accompanied by surreal, nightmare like music. The top brass of the industry appear inhuman, pompous and over all intimidating. Note the low angle shot of the apparent executive Mr. Roque. We rarely seem, and when we do no other figure is allowed to be in his presence apparently. The portrayal of Hollywood has many homages to the way it was portrayed by Wilder; with the apartments being dirty looking with their drab browns and dirty to look everything. In the daylight scenes, where it can be hard to use low-key lighting without delving into the extreme-gloomy Tim Burton trademark, the cinematographer Peter Deming uses this filthy look to the setting to establish the dark mood. Another particularly hard-hitting aspect would be the loss of innocence. As Naomi Watts rehearses her role with "Rita" (Laura Harring), she delivers the dialogue in an overly-loud cliché manner, but in the rehearsal with the studio heads, she becomes a whole another person it seems. The medium shot of the first rehearsal is replaced in the second one with a sensuous medium close-up, and the excellence of her acting there is fueled by pure unrestrained sexuality. Compared to her naïve depiction up until this scene, one would struggle to connect the two scenes.

This is just a small taste of the complex mystery world Lynch sets up in his cryptic film. Lighting, setting and the way the characters act still are saying something, but the way the plot moves makes it a struggling endeavor to understand. In all its zaniness, one important theme to grasp is the freedom of artistic tactics in film making. From the dawn of Hollywood to this day the general consensus is that everything must be immediately understandable with only one possible interpretation. There is no such rule because the clarity of the movie is unrelated to the art of it. The way the film is edited, credit to Mary Sweeney, plays an undeniable role in the film's perplexing beauty and terror to an extent.

On my fourth viewing I finally felt like I got it - but still I have questions that I know will remain unanswered. Even without understanding anything the first couple of times, I was still enthralled with the artistry and the depth of the characters that Lynch evokes - even characters with only a line or two are striking.

It was only after reading some User Reviews that I started to understand the "plot" - as simple as it is. I'm willing to look past some of Lynch's mannerisms - the mysterious man on the phone in the big empty room, for example - images and scenes that Lynch uses in several films I get it - he's the power pulling the strings.

Or the obligatory theater singing scene. As much as I love Lynch's use of songs - my favorite being the studio scene with the group singing "16 Reasons". That scene alone is worth the price of admission.

On my fourth viewing I began picking up on the ultra-subtle clues that signal "flashback" - lime telling you the first 2/3 of the film is a flashback - did not see that coming.

Still, I have questions. If the first 2/3 is a dream- is all of it a dream? Especially in scenes where Dianne Selwyn/Betty is not in the scene - like the two lowlifes and the comedic bungled shooting/fat lady scenes. Or the parking lot with the hit man and the prostitute. Was that a dream? Or is it narrative background to set up the actual events to later unfold? And what about The Cowboy? In the end It doesn't matter. Dreams don't have to be connected to anything.

Of course we scratch our heads in bafflement at what exactly Mulholland Drive all means, is it parodying the life of Marilyn Monroe or some other tragic actress? Is this a Mobius strip phantasm reflecting parallel dimensions, a rumination on fantasy and broken dreams? And what of the highly unpredictable ending and how much does it represent the protagonist's upbringing or her taking part in a jitterbug contest (???!!). And yes, all these points are all very well, but ultimately despite my admiration that the film has motivated viewers imaginations I am still left with how it has made an impression on me. It's not like I'm a film goer who equates the necessity to 'enjoy' a film in the sense that it should be a fun ride like in a fairground, but I do have a fairly important stipulation that a piece of art should have power. And Ultimately I wasn't completely won over by Mulholland Drive, I felt emotionally disconnected from its fetishism of Hollywood and quite bored with the purposefully ambiguous dialogue/plot. That it should transcend such barriers of quality control just because it's considered great art seems a ludicrous approach to film criticism, and thus I can only conclude that I didn't get Mulholland drive, not for the purposes of it being a surreal, satirical or even its confusing narrative but simply because I thought while it was at times interesting film it was defiantly not the masterpiece I had been lead to believe.

I sat up, I stayed awake and really tried to stay with this highly regarded David Lynch film but in the end, I guess I failed the test. By then, I'd given up all hope that all of his interchanging characters and plot strands would come together and make some sort of sense. Well, maybe they did for some people but not for me.

It starts off with a DePalma shock moment which is then promptly forgotten about as we witness the attempted murder of a glamorous, well-dressed woman who escapes her would-be assassins and takes refuge in a nicely-appointed apartment on Mulholland Drive in L. A. This turns out to be the accommodation of a fresh-faced young actress, whose aunt has let her use the place while the girl tries out for parts. It looks like her luck will be in as we sit in on a casting session where she is being forcibly promoted by the stony-faced representatives of a mysterious man in a wheelchair, much to the chagrin of the film's director whose day goes from bad to worse when he goes home, he thinks, to his loving wife and later encounters a weirdly menacing cowboy.

Meanwhile the actress and her new lodger connect in more ways than one and try to find out the reason for the woman's attempted murder which leads them to the place of a missing woman named Diane Selwyn, who may hold the key to solving the mystery. Only she doesn't and as identities switch and motives change, many of the characters briefly glimpsed in disturbing scenes somewhere near the beginning return to complete the nightmarish confusion I guess was always the director's aim.

Some films you just have to hold up your hands and admit defeat to. I remember in my younger days being taken so far down the road by Lynch's TV series "Twin Peaks" before similarly giving up the ghost before my head exploded. I'll let others try to make better sense of all that was going on in this one because frankly I couldn't.

I'm afraid I've come to the conclusion that Lynchland just isn't a place for me.