As everyone tries to figure it out, David Lynch smiles.

Rating: 10/10 (5 December 2001)

After a plethora of surrealistic neo-noirs that went next to nowhere and the great (albeit defanged) story of Alvin Straight, David Lynch has made the film that one gets the feeling he has tried for a decade and a half to get down pat. "Mulholland Drive" takes the flashy imagery of "Lost Highway", the feel of noirs like "Touch of Evil", and the products of his own nightmares and exudes an unruly brilliance.
This film takes place inside a dream, (There is no disputing that since the second shot in the film is a POV shot of someone going to bed) where things such as reflections, reversals, recurring images, childhood fears of the boogeyman, self-idealizations, and images of one's parents are the norm. "Mulholland Drive" is like a textbook of the florae and faunae that reside on the oneiric plain and doesn't resort to psychoanalytical claptrap. For this alone it should be praised.
The performances are wonderful, (Especially Naomi Watts who inhabits both sides Hollywood female ideal) the technical credits are great, and the script, which most would spit upon, does a great job of becoming more and more abstract the more you try to make sense of it. Those who would say it's a bad script are those who would be looking for a story, which Lynch plainly doesn't offer. Blasting "Mulholland Drive for a lack of cohesion would be like blasting a Charlie Chaplin movie for a lack of dialogue.
What I personally find most entertaining about "Mulholland Drive" is nowhere to be found on the screen, but rather in the reactions of those who don't get it. I get the feeling that as he hears the drivel of the poor inhibited souls who bemoan this film for "not making sense," David Lynch smiles at a job well done.
**** out of 4