2001 / 145 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

After watching “Mulholland Drive” I was left with nothing but questions. This is often the case with exceptionally well constructed films such as “2001: A Space Odyssey”. Unfortunately, more often than not, this turns out to be the case with films that lack a sense of direction or purpose. In the case of “Mulholland Drive” it quickly becomes obvious that it belongs with the constituents of the latter, rather than the former.

“Mulholland Drive” has to be one of the strangest beasts of a movie that I have ever seen, and I don’t mean that in a good way. The first half hour borders on being laughably bad with dialogue that sounds as if it was lifted from the most hapless of soap operas. The next hour is what truly troubled me about the film. Not because it was bad, but because it was so good.

Within that hour it became a richly compelling experience that rivals the best the year 2001 has had to offer. You’ve got a woman with amnesia and her culture shocked roommate of sorts, attempting to piece together the amnesiac’s past, which apparently involves a purse full of money, a wheelchair bound dwarf (No, his name isn’t Gimli.), and a car accident. This is intriguing subject matter that does not disappoint. That is, until the final hour when, in typical Lynch fashion, it turns into a none to subtle mindfuck with absolutely no purpose other than to confuse and alienate its audience. At first it’s not so bad. It makes the viewer question whether what they just saw was a dream sequence, or possibly what they are currently viewing is the inner workings of a jilted lover. This would be all fine and good, but Lynch can’t leave it alone. He has to add a bunch of pomp and circumstance to the proceedings, which does nothing more than distort an already muddy picture.

In writing this review I think I have figured out the meaning behind this film, but I won’t share it so as not to spoil a possible viewing you might choose to undertake in the future. The problem with the meaning that I have interpreted, which I’m sure is incorrect, is that I only used about 80% of the film, whereas for any true meaning to be derived it should be supported 100% by the film’s content. The reason this happens is due to something called David Lynch. He is easily the most pretentious director I have ever come across in my time watching film. Just when things seem to be coming together he throws in a bunch of flashy non-related nonsense that pisses me off when it should be challenging me. This, by the way, is coming from someone who enjoys both flashy filmmaking and mindfuck movies as much as any other form of cinema. I site my love of “Vanilla Sky” as well as all things Brian De Palma as prime examples of this.

It’s a shame that the film was lacking any sense of direction, because the actors truly seemed to be giving it their all. Despite some incredibly flimsy dialogue at the film’s outset Naomi Watts still managed to turn in one of the years more memorable female performances in the role of the culture shocked roommate Betty Elms. She makes every moment come off as being so natural that you even manage to buy some of the ham fisted dialogue, she is forced to utter, as the sort of stuff that a naïve acting hopeful, arriving in Los Angeles for the first time, would say. The other performance of note is that of Lara Harring as the amnesiac woman Rita. She doesn’t manage to offer up the same level of genuineness that her costar does, but she still manages to turn in a finely crafted performance in what is definitely a difficult role to portray.

Now for those questions I mentioned earlier. These really gnawed at me and I feel I should lay them out for you so you know what you will be faced with if you choose to watch this movie despite my reservations about you spending your money in such a silly manner. What now follows is the questions followed by what I last saw regarding it during the film.

1. What was up with the wheelchair bound dwarf?

? All I knew about this guy was that he sat in the middle of a room with, I believe, green carpet, and a glass wall that people, who seemed to have a great deal of respect from him, could speak to him through. Sounds like the sort of thing you’d like to know more about doesn’t it? Well tough, because that’s all the more you ever get to find out.

2. What happened to Robert Forster?

? He shows up as a police investigator at the car crash that opens the movie, utters some awful dialogue and then leaves a minute later and is never seen or heard from again. I think his disappearance supports my theory about the film’s meaning, but still it pissed me off because I wanted to see more of this guy.

3. What was the deal with Dan Hedaya’s eyes?

? A short ways into the movie he shows up as a lawyer/agent of some sort that has a deal to make that apparently cannot be refused. I think it was on behalf of the dwarf, but I can’t be sure. The thing is, for his whopping five minutes of screen time, we get Dan Hedaya staring downward at a table that he pushes papers across. I wanted to know what that was all about, but that was left unresolved as well.

4. Is there something important about espresso that I don’t know about?

? During the same meeting that Hedaya was busy blindly passing offers out at, there is a dude who apparently enjoys a fine espresso. So much so that the people he is meeting with have it made special for him whenever he is around. Problem is, he spits the stuff out on a napkin when he drinks it, which is never a good sign. The film dwells on this long enough that I am forced to ponder the intricacies of a fine espresso. I don’t think there is, but if I’m missing something be sure and let me know.

5. We’ve got lesbians!!! But why?

? I am not complaining about the simultaneous nakedness of two of the most gorgeous creatures to share the screen in some time, but where were the clues, that should have been laced throughout the film, to at least hint that things were going to head in this direction at some point. Two hot chicks are trying to solve a mystery and then all of a sudden they hop in the sack together. Once again, nothing wrong with the nakedness, but it would be nice if it was at least hinted at.

6. What was the significance of the spontaneous Spanish speaking by a lesbian and blue haired gypsy wannabe near the end of the film?

? Out of nowhere we suddenly have “silencio” becoming the word of choice for people far and near, whether they be slumbering lesbians or balcony inhabiting blue haired gypsy wannabes. I am still uncertain of what this nonsense was all about. More than likely it was just Lynch being a megalomaniacal retard again, but I guess that’s open to interpretation.

I’m sure I had other questions after watching this film, but I can’t remember what they were, nor do I care to.

For the majority of its runtime “Mulholland Drive” suffers from ridiculous dialogue and the self righteous meddling of its director. Unfortunately, the film is not a complete piece of crap due to the middle hour that borders on brilliance before falling prey to the convoluted happenstance that plagues the film during its final hour. Lynch is a good director with good ideas. It’s just a shame that he seems to be inept when it comes to bringing a good idea to fruition.

“Mulholland Drive” leaves the viewer with many unresolved questions that frustrate, rather than inspire making it yet another in a long line of films that demonstrate the ineptitude of David Lynch as a filmmaker.

This entry was posted on Friday, October 19th, 2001 at 9:26 pm and is filed under Jason's Reviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.