Mulholland Drive

As a series, it might not be bad. Yet as a standalone film, it rides the wave of films with unreliable narrators, and that perpetual dreamlike atmosphere and the combination of Lynch and his favorite films just makes for a new collage. However, the latent Sapphic themes and the crush on the Paramount gate are elements I’m always interested in. (23/10/2016)

A film about the purity and vulnerability of the human soul, about life’s dreams and the desire to fulfil the expectations that are placed on us. A film about the fear of touching the ideal, about disappointment, desperation and hatred, about the ugliness of the world outside (specifically Hollywood in this case). This film doesn’t have one clear point, there is no “right key” to it. Mulholland Drive is a mosaic of multiple ideas that could have been put across in a much simpler, but not as interesting and compelling way. The number of connections in the film that tell you something depends on your personal experiences and your awareness of their place in your life. A simultaneously cruel and beautiful soap opera. (04/10/2005)

Mulholland Drive is not a film for viewers who need a clearly defined script, who want to know the answers and a clear resolution. On the contrary, it is suitable for all those who like to play, enjoy a mysterious atmosphere, and have a solid dose of imagination. Mulholland Drive is primarily a typically Lynchian play with genres and pop-cultural references, a film with excellent music, great performances, precise editing, and interesting cinematography. A film that turned Naomi Watts into a major star. Overall impression: 95%. Along with the much darker "Lost Highway," it is probably Lynch's best piece. (24/09/2007)

A really tough nut to crack, even the squirrel from Ice Age wouldn't be able to handle it. Lynch plays an unequal game with the viewer and it may not be to everyone's taste. I appreciate Lynch's disregard for sales and going about his business, but I guess the distributors of Mullholland Drive weren't jumping for joy at the $7 million US box office. If I were them, I would announce a competition "Whoever understands this film wins a dinner with Lynch in person". It wouldn't cost them anything because no one would come and they would at least get some interesting advertising. Lynch not only gives no answers (and that's a good thing), but he gives no clues to understanding his visions. He only mumbles, but very skillfully. For the first twenty minutes I had a hard time getting into the action on the screen, but gradually Lynch wrapped me around his finger and I devoured one scene after another. I didn't ask for an explanation, I took the whole thing as a sequence of mini-stories that may or may not have a connection. I enjoyed putting the pieces together, I embraced Lynch's game. And why I’m not giving it five stars then? Because Lynch overdid it with the final half hour. Everything has its limits, even Lynch's riddles and plot twists. I can totally see him having royal fun over all the "what was that about" discussions. Once again he took a shot at the audience and got away with it. And by the way, Naomi Watts is amazing here, acting and visually. (16/03/2004)

A psycho(il)logical and strange picture that is hard to grasp... So, in fact, the type of classic that we are used to getting from Lynch. If it had ended twenty minutes earlier, this would have been maybe the most graspable Lynch movie ever, but at that moment is breaks into the most bizarre movie ever. Lynch on his best film-making (not series-making!) form. (12/05/2012)