Rating: 
Summary: INCREDIBLE AS USUAL
Review: THIS FILM KEPT ME AT THE EDGE OF MY SEAT.I WAS STANDING ON
MY CHAIR AND HAVING LOT'S OF DECAFF COFFEE.
Rating:
Summary: Strange Lynch movie holds up well...
Review: This film oddity from acclaimed director David Lynch is incredibly strange, but very entertaining. It's like watching a strange dream unfold before your eyes. There really isn't any sort of concentration on a plot here. There are devices injected into the film that look like a story, but there is no real direction that the movie takes us. It's enormously hard to follow and nearly impossible to decipher, but the watchability factor makes this flick a definite 5-star. Creepy and very confusing.
Rating: 
Summary: Horrible Movie
Review: I have never heard of this movie when I picked it up at the video store and I'm sorry I ever picked it up. To be honest, it started out pretty good. Then about half way through, BAM! The whole story goes from a smooth ride to straight in the middle of nowhere.When it was over I asked my self,"What the * did I watch"? I still don't understand it. Stay away from this movie. And if you feel you MUST see it, stop it half way through and use your imagination to think of a better ending.
Rating: 
Summary: Worth every jcpenney
Review: I personally enjoyed the movie. Rent it and decide for yourself. I will watch it again with a different mindset this time.Hearing the spanish version of "Crying" was worth it to me.
Rating:
Summary: Should've won the Oscar
Review: I'd seen a few of Lynch's movies before, but this was the first one to really click with me- and click it did, so strongly that I was compelled to go back and revisit the films of his that I earlier dismissed. This is a complex, moving, gorgeously creepy film, and not nearly as impossible to decipher as some people would have you believe. Naomi Watts should've been nominated for an Oscar for her role, and the movie should have won Best Picture. That it didn't isn't much of a surprise, but that shouldn't keep you away. A must for people who like their movies a little off-kilter. (Okay, a _lot_ off-kilter.)
Rating:
Summary: You'll want to watch this one several times
Review: Mulholland Drive was originally filmed as a pilot for a network TV series. When the TV deal fell through, David Lynch went back and filmed some additional footage, then re-edited it into feature-film form. Much of the cinematography is bright and cheery, which is a departure for Lynch. I've pretty much figured out the plot after having watched the film three times, but my interpretation differs a little bit from other people's. There is room for disagreement, as with most of Lynch's work, which is what makes it so fascinating. When you watch this film the second or third time, certain major plot elements will jump out at you which weren't necessarily apparent the first time. Although the critics seemed to like this movie, most of them didn't "get it", presumably because they only viewed it once.
Rating: 
Summary: Let's not lynch Lynch, but.......
Review: I was tempted to give only one star to this film, but the
purely visual beauty of the film is impressive and the
"lesbian" scenes are both tasteful and erotic. However,
that is sllim fare for this disappointing film. Lynch breaks
no new ground, anyone having scene Blue Velvet or
Twin Peaks will spot the lynchisms. The narrative is
non existent and who really cares how many hidden
clues (if any) are to be found upon subsequent viewings.
(this is no Usual Suspects).
The film collapes upon itself, perhaps by design, but
leading to my own attention span collapse. And why
is Robert Forster given star billing when we see him
so little? Oh well....in short, this is a perhaps typical
"aren't I cute" Lynch effort. and yes even the most
literate film viewer might be wasting his/her time here.
Rating: 
Summary: I'm not sure we can call this a movie?!
Review: Mr. Lynch is certainly a talented director, and this film will backup his skills. Yet this film is really just a demonstration of Lynch's directing skills and not really a decent film in its own right...If the script was better than this film would have been an all star, but the story just leaves too many holes. Think about it, if the film was directed in a more conventional way, it wouldn't really get any praises. This is just too artsy, I mean it looks good, but I just don't see any substance backing all the eye candy.
Rating:
Summary: Lynch's best film
Review: This movie was outstanding, I was shocked.I couldn't belie what I was watching.It was very similar to Lost Highway, another great movie.
This movie is so powerfull, strange, human, difficult to understand, wild, cool, hated, loved and beutiful. Of course it took me a while to figure it out, but it was worth it.But I won't tell you the real meaning of the film, but it's something about Hollywood's monster machine and how it create or destroys a whole new person. Betty is this beautiful blonde that moves to Hollywood to become a star.She stays at her aunt's department.There she meets Rita, a strange woman that says that she losted her mind in a car accident, in Mulholland Drive.
That's all I can say. Naomi Watts is so talented, she seems to be a regular actrees at first but you'll see.Laura Harring is an Oscar winner, she's wonderfull.
Justin Theroux was espectacular, his character was anoying and so well done. This movie gave me the chills, that old couple, the monsters behind the cofee shop and the cowboy.Was very scary.
One of the things I loved was the music, God, what a maste'rpiece.Club Silencio's scene touched me, I was almoust crying like Rita and Betty. Mulholland Drive is the best film of the year 2001 and 2002 so far.It's so weird.Lynch's a genius, I love that director.
His way of seeing the world and how he manages to transmit that in a film. Mulholland Drive is a blast!! MULHOLLAND DRIVE(U.S.A/2001)
Rated R
Directed by David Lynch
Starring: Naomi Watts,
Laura Harring, Juatin Theroux
Running time: 145 minutes Final Grade: A+(10)
Rating:
Summary: Tripe for artsy-elitists who like "2 hot girls"
Review: I've read the reviews on here who say that if you want to be "spoon-fed" a plot, this movie isn't for you. And also ones that say if "ya can't follow it, sit back and enjoy the lesbians!" Here's my two-cents.
I couldn't follow it, and I didn't care that I couldn't. I love discussing movies, often for hours afterwards, but this movie did nothing other than make me sigh and go "here's another one that my 'artistically-holier-than-thou' friends will all analyze, and likely wrongly."
All I could picture was David Lynch sitting back and having a chuckle at creating another bizarre movie. Which he has done. I enjoyed the film's visuals (minus, of course, the requisite and completely pointless naked lesbian scenes). I didn't like the characters or the acting one bit.
Can a movie be made featuring a lesbian couple that doesn't throw in the gratuitous naked scenes? Why do directers exploit lesbianism the way they do? David Lynch may be masqerading as a brilliant originalist, but at heart he "digs porn" and caters to a male, voyeuristic audience, complete with two stereotypical porn characters: the blonde, fresh-faced girl-next-door, and the sultry, dark haired vamp. Betty and Veronica, anyone? Perhaps an interesting cliche, but add the lesbian factor and the guarantee that they WILL be naked together at some point, and you've got a perfect recipe to please the schoolboy mentality in 50% of the veiwing audience. PLEASE.
So a part of this audience will sit back, watch this film, and then afterwards chuckle at how mindless some people are for not following its "brilliance." Then, of course, will come the "private reflection" on certain other scenes. Lots of room for claiming to love the deepness of the film when in actuality, I feel it is a shameless exploitation of lesbianism with enough "wacky weirdness" to cover as an "artsy movie."
|
