Mulholland Falls (and why I'm not too bright)

Pen Cap Chew

Pen Cap Chew

Carbonite Member
Hey guys. I just saw Mulholland Falls. Don't laugh, but I bought it because I thought it was a Lynch film. I had no doubt about this. LOL. All through the film I was thinking "I thought this movie was supposed to be weird! Pretty straight-forward story-telling -- when is it going to get freaky!?" Anyway, I liked the film. I thought Nolte did a great job. It wasn't until the next day though that I figured out Lynch's film is "Mulholland Drive, not Mulholland Falls" haha. I'm such a dork. Anyone else confused these two films? I still need to see Mulholland Drive -- I hope it's worth all the trouble. :grin:
 
D'oh! :)

Mulholland Drive is suppose to be one of his best. Haven't seen it, but I think there's a certain scene that might make all your efforts worth it. (wink wink, nudge nudge)
 
Mulholland Drive is really really weird.

Your going to have to watch it a couple of times to fully understand it unless you are very clever.
 
Well, the one commonality between the two is scenes with hot chicks.

I like Drive a lot, but it's hard to beat Blue Velvet.
 
The Lesbian sex scene is the only good part about this film; this film is nothing but one big incoherent mess.

Who like's this crap? Lynch put together one giant mystery and critics say Bravo! (even though we have no idea what just happended).

It's as if someone rearranged the pages in a novel and we're supposed to applaud them for it.

Mullholland Drive is a horrible film.

1 of 5 Hudson Stars
 
Come on John the lesbian sex scene alone should get 3 1/2 stars.

The same kind of people who like The Ring like this movie.
 
Maybe I'm weird, but I thought the Ring was borderline awful and really liked Mulholland Drive, but no it never really added up to anything.
 
I can't imagine anyone who liked The Ring would like Mulholland Drive, that's like saying those who liked Sahara will dig Lawrence of Arabia. Okay, I don't know what I'm talking about as I've never seen Mulholland Drive or Sahara but I like Lynch and The Ring is pretty awful IMO. Mulholland Drive can't be as bad as The Ring, at least not in the same way. I like messed up, confusing films as I'm pretty much messed up and confused myself. :laugh:
 
Mullholland Drive is a great flick. Incoherent? Maybe for those who don't like to think. I haven't seen the movie in a while, but if I remember correctly it starts off with someone losing consciousness on a bed in the first person point of view. Then we enter her dream world.

All of the weird stuff that is happening in the first half of the movie is what Naomi Watts' character is dreaming as she dies. The second half of the movie takes place in the real world. Naomi's a struggling actress who was seduced by Laura Elena Harring's character. She becomes obsessed with Laura, but Laura's had her fun and moving on. Naomi's obsession turns to anger and she hires a hitman to kill Laura. She's losing it mentally and she ends up killing herself.

All of the characters in her dream world are from the real world. Like in most dreams everything's all mixed up and yet there are little bits a reality here and there. With the info you get from the dream world and the real world you should be able to put it together.

Mullholland Drive is a solid film. You might have to think about it a bit, but isn't that a good thing? Much better than the in-your-face, no-thought-needed, sappiness of King Kong.
 
okay. now i have to see this flick. first of all, how can i resist a lesbian scene? well, i cant. secondly, after seeing KING KONG, I am absolutely in love with Naomi Watts. I liked her in THE RING (though i thought that movie sucked) but KING KONG pushed me over the edge.

Ahh, crushes on movie stars. Its so pathetic.
 
Naomi is hot.

And Shiner? Eckk. (I rolled my eyes at your post; not you.) I cannot fathom how anyone likes this film. :huh:

It's not a good mystery thirller that keeps you guessing to the end.

Please don't dumb it down by saying 'It's a film you have to think about...' and then compare that statement to the escapism popcorn of King Kong.

All that approach does is belittle other's opinion's don't you think?

My opinion stands; the film sucked. It's not about thinking; it's about being a really bad film. Zero coherency. Dream sequences ? Non-Linear ? There's a fine line between a surreal and/or abstract approach to filmmkaing and then literally just randomly telling a story.

Like reading Chapter's in order of 11, 17 , 01 , 05, 04, and introducing characters for no reason at all (Apparently they were to hashed out over the series on ABC ? )

This film is'nt about thinking; especailly when filmgoers are required to watch it 2, 3 and 4 times to piece together the mess. I'm sure you picked it all up on the first viewing right Shiner?

----

This is a nice example of how wrong this film is (As found online; not mine):

1. Diane wins the Jitterbug contest. Her family (the old man and old woman) is there and cheers for her. (this is much earlier than any of the rest of the movie. years possibly)

2. Camilla and Diane fool around on the couch (notice the ashtray). Camilla says that they shouldn't do that anymore.

3. Camilla and the director talk and kiss in the car for the movie.

4. Diane gets a phone call and is told to get in the limo. She is dropped of at the bottom of the directors house. The dinner scene occurs in which she finds out that her lover Camilla and the director are getting married.

5. Diane sits in a restaurant with the hit-man and tells him to kill Camilla.

6. Diane returns home and feels guilty.

7. She falls asleep on the pillow.

8. Diane has a long dream. What happens in this dream is coming from guilt and the people surrounding her life. The director who is getting married to her x-lover has a terrible life. Her x-lover loves her again. Diane is an amazing actress and does a great job. The part with the men in the restaurant and the monster is all just a part of the dream. The cowboy has nothing to do with the movie for the most part. He was just seen by Diane at one point and he stuck with her so heÕs in her dream. Her dead aunt shows up. She mixes up names just like everybody often does in dreams. None of this is real. There are many things her dream feeds off of... to many things to try to explain. The dream begins with Camilla (Rita) in the car and ends with the cowboy waking her up. That is all within her dream.

9. A knocking wakes Diane up. It is her neighbor looking for the rest of her belongings. She picks up her ashtray (notice the blue key) and says that there are detectives looking for Diane.

10. While making coffee, Diane thinks she sees Camilla (who she just had killed). Its just a daydream.

11. Diane goes and sits on the couch and stares at the blue key. Someone is knocking (I think that this could be the detectives looking for Diane). The little people are her family representing her conscience. She gets scarred of the knocking and the haunting visions of her loved ones and she runs into her room and shoots herself.

THE END

This is the order in which the movie plays out.

1, 7, credits, 8, 9, 10, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11 end credits

---

How creative.
 
John_Hudson said:
And Shiner? Eckk. (I rolled my eyes at your post; not you.) I cannot fathom how anyone likes this film. :huh:

It's not a good mystery thirller that keeps you guessing to the end.
Click to expand...

There are many reasons to like this film. The acting, the imagery, the fact that it isn't the same ol' Hollywood poo. It's not suppose to be your same ol' good mystery thriller. It's supposed to play like a dream - surreal, random.

John_Hudson said:
Please don't dumb it down by saying 'It's a film you have to think about...' and then compare that statement to the escapism popcorn of King Kong.

All that approach does is belittle other's opinion's don't you think?
Click to expand...

No, not really. At least no more than comments like these:

John_Hudson said:
My opinion stands; the film sucked. It's not about thinking; it's about being a really bad film. Zero coherency. Dream sequences ? Non-Linear ? There's a fine line between a surreal and/or abstract approach to filmmkaing and then literally just randomly telling a story.
Click to expand...

Again, dreams are random, that was what Lynch was going for.

John_Hudson said:
This film is'nt about thinking; especailly when filmgoers are required to watch it 2, 3 and 4 times to piece together the mess. I'm sure you picked it all up on the first viewing right Shiner?
Click to expand...

Actually, yes, for the most part I got it on the first viewing. There were somethings that I picked up on after seeing it again, though.

What's wrong with having to watch something more than once to completely get it? That only makes watching it multiple times more interesting.

The bottom line is this movie worked for me and it didn't work for you. That's fine. If someone trashes a movie you like, you'll defend it by stating your opinion and I'll do the same when someone dumps on a flick I like.

Kumbaya!!!
 
One man's Monet is another's Velvet Dog Painting.

I just cannot buy into the hype in popular culture nor in David Lynch. I either like it or don't because it is good or at best these day's average (State of HoWood). Respectfully, I welcome everyone having differring tastes but from time to time I see people praising what I call pure shite. I can't help but laugh.

I agree this film is like telling someone a really strange dream:

"Hey man! I had this weird dream last night! It had like this dog that was following me and then I died and was someone else and I was flying around the city at night......."

It's about at this point where we tune out the person telling us the dream, right?

Anyway's. I'd rather have debating discussions on film than everyone saying the same thing about the film. Debating, arguing and analyzing is funner. :beer:

---

This is a fun read; and sums a bit up for my outlook:

EBERT: "The less sense it makes, the more we can't stop watching it."

SNIDER: I disagree. Nonsense is fun for a few minutes, but not for 2 1/2 hours.

EBERT: "The movie is hypnotic; we're drawn along as if one thing leads to another -- but nothing leads anywhere."

SNIDER: In other words, it's a bait-and-switch, a frustrating lesson in movie tedium. You put a bunch of intriguing ideas on the screen to pique our interest ... and then intentionally leave them unresolved! Hooray for you, David Lynch, you brilliant, pretentious man, you!

EBERT: "'Mulholland Drive' isn't like 'Memento,' where if you watch it closely enough, you can hope to explain the mystery. There is no explanation. There may not even be a mystery."

SNIDER: And you consider this a selling point, Rog? "Mulholland Drive" isn't like "Memento" because the latter is one of the best films of the year and the former is merely a smug attempt by Lynch to see if people will proclaim him a genius just because they're afraid to admit they didn't get it.

EBERT: It "lingers over what it finds fascinating."

SNIDER: In other words, most scenes drag on too long. I love a lot of David Lynch's work -- the "Twin Peaks" episodes he personally wrote and/or directed are my favorites in that series, for example -- but the guy is self-indulgent to the point of irritation. For crying out loud, if nothing's happening, quit showing it to us.

EBERT: "This movie doesn't feel incomplete because it could never be complete -- closure is not a goal."

SNIDER: Again, you think this is why people SHOULD see it? A movie that doesn't even TRY to mean something, that doesn't even TRY to explain itself, that doesn't even TRY to make sense? Saying, "Closure is not a goal" is like saying, "Coherence is not a goal," or "Satisfying the audience is not a goal," or "Logic is not a goal."

EBERT: "If you require logic, see something else."

SNIDER: O that I could!
 
I'm often in the mood for a velvet dog painting, but not if it's trying to be a Monet (which this movie sounds like it is trying to be).

Does that even make sense?
 
Yes yes yes. Thanks Horse.

I like B Crapola as much as the next person (My horror fetish for example) but when they admit it's crap.

I hate this 'Avant Garde' Emperors New Clothes cinema:

"Ooohhh, Awwwww... It's amazing filmmaking...." :lipsrseal

Whateva
 
(Next time give us a link!)

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2001/10/23/mulholland_drive_analysis/

I read halfway through it and will finish later (Going to bank)

But does this make it okay or good or tolerable?

"Why was the blue montster there?"
Well that was her inner demons.... blah blah blah........

"Why did that one charcter showup and then leave"
Well that was left over footage from the pilot... blah blah blah...

What a mess. Who would have thought poorly structured storylines could be so successful in Howood? Oh wait, their not.

This is why filmmakers like Lynch have cultish followings; like most avant garde or expressionist art. Of course, then we have to hear from the fans how we 'Just dont get it'

Like Jackson Pollock's art; I think it crap. But people swear its deep and meaningful.

There is'nt a person on this board that can't do this

T00384_9.jpg


Box office numbers generally speak voulumes (White Chicks Numbers are an enigma) but M Drives 7,000,000 domestic says it all.

(Is'nt film debate Fun? It's like Film Club) :beer: :cheesy:
 
John_Hudson said:
Yes yes yes. Thanks Horse.

I like B Crapola as much as the next person (My horror fetish for example) but when they admit it's crap.

I hate this 'Avant Garde' Emperors New Clothes cinema:

"Ooohhh, Awwwww... It's amazing filmmaking...." :lipsrseal

Whateva
Click to expand...

Uh oh you didn't really mean Emperor's New Clothes, did you? :) Because it's actually a nice movie.

But, of course, you didn't... I can see your point (the Avantgarde wannabe art crap part that is, not the B Crapola stuff) and I agree. . It's the reason (gonna get jumped on for this, but what the hell) I hate Jarmush :lipsrseal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top