hmmmmm...

Rating: Null/10 (12 May 2002)

Well... after seeing the film, like many of the reviewers, I was scratching my head as to what it all meant. I thought about this movie afterwards as if I was thinking about the film Memento (which I loved), by trying to put the thrown in the air and scattered pieces of the puzzle together. I thought, and thought, and thought some more, and realized the conclusion. What I came up with was that this film is extremely different from the washed up, cookie cutter Hollywood films of present date. This is not a film for anyone who likes Freddie Prinze, Jr movies, and hopes for an emotional payoff in the end where the boy kisses the girl and everyone lives happily ever after. This film is a dark, and often incoherent trip, that in the end will leave many in the state I am. David Lynch begins the film with (may spoil) a car crash that happens on, you guessed it, Mulholland Dr. Not to give a lot away, the Police eventually come upon this accident and a detective played by Robert Forster comes briefly on to the screen. You would think, as this is one of the opening scenes in the movie, that eventually Forster's character as the sleuth would come about again maybe to help you put the pieces in place (as in the opening credits, you see his name fairly high on the list for someone who has such a small role). This does not happen, and there in lies the paradox. Why would Lynch show us a scene of the Police investigating early in his film and not follow it up some how, as is the obvious fashion in cases similar. The answer is, that David Lynch loves messing with us. You look at the beginning and think of the Maltese Falcon, in the sense that this may be a traditional film noire.(may spoil) You see Rita (Who later get's her name from a traditional Hollywood movie poster, i.e Rita Hayworth) all dressed in black and being taken in a classic looking car by two suit-clad men, whom eventually shove a gun in her face. But it isn't. Lynch loves breaking the mold, and does it here. This is not a traditional film noire by any means; it is one of the most significantly original films in a long time.
Does that mean I'm in love with the movie? Not at all, I frankly hated most of it, and like the Freddie fans, wanted some form of retribution in the main story lines. For all the suspenseful scenes with the real main chracters, Betty and Rita, you get no adequate payoff in the traditional sense. I thought for all the strange and weird occurrences, you would receive the conclusion wrapped up in a pretty pink bow, comprehensively explaining all the external elements and the main story too. You really don't, and are left to figure out your own interpretations of metaphors and symbolism that are by no means blatantly left out for you. So for those "angry intellectuals" who feel that only stupid people who are un-educated in art house film think there is no point to this other than to be original, calm down. I am a huge art house enthusiast, and hope one day (Cross your fingers) to become a filmmaker myself, and I somewhat felt this way. When I said it was `one of the most significantly original films in a long time', it's because that's how I feel about the motive behind it. It's like nothing I have seen from recent Hollywood films, and I admire it for it's distinctive approach at contemporary originality. This can be hard to do. As a whole though, you can't tell me that at some point you weren't wondering when Max Cherry from Cherry Bail Bonds was going to pop back in and shed a little light. 6.8/10