Not Lynch's best, but still a good film

Rating: Null/10 (14 January 2003)

Fans of David Lynch's seem to be divided as to which of his films are his best. Most will say "Blue Velvet"; others, "The Straight Story" or "The Elephant Man". Does "Mulholland Drive", Lynch's latest effort, deserve to have that title? No. Does it deserve to be watched, analyzed, and talked over as being one of the most fascinating films in recent years? Sure, why not?
To the average moviegoer (you know, the ones that made "Spider-Man" and "Scooby-Doo" last year's big success stories) "Mulholland Drive" is an incomprehensible film that no one in their right mind would be able to figure out. But to the people who paid attention, it's much, much more than that. David Lynch is practically challenging us, making us think for ourselves, instead of giving us every little detail. That's what makes this film so fun - we want to solve the mystery for ourselves because we want to know what's going on.
It wouldn't be right for me to explain in detail just what the movie is entirely about for two reasons. Number one: every other reviewer, on the User Comments page and on the message board, has done that. Number two: even I'm not completely sure what Lynch's message is. Only he knows that. But, there is one easy way to understanding "Mulholland Drive", and that's using the ten clues Lynch has provided us. It'll definitely take more than one viewing of the film to do that, but it's way more fun than just going to the message board and reading other people's explanations. Sometimes, however, a trip to the message board really helps.
Possible spoilers ahead.
I didn't really use the ten clues to help me when I saw the film for the first time, because I didn't know what I was in for. I knew that there was going to big a big twist two-thirds into the movie, but I was not prepared for what I saw. Lynch pulled a fast one on me. All of a sudden, we find out that the sweet, naive Betty Elms is actually Diane Selwyn, a Hollywood native who's dreams of making it big were crushed somewhere along the way. And the helpless Rita? She's actually Camilla Rhodes, a famous starlet who's been having an affair with Diane. Everything up until the point where Rita opens the blue box may or may not be part of Diane's dream. Nice job, Lynch - you gave us a film about two women on a Nancy Drew-like search for someone's true identity, and then turned that movie upside down to give us one about secret lesbian lovers, a dirty homeless guy behind a fast-food dumpster, a nightclub where everything is "a recording", and some really tiny old people who'd scare the living bejesus out of anyone.
End spoilers.
But, even after all that, the film still remains logical. David Lynch might not tell his stories in the most linear fashion, but they're anything but incoherent. He's putting us to the test. He wants us to get past his trademark Lynchian elements and to construct a conclusion from what little help he provides. Only a director who respects his audience would ever dream of doing something like that. People who hate this movie because they "don't get it" are just too lazy to put some effort into their moviegoing experience.
Again, this might not be Lynch's best ("The Straight Story", IMO, holds that title), but it's worth two hours and twenty-seven minutes of your time to sit back and watch an entertaining film that makes the New York Times crossword puzzle look like "Where's Waldo".
***/**** (three out of four stars)