Mulholland Drive

I saw this last night...Wow. It's an awesome, amazing movie. I hope it gets into multiplexes. It really is a great movie, anyone else here seen it yet? If not, go for it...it's the best movie David Lynch has ever made, and it's one of my favorites of the year.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

i have passes for wednesday im so exited!!!

__________________
"Who comes at 12:00 on a Sunday night to rent Butch Cassady and the Sundance Kid?"
-Hollywood Video rental guy to me

?????????????????????????????? wtf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please explain, if no one posts an explaination dont see this movie. It didnt make ny sense to me. But there is a lesbian scene. I didnt get it and i probably wont sleep tonight because of that.

It's a dream. The entire movie is 100% surreal. That's all the explanation there is for the story.

Basically, if you need a film to make sense, rather than to make you wonder, a just watch, if you need to be hand fed everything (like so many bloody mainstream theatre goers) don't see this film please. They world doesn't need amazing and beautiful films like this to go badly because of the inability to release the need for an explanation, the need for sense.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

well it just kinda pissed me off coming out of the theater, but was she awake when the cowboy came in and said, "wake up"??

Mulholland Drive is living, breathing proof that movies are about emotions. It doesn't need a coherent story and it doesn't need explanations because it engages, challenges, and sweeps away the audience. It appeals to the audience's base instincts and the sense that they're watching a movie, and then it just runs with it. I'd like to hear TWT's opinion on it, I hope he gets a chance to see it.

Nope, haven't seen it, and I don't know if I will. Unlike you, Steve, my parents do like to keep an eye on what I watch, so I may not get a chance. Anywhoo, I don't think there's ever going to be "proof" one way or the other...but there are logical arguments to be made, and the logical argument is that of course being factual and realistic matters...in certain situations.

If you made a movie about a guy named Kris Boyer who ran a site about movies and was a conservative, and portrayed him as a horrible muderer, I'd have every reasonable right in the world to dislike your movie on those grounds, regardless of how good the acting was. Hey, Star Wars is far-fetched...but it's science fiction. It's not based on real life the way, say, "Titanic" is. Just how far does your leniency towards movies depicting real life extend, anyway? If I made a movie about the WTC bombing and depicted those who died as heartless fools who deserved their fate, would you be just fine with it because it was well-acted and "just a movie"?

I think that movies create their own worlds. They exist outside our reality and bring us to different places. When you think about it, "realistic movie" is an oxymoron.

Again, the point of my posts are being missed. If someone made a movie about the world trade center like you said, most likely I would dislike it. But NOT inherently because of its subject matter, I would dislike it because of how it would make me feel. It's the same thing with Titanic. I know intellectually that certain things may not have happened that way, but it doesn't matter because it touched me. That is the entire reason people go to the movies in the first place. Being entertained is being touched emotionally. Being offended is being touched emotionally. Wanting to kill the filmmaker is.......THAT's what movies are about. In the name of feeling, reality is pointless.

In the case of Mulholland Drive, it sidesteps the idea that a movie has to make sense to be entertaining. But it still works, because it still makes you feel something, makes you entertained.


(However, if a movie's "realism" is what touches me, then by all means I'll praise it)

A movie can still be entertaining...surely. "Titanic," although a bit boring at times, was a movie worth watching. However, it need not be a love/hate relationship. You can love one aspect of a movie (the storyline, for example) and hate another (it's flawed portrayal of the events it is based on).

Just like any other movie, the parts that you hate can outweigh the parts that you love. However, the issue of historical accuracy and such is more serious than that of a movie with poor acting. "Titanic" essentially slanderized several sailors. IMO, this makes the flaw of a poor portrayal a more serious matter than the flaw of poor cinematography, or a ridiculous plotline.

These are REAL events being brought to life...and, like it or not, a lot of people are not going to bother to read about how the Titanic sank...they're going to watch the movie, and take a lot of it as either fact, or at least highly grounded in fact. When a director (or whomever) i putting such a display on, in front of the whole world, with the potential to misrepresent a very serious historical event, I do think that it's more than reasonable to try to hold them accountable for their mistakes and over-the-top liberties in the process.

But why is it relevant? That's the question I'm asking. Where does reality end and the world of movies begin? How do I know that there isn't really someone named Carolyn Burnham whose husband is going through a midlife crisis? Carolyn Burnham the character is portrayed as a phony - if this was a real person, would you find fault with the movie? How do we know when to draw the line? Movies exist outside the real world, and when they borrow from it, it's the same thing as Van Gogh painting the Starry Starry Night - it may not look like a real starry night to you, but it looked that way to him. Movies are meant to touch us, not to teach us. If they do both, then more power to them. But emotions come first.

If people are going to the movies to see cold, hard fact, then that's a flaw in their thinking. Why should James Cameron have to hold his audience's hand? Because someone may be offended? Let me ask you all, what if Forrest Gump was a true story? Would you be any more, or less in awe of of how it made you feel? Or would you be questioning the movie's portrayal of LBJ?

No, people should not go for cold hard fact...but it doesn't have to be a textbox to be accurate. Braveheart is the perfect example of a movie that got it right, and still kept it entertaining. James Cameron, when he made "Titanic," simply decided that what really happened was just too boring, so he made up things about real people (to which he ended up paying a settlement to, BTW) to make things more dramatic.

What if Gump was true? Well, for one, I wouldn't believe it. If it was based on a true guy, but highly embellished for effect, it would depend on how the person it was based on felt. If he was okay with it, I might be to...especially considering the movie wouldn't be spreading misinformation about a major event...which "Titanic" has most certainly done.

James Cameron, in short, took a horrible, tragic event, and made things up about it that not only took away the honor displayed by those people, but then turned around and made them into bad guys...in front of tens of millions of people worldwide. To me, that shows a complete lack of respect for the truth. I don't see that movie as Cameron's vision or work of art...I see it as a a butchering of integrity. Like I said before: you don't like it when they have to cut parts of movies out to keep them mainstream, and I don't like it when they have to make things up to keep them interesting/mainstream. It's the same idea: don't compromise the vision, OR the truth, for the sake of commercial success.

Don't you see something truly wrong with misrepresenting a tragic event?

In my mind this was without a doubt in my mind the movie of the year. This movie did not and will not get enough praise. This was actually my 2nd david lynch movie. and with talking to my friends found out that fight club doesn't really count as a david lynch movie, So technically i was a david lynch virgin. When it first came out it was actually playing in my local theatre. It was in the small room that fits about 40 people. When me and my girlfriend walked into the theatre, you could tell that everyone in the threatre was a david lynch fan. just the most randomness crowd i have ever seen. why am i describing this in the review? because it takes all kinds to be a david lynch fan. and you have to be a fan of his to like his movies. the movie was nothing like i have ever seen before. it is a movie about love and being wanting to be loved. The movie is a dream within a dream, whats real and what is fake is the question that you will be asking yourself. It took me 4 days to figure out this movie. Or not really figure out this movie, but figure out the meaning of this movie. I don't want to give away the movie, or give away what i figured out. I want people to figure out the movie on instelf, if you can't figure it out. or you hate it, don't worry, the movie isn't for you. If you like strange movies with lesbian love scenes, this is the movie for you. i can say that if you loved moulin rouge, you would love this movie.

Wah-wah-what?!? How exactly did you come to think David Lynch was involved with Fight Club in any way? Not only does it not "really" count as a David Lynch film, it just plain is not a David Lynch film in any way, shape or form. Fincher is the David you're looking for there.


I liked Mulholland Drive OK, proto-typical Lynch in virtually every way. I can't say I loved it, and I didn't come close to putting it in my personal top ten for the year, but it was an at-times interesting exercise in style and Lynchian visions. Of Lynch's previous work, Mulholland is most like Lost Highway (1997), which is the one Lynch flick that I have absolutely no use for (other than Dune, which hardly counts as his personal vision and sensibility). But while Mulholland Drive is just as ridiculously convoluted, dense, and purposefully without a narrative solution, the nightmare vignettes and cartoon character types are more appealing on some basic level than Lost Highway's. Plus the Hollywood element is always fun for me.

I suppose the best bits of Mullholland Drive are as good as anything in Blue Velvet (1986) or "Twin Peaks" (1990), and the cast was perfect. But as an overall piece, for me it was far short of those high-points in his career.


Truth be told, I think The Elephant Man (1980) is still his most perfect film, a strong narrative that also happened to fit his visionary sense and stylistic approaches perfectly. Blue Velvet and the first season of "Twin Peaks" are still amazing and original works, and Lynch should very much be held in esteem for what he accomplished. The Straight Story (1999) was a wonderful change of pace, and proof that he can be a consumate storyteller without being overwhelmed by style. But the rest of his work seems very clearly to be exercises in style. And not style over substance, but style AS substance. For me personally, a little bit of that goes a long way.

I'd grade Mulholland Drive a B-, but add to that it is a must-see for any David Lynch fan - no doubt about that. While I like and admire much of his filmography, I don't consider myself a Lynch fan, and Mulholland Drive is a perfect example of why.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

He's probably thinking of David Fincher -- an easy mistake to make. Anyway, I don't think this flick ever even made it's way to the theaters around here. Surprise, surprise...it's become quite a trend where I live. Not that I would've necessarily seen it...but the option would've been nice.

This is a very good film IMO. I don't think it's as good as Lynch's Elephant Man or Blue Velvet though. It's still worth a watch.

oh shoot, thts probably why my friend laughed at me when i told him that. i totally forgot that it was the other david. i havn't gotten around to seeing his other flicks, but i know that they are high on my list of movies to see.

Definately one of the better films I've seen recently, I really enjoyed it, but I have no idea why! There were a lot of bits where the audience was giggling not sure what to make out of what was happening on screen, never seen that happen before in a film - was incredibly amusing - specially the fat lady

(definately a lynch fan here)

__________________
henry hill - Disclaimer: This disclaimer disclaims any claims that could be claimed from my post.

See, I'm definatly going to have to go out and watch Lost Highway and such before I see Mulholland Dr.. I haven't seen any Lynch ever, but this is exactly the kind of thing that interests me -- as I said in the director's thread, I can't help but enjoy style and exercises in it....

I wait in anticipation for January 31st!

But it's not just style, its complete absurdity!!!

jokes aren't funny... absurdity is funny, the only thing that got to me was I wanted to see more from some of the charachters...

...but im sititng here remembering the cowboy and giggling to myself...

blue velvet has been re-released in cinemas too with MDr, I might try and see that in full screen...

(how long was apocalypse redux released for? it was only out here for one weekend in selected cinemas)