Mulholland Dr.

Lynch loves to realistically portray logical sequences interspersed by fantasy diversions, which entrances but confuses the viewer. Blue Velvet is his best film, and works well because of its overall logical coherency spiced up by fantastic deviations from the norm (the fantasy element of the film). This technique reminds me of Fellini's 8 1/2, where fantasy was often interspersed with a logical and coherent plot.

Mulholland Drive starts off logically but then gradually abandons logical coherence as dream-like (but realistically presented) sequences are brought into the plot. Then there is a shift in the plot, from the fantasy of the first part, to the reality of the second part where roles and identities are reversed and reality reigns.

Lynch's genius is in his artistic slight of hand where he presents a fantasy scene realistically, sucking the viewer in to expecting a meaningful depiction, then upending these expectations in shocking the viewer with the fantastic elements of the scene. I can imagine Lynch laughing in the background as he plays his joke on the viewer.

The film Holy Motors presents pure fantasy in nonsensical and unrelated sequences, and is bad art. Mulholland Drive has enough organization and structure, with more skillfully accomplished fantasy, to qualify it as good art.

Naomi Watts gives us an outstanding performance - better than the typical "Best Actress" Oscar award winner's performance in the last 20 years. Watts usually gets roles that don't allow her to display her considerable acting skills, but this role does, and she more than meets the challenge.

The plot is secondary for Lynch since cinematic art is his focus. However, the movie is totally baffling unless you have some guidelines. Basically Mulholland drive is the story of a young girl who comes to Hollywood with high hopes of becoming an actress. The film is told in two parts. My interpretation is that the first (Watts as Betty) part is psychotic delusions of the young girl as she reconstructs her past leading up to the promise of a brilliant acting career. This is presented as reality and the viewer has no idea it is false. The shift to the second (Watts as Diane) part shows some shifting of roles, and depicts the true story whereby the young girl fails to become an major actress. Her identity is valid, as Diane, in the second part showing her dismal failure, while Rita of the first delusional part becomes Camilla in the second reality part.

Naomi Watts thus plays two roles with different identities, in part one and in part two. The two parts are cued by the change in her name from the delusional Betty (part I) to the real Diane (part II). In a clever signal of this personality change, the waitress at Winkie's is named Diane when Betty and Rita go to eat there in the first fantasy part, while this same waitress becomes Betty when Watts as Diane goes to Winkie's in the real second part.

The plot shift from fantasy to reality mirrors the high hopes and aspirations as fantasy (Part I as Betty) and dismal failure as reality (Part II as Diane), that happens so often as young would-be performers seek fame in Hollywood but end up as failures.

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.

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.

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.

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!