Review of Mulholland Dr. (1999) by Chris W — 05 Oct 2011

For me, David Lynch is a lot like Stanley Kubrick: both are important, talented directed with high amounts of creativity and strong senses of personal style and vision, why is why descriptive terms such as "Lynchian" or "Kubrickian" exist The greatest strength for each is also their greatest weakness, and this happens to be their Lynchian or Kubrickian-ness. Both do some incredible or fascinating work, and I always have respect for them/their works, even if (mostly/especially) in the case of Lynch, I don't always knwo what the hell to think or if he's truly great or just full of crap or not. In a way, that's kind of the fun of watching his movies...a very maddening, unique kind of fun.

I think I will choose Kubrick more for this reason, but no matter how nuts Lynch's films drive me, I'm always willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because there's always at least one thing going on inhis films that I like, or because we need someone like him, because we need films like his. I don't think I could truly hate a Lynch movie, which is why if you look and see what ratings I've given to his movies, you'll notice I always give them at least a mild pass.

The film can kinda be summed up as a neo-noir mystery thriller, but there's more to it than that. There's some self aware elements and jokes, and I got the idea that this was a satire to an extent of Hollywood and the creative porcess. A main storyline is that of an aspiring axtress helping an amnesiac woman try to find out her identity after a car crash, a crash which it turns out saved her from being murdered. A director character is getting hampered by all sorts of forces, namely shady mob types, and all of this ties into the amnesia story. Truth is, I don't truly know if I know what's going on. All I'm saying is just bits of what I've read others say, as well as some of my own observations. Honestly though, I don't know if I really want to know the truth behind this movie or what the hell really is going on.

No one will ever say that Lynch's films don't have a great sense of mood, tone, and atmosphere, one that's almost always unnevering and distressing to boot. That's kinda why this film works. It has a dark, mysterious charm to it, and it seems like it would not be as effective if a definite answer were reached. It's like the old saying about how the journey is more important than the destination. Don't watch this movie for plot so much as for the experience of just siting through what it has to offer.

I will say that, especially during the first half, the acting and dialogue bothered me. I'm not sure if it was intentional, but it all came off as really bad, stilted, and wooden. It got better, though. Maybe it'll not seem that way on repeated viewings? I do think the performers, especially Watts, had a tough job to do here, and they do pull it off. For me though, the real fun was seeing Billy Ray Cyrus show up briefly as a pool poy and Mark Pellegrino play a wonderfully inept and bungling hit man. There's plenty of subtle humor going on, but these two definitely bring on the more overt (and needed) humor.

If you're new to Lynch, I'm not sure if this is a good place to start, but if you want a wild, surreal, and wonderfully artistic head trip to sit through, do give this one a chance.