Yet another pretentious art film.

Rating: Null/10 (6 May 2002)

I went to see this movie on a bet. I was bragging about how much I love movies that are weird, hard to follow, and not quite grounded in reality. A friend told me to go see Mulholland Dr., and then tell her what on earth it was about.
Did I like it? Yes. Could I follow it? For the most part. Was it really worth spending $8 on? Not really. I believe that the fact that this movie was nominated for the Best Director Oscar but nothing else says much more than I ever could on the subject. People don't like it because it's a quality movie. They like it because director David Lynch is "artistic and deep." But "artistic and deep" is just another way of saying incomprehensible. The critics can't understand it, so they call it artistic. The average movie goer, having read the reviews, sees the movie and can't understand it either. So as not to be thought a fool, they say that it's artistic as well. But no one REALLY has a clue what this movie is about, and they aren't supposed to. Mr. Lynch is deliberately obscure, and probably gets a perverse sexual thrill from watching people try to figure it out.
In conclusion, I won't say that this isn't a well-made movie. It is. And I generally like films that are weird and surreal. But I don't like obscurity for obscurity's sake, and movies that are called, "artistic" are generally over-hyped. It's not worth my time to try to figure out what the director wanted to say. And for that reason, I lost the bet.