Even the Maria Montez/Jon Hall technicolored baubles of the '40s are eclipsed by "Princess of the Nile," Fox's entry in Hollywood's mid-'50s obsession with things Egyptian (see "Land of the Pharoahs," "Valley of the Kings," etc.) Pure, unadulterated, mindless hokum, lavishly produced (low-budgeted, actually, but using sets and costumes left over from "The Robe," this Technicolored spectacle looks like it cost millions). 71 minutes of eye-candy (the plot, having something to do with nefarious derrings-do in ancient Egypt, is beside the point) offers the cinematographer and audiences the delectable sight of Debra Paget wearing an assortment of see-thru veils, most of which hit the ground when she shakes and shimmies thru a slave-girl production number unparalleled in film history. Female moviegoers were not shortchanged: Fox's handsomest young contract player, Jeffrey Hunter, is as photogenic as Ms. Paget, while Michael Rennie lurks around in the background, stirring up evil doings in the land of the pyramids. For those who might think Paget & Hunter can't act and were only hired for their physical attributes, check out their subtle, overlooked, heartbreaking work together a few years later in "White Feather" (another Fox production that has sadly vanished into the realm of "lost films"). "Princess of the Nile" still stands in a class by itself as a cheerfully mindless, breathlessly fast-paced, dazzling testament to the glories of 3-strip Technicolor--and the seductive charms of Ms. Paget (all of 20 at the time). Put this one-of-a-kind kitsch classic at the top of your "guilty pleasures" list, and enjoy. Satisfaction guaranteed!


For the most part, I only enjoy the kind of movie that allows one to escape the current time into the future or past. This movie is pure escapism. The dancing starts almost immediately, and Debra Paget in her "purple harem" bikini dress simply has no equal in film in my opinion. Her dancing, while sultry, is surpassed by her dance in Fritz Lang's Tiger of Eschnapur, available on DVD, where she played the temple dancer Seetha.

One problem with the movie is the closed setting. There are few outdoor scenes shot, and they as well as other scenes are a bit claustrophobic. The same locations are used over and over again, but with some interesting secret passages and waterways. Her secret double identity is totally unbelievable with beauty of that magnitude. Debra even wields a sabre and holds 2 enemy soldiers at bay on a staircase, she could do it all.

What does work is Debra Paget as a princess. With her beauty, she certainly would be the center of attention anywhere at any time in history. This movie, when hopefully it becomes available on DVD, will be a must buy. Overall, taken with a bit of humor, I loved it.


This is one of my favorite films for many reasons. To begin, there are standout performances from lovely Debra Paget as a princess/dancing girl, from Michael Rennie as the villain, handsome young Jeffrey Hunter investigating crime in her city/state and others. The film is an unusually colorful adventure, and we even see the princess rehearsing the dance she later performs (for once). She manages to skewer Hunter before she learns he is on her side; also the photography, the costumes by Travilla, Lionel Newman's music and the film's style are unusually fine. Add to this rousing action, intelligent characterization and fine direction by veteran Harmon Jones of a Gerald Drayson Adams' script set in 1249 AD, and you have the ingredients of an enjoyable Grecianized Near-Eastern. But there is much to praise about the unusual and well--developed storyline here, as there is much more to praise other than the film's swift pace, well-managed physical action sequences and superior technical aspects. Classically-trained actors such as Michael Ansara, Edgar Barrier, Wally Cassell, Jack Elam and Dona Drake are not commonly found in one "B" film together; nor are there fascinating sets, a variety of locales and a mystery of the quality that is supplied here. One way of assessing a film is, "If I were guaranteed to live through the experience, would I choose to undergo these events and perform these actions?" Since my answer is a resounding "yes" in this case, this film remains one of my choices as a favorite and very-underrated cinematic work. Could it be that US critics' all-too-frequent disdain for females as warriors and thinkers that as in so many other cases has caused closed minds to misprize this estimable film's obvious anti-tyranny and pro-entertainment qualities?


I watched Princess of the Nile for the first time when I was about 10 years old. I am 63 now and have never forgotten the movie. Nor have I gotten over my fascination with Egypt. I have searched the internet trying to buy the movie, but have not been able to locate it. It makes me wonder if this is one of the lost movies in Hollywood. I loved Debra Padget and Jeffrey Hunter together. They have such charisma together. If you were to ask me anything about the movie I could not tell you anything other than who was in it. I vaguely remember a scene by the Nile with Debra Padget a bunch of other women.I have always wanted to see it again. I never thought of it as an escape movie back then, but I can see now where that was probably the case. I do hope they will put it on DVD and I will be able to see it again before I die. It was a wonderful movie.


algernon4's comment that Ms Paget's "ultra lewd dance in (this film) is the most erotic in the history of films" is certainly one doozy of an exaggeration. It isn't even Debra Paget's most erotic dance. Her near nude gyrations in Fritz Lang's "The Indian Tomb" make this number look decidedly tame. As for being the most erotic in the history of dance. Well! Where do I start? Salma Hayek's performance as Santanico Pandemonium in "From Dusk to Dawn" (1996); Jamie Lee Curtis in "True Lies" (1994); Jessica Alba in "Sin City" (2005); Rose McGowan in "Terror Planet" (2007); Sheila Kelley in "Dancing at the Blue Iguana" (2000), blah, blah, blah.

Don't get me wrong. I love the sequence and have included it in my "Cheesecake Dance" series on Youtube. I just think that making a claim like "most erotic in the history of film" is really going out on a very fragile limb.


I saw a test screening of Blurred recently, and I am surprised to say that it was actually pretty good! Its a film about different groups of kids, your hillbillies, your rich snobs, your typical teenage couple, plus two geeky guys and one post hippie babe. Together, but as separate storylines, each group is travelling to the Gold Coast for Schoolies Week. Australia has never had any problems writing comedy and Australia is never short or actors who can play comedy with subtlety and just the right amount on quirkiness. The cast is full of stellar Aussie actors with enormous talent and loads of screen presence. Keep your eyes on Craig Horner, a young graduate, who's optimism for a week long party gets lost in his friends shenanigans. Travis Cotten and Mark Priestly, who successfully tackle some tricky physical comedy as two bummed out bogans and Jessica Gower as a cutie but confused teen angsting about love. Veronika Sywak makes her film debut as every adolescent boys dream girl, and holds her own amongst an array of considerably more experienced performers. Look out for Matthew Newton, cleverly cast as a seedy limo driver. Fantastic Aussie


All i can say is that, i was expecting a wick movie and "Blurred" surprised me on the positive way. Very nice teenager movie. All this kinds of situations are normal on school life so all i can say is that all this reminded me my school times and sometimes it's good to watch this kind of movies, because entertain us and travel us back to those golden years, when we were young. As well, lead us to think better in the way we must understand our children, because in the past we were just like they want to be in the present time.Try this movie and you will be very pleased.At the same time you will have the guarantee that your time have not been wasted.


I thought this movie was brilliant. It was so funny and so true too. A great idea for a movie. Five groups of friends on their way to schoolies. I've got to say that Matt Newton as Mason was probably my favourite character. I wish i could give this movie more than a 10 rating.


Track Listing: 1. Spiderbait - Outta My Head 2. Lash - Take Me Away 3.Lavaland - Everwonder 4. Machine Gun Fellatio - The Girl Of My Dreams(Is Giving Me Nightmares) 5. Butterfly 9 - Growing Pains 6. Grace -Good Thing 7. Katchafire - Giddy Up 8. James - Lick A Lounge 9. K-lee -1+1+1 10. The International Noise Conspiracy - Smash It Up 11. Cartman- Shock (Living With You) 12. Pollyanna - Rebound Girl 13. Filler - Machines Don't Sleep 14. Giants Of Science - Complete This Progression 15. Rocket Science - Hyperspace 16. The Cruel Sea - Three Legged Dog 17. Lazaro's Dog - Home Entertainment System 18. Drag - Secret Design 19. Grinspoon - Chemical Heart (Acoustic Mix) 20. Subware - Come On (Jp Mix)

Loved this movie, sure it wasn't Hollywood material (some people complained about the script/acting) but thats the beauty in Australian movies.


I read most of the comments here were everybody saw only the flaws of the movie. I agree, the director it's not Kuprik, the actors are not Oscar winners, but it has something everyone could relate to. I don't want to spoil but telling more then the plot - the finishing of school and the trip to a big party, or if you like to see beyond the metaphor, is choosing the way trough life. Remember that days of youth? the days when you or our friend acted like the characters? Or do you think you should acted like one of them and now you regret you didn't? if you can go back in to that time and if you can ask yourself any of this questions maybe the movie wasn't so bad.


I must say THIS IS THE BEST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN. i know that on this website it's received only negative reviews, but for once I'd like to be the good person who gives the worlds best movie a good review. i find the movie to be extremely funny, and it has the perfect mix of everything. it makes me feel all sorts of emotions when i watch it, and I can't get enough of it. the soundtracks brilliant. I LOVE IT, i understand why people may not love it as much as I do, but I don't understand how people could hate it. The movie is 100% brilliance. Blurred is amazing. i never realised that Aussie movies could be so good, and i also never realised I could watch one movie, so many times in a single day without getting sick of it. i think that everybody should watch it, whether its to get a feel of what life was like in the younger days, or if its to see what your in for when you reach the end of year 12.


Andreas arrives in a strange city. He doesn't remember where he came from and how he got there. He is ordered to arrive at work, and gets his own apartment in the city. All his co-workers are nice and polite to him, they say hi and smile when they pass by him. But then later on Andreas discovers that the city isn't that pleasant as it seems. Going home from work, he see some people wearing grey suits, cleaning up the bloody mess of a dead body, apparently a suicide victim that had thrown himself out of the window. The procedure is done with a calmed mind, as if they were emptying a trashcan. The following day, Andreas meets the suicide victim fully alive at work. More and more Andreas discovers the feelingless atmosphere of the city.

Den brysomme mannen might be the best norwegian film I've seen. Original, artistic directing is usually missing in norwegian films, with only a few exceptions. The plot is also very original, and could even be called post-modern horror, as the film present us a terrifying thought of having to cope with a world that is completely feelingless. and the more you try to fill your life in this city with a meaning, the more meaningless it becomes. I am fascinated by how the director manages to create the feeling of a disembovled universe, a nightmare, that you simply cannot escape from, not even with death.

go see it, its really worth it! i gave it 9 out of 10.


Imagine a world, in which everyone treats anyone nicely, no foul word is ever uttered, office bickering is nonexistent, and your boss invites the office crowd regularly to self-cooked dinners where you can chat about latest interior design styles. Everything is neat, pleasant - well, just nice. In other words: you are in hell. After being dropped off in the middle of nowhere, mid-thirties Andreas (Trond Fausa Aurvaag) starts a new job as a book-keeper in a small, clean city. From the beginning he feels foreign in this proper, impersonal world of superficial kindness, surrounded by pleasant but lifeless interior architecture and likewise colleagues. Food tastes of nothing, drinks don't get you drunk, no children anywhere; after initial steps of fitting in, Andreas searches for ways to escape the bland new world. He doesn't know where he came from anymore, but still remembers rich tastes, true feelings - anything beyond the non-committal flatline life he's leading now. THE BOTHERSOME MAN resonates ideas of Huxley and Kafka, but here the cruelty is the omnipresent noncommittal neatness. Unlike PLEASANTVILLE this is not about narrow-minded bigotry, more a fable of our urban free-world civilisation of fitting in. It mostly reminds one of the ingenious FIGHT CLUB scene, in which Edward Norton walks through a mock-IKEA catalogue. Spiced with macabre humour, this Scandinavian laconic tale convinces on every level: story, characters, and relevance. A true screen gem. 8/10


I heard an interview with the main actor who said that the film was not intended to be a horror movie but he himself would describe it as mental horror. I strongly subscribe to that.

It is not clear why he travels to this place, but everything there is monotonous, no bright colors, no honest smiles, nothing personal. Everything is ordered and everyone seems to be satisfied living this kind of life. Our "hero" though from the beginning seems to be misplaced and feels it himself.

What makes this film so important and good is the remarkable similarity to life in many large cities or even countries nowadays. You have to function, you are not supposed to let your colleague know your weaknesses, you show off on your wealth, your car, etc., and most of all you lack the true love of life that children have. Naturally, in this film you see neither children nor old people - they simply do not fit in a society of strong workers.

I would recommend this film to everyone - and make sure that this utopia does not come true!


Totally different, with loads of understatement and black comedy, this is a film few get to see, but those who do will remember it. This movie creates its own universe, and is fascinating in every way. What it is about? Estrangement, I believe. Probably up to the viewer, but I found that this movie tries to say something about the coldness and emptiness behind all the designer furniture and perfect facades. Don't know if I'm right. But this movie really got to me. See it. I really hope the team behind this movie makes more movies, and that they will continue to do so in their own, some kinda weird style. And I forgot: The Casting here i superb, with Trond Fausa Aurvåg being perfect in the role as the Bothersome Man, who doesn't understand where he is, what he is doing and why. The acknowledgment of not understanding the purpose of life (in the city), is what makes him bothersome. All the others do as they are told, and pretend (?) to be happy. This movie is a good and humorous comment on life in 2006.


I think this is the best Norwegian movie I've ever seen. It's about 40-year old Andreas who gets hit by a subway-train, and suddenly finds himself in a strange city, however, everything here has been made ready for him. He has got a job, a house and clothes. At first, this city seems perfect, no death, no pain and no problems. Everywhere there are men in gray suits who cleans up and fixes everything that doesn't fit into their definition of perfect. However Andreas can't really seem to fit in and starts to long back to his old world, and tries with all means to get back.

The thing that impresses my the most in this movie is how they way of making the city seem so surrealistic, even though I have seen a lot of these places in real life they seem so distant. Another thing that contributes greatly to the is the performance from the actors. Trond Fausa Aurvaag is just the perfect guy to play the confused and bothersome Andreas. And all the other characters are also doing a great job by playing apathetic (sounds like a hard job, doesn't it?). The strong difference between Andreas and the others leads to very amusing situations as well.

All in all, this is a fabulous movie. The plot may be a little confusing, but the movie has such a great atmosphere I would recommend that everyone should go see it.

And I wouldn't recommend listening to "ccscd212", as it seems he has seen too many commercial American movies and seems to have became too used to just getting served the moral on a silver plate. The way I see it there is not much in this film that tries to tell us about suicide being right or wrong. I consider it more of a warning of a direction our society seems to be taking. But sure, everyone can see a film in their own way.


What we have here is a film perfect for anyone that participates in the world of post-industrialism: those who sit in their privatized home, earning money by buying and selling sensual-less commodities and perpetuating a system that values little other than the preservation of self.

The beautiful filming (I always appreciate fix 35s and soft boxes) makes it an even stranger place to travel through, both enjoyable to look at but frightening to comprehend (perhaps that's overly dramatic, but its true).

Andreas' journey through his hell is overwhelmingly tragic. His quest is honorable, laudable, and precious. The conclusion is necessary and we are left not sure if he's better off, which is the perfect conclusion.

Breve! Highly recommended to all people who view their world with a critical eye and especially to those who don't (perhaps it will encourage a reflection or two).


One of the best films I've seen in a long time, precise in its vision, and beautiful and highly imaginative in its realization. I can't say much without giving it away, and I don't recommend you actually read that much about this movie before seeing--just see it.

But ah, one must come up with ten lines of text to have a review listed on IMDb. Conundrum. What can I do? Tell you about the film? Nope. Can't do it. I think I enjoyed this movie precisely because saw it with no preconceptions. Please you do the same.

I suppose this can be said: the acting is excellent and understated, and what I have come to love about foreign movies is that the movies are actually about the MOVIES, not the stars.


Andreas arrives in a strange, inhuman place, where everything seems perfect. He's given a good work, everyone is kind to him and to everyone, and he really doesn't trouble too much even in finding a beautiful girlfriend. But in this no-named city Andreas finds soon that a perfect commercials-type world is really not a paradise. Really one of the better movies i've seen this year. The attractive plot is perfectly supported by a smart direction where every single component (cool desaturated photography; cold symmetrical design; unemotional acting; slow, highly controlled camera movements) helps in building an unique weird atmosphere that will keep the audience suspended until the end. A sarcastic, ironic, bitter comedy that made me laugh ant think, as only best films are able to do. Nothing new, probably, in the analysis of the modern de-humanizer civilization, but really a smart work with great surprising ideas that will hardly be forgotten from whom had the luck to see it. Simply beautiful the amazing scene in the metro underground.


I saw this movie yesterday and can't stop thinking about it. I moved to Norway four months ago, and have tried ever since to find the origin of the strange emptiness i felt. When I saw this film I was striken with the brilliant snapshot of this society. Yes, this is all true!!! I too found a great job with a great pay, and I live with my norwegian boyfriend in a nice apartment downtown. But, so far everyone I have met have left me with that tasteless, empty feeling I had never had before - this is what this movie is about. Dinner parties with nothing to say to each other but emotionless comments, long silences, no stress, a creepy calm, and frozen smiles of niceness. This Scandinavian nightmare is perfectly rendered in Den Brysomme mannen. See this movie!!!


I believe there are two angles to the story, first, it's the world satyric view, presented in an obvious Kafkaesque manner, underlining the sordid spectacle behind some of life's most common, but also pleasant, or comfortable moments and elements, which are usually enough to keep man functioning in society. Like: a good job, a good home, a good wife, a good car, and even a good mistress. Apart from this so called common bliss, there are some, who cannot help asking themselves some more uncomfortable questions, like, where they come from, or weather they can have some other form of bliss, weather there could be a reason for them being or weather there could be something they missed out on, or, even more sinister, weather there could be something the system itself is withholding from them.

Second, the most interesting aspect of this film, I believe, is the fact that it attacks head-on this natural compulsion to dissect the world around us, questioning it by our personal judgment, and usually condemning it because it doesn't serve us better, because it's not tailor-made to suit us as a person.

The symbolism behind the train-accident, I believe suggests that our own will can be overpowered by fate or some other universal greater power, even in the face of our so called power to decide when we want out. Instead the man gets to be dismissed by this greater power(let's call it THE SYSTEM, because the authors clearly avoid calling it GOD, perhaps further underlining that the SYSTEM is MAN - made and therefore can be mastered by man, unlike FATE, which is a concept closer to religion) on it's own terms, not by killing him, but by showing him that there is a place for the man who asks/wants too much, suggesting maybe, that true fulfillment does not come from the outside world, but from within, and if the outside world "decides" to provide you with some comfort, you should learn to accept it, without questioning the fabric of every little aspect of it.

Unconfortable, but makes you reevaluate some existential questions which have become mainstream in the last century, like what can man do in a world increasingly drained of substance, a consumer-driven world in which man can be interchanged without making a difference to the bigger picture, but only as long as he is of some use to the system.


At first sight The Bothersome Man seems like several other movies/books rolled into one. Kafka's The Trial, Melville's Bartleby, The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin and Groundhog Day instantly spring to mind. A man, Andreas, arrives in a nameless city where he is immediately given a job in an office and finds a beautiful new girlfriend. However, there's a catch: his colleagues are all friendly, bland and utterly characterless, and everyone he knows, including his girlfriend, seems to have only one topic of conversation -interior design. Welcome to the hell of modern consumerism, in which people throw themselves from buildings and no one raises an eyebrow, or spend their days reading furniture catalogues and eating food that tastes of nothing.

Andreas quickly realises his predicament and spends the rest of the film trying to escape, in various ways. Suicide turns out not to be an option, and when he finds a new girlfriend she is just as bereft of feelings as the old one - there is a wonderful scene in a restaurant where he asks her to move in with him and all she can say is, 'I don't mind'.

In fact, much of what The Bothersome Man has to say has been said before, and after about 45 minutes you begin to feel that you indeed are experiencing a certain sense of deja vu. Yet its point is one that is probably worth repeating, over and over again: an unexamined life is one that is not worth living. Added to which, it provides a decidedly modern take on the perennial theme of how capitalism is destroying our souls. More than one character reminded me of people I've known, especially his furniture-obsessed girlfriend, and if by the end of the film the film-makers have run out of ideas, maybe that's the point - there will no end unless you can find other people who share your sense of alienation.


As you may know Norway is the most developed country in the world (regarding to HDI; Human Development Index). This film craftily reveal our future to us. Our future would be that of Norway since we are all paddling to achieve the best and offer the least. The life that was shown was maybe an exaggeration, yet comparing today's concerns with those of our ancestors it is not far-from-reality reasoning.

Watching this film free from all of our pre-assumptions, we can find both of our faces; the one that is laughing at the brilliant scene of Andreas dumping her girlfriend and the one that is searching through magazines hours and hours to choose some stupid chair among stupid collections.

The idea of the hole with the hope of lightness was another magnificent idea of the film. The slight glory; yet the only one, and the effort that was put to reach it makes us feel closer to Andreas.

Although I was attracted mostly to the idea and production of the film, Trond Fausa Aurvaag played pretty well and the atmosphere of the film was quite matchable.


Where the heck is Andreas(Trond Fausa Aurvaag), exactly? Heaven? Hell? A parallel universe? When the bothersome man steps off the subway platform and meets an onrushing train, his next conscious moment occurs on a bus; riding solo, the newest arrival, in a dead netherworld where all the suicides go. Dressed as he was at the time of his sudden departure from the corporeal biosphere, Andreas is greeted by an official man, who processes and transports the bothersome man from the barren flatlands to a city, if the eyeballs work, is a dead ringer for the sort of urban landscapes that he once inhabited, if memory serves him right. Andreas retains the look of a sleepwalker in a trance, a man estranged from people and objects, struggling to find his bearings; at home, or rather, his assigned apartment; or at work, where the bothersome man is randomly designated as an accountant for an independent contractor. Havard(Johannes Joner), his boss, tells him, "You'll get used to it," which covers more than just crunching numbers, we suspect, in this world, same as the old world.

If life is meaningless, like French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Satre said, the same can be said for death, as well. The subculture of office life might be heaven for one man, but it looks like hell to us, under the context that "Den Brysomme Mannen" operates on. To work in the afterlife, in essence, is to work for the rest of your life. The social intercourse among Andreas' office mates may pass as normal in the physical world, but death is a variable that creates estrangement in the viewer, as he/she now recognizes the drudgery of white-collar labor performed by white-collar laborers, who kill the hours with their inconsequential small-talk and designated jobs they perform during the course of a day like automotons, each and every day, seem irrational in its self-evident absurdity. To see daily life replicated in a speculative light, "Den Brysomme mannen" makes normal human interaction look like deadpan comedy, as quotidian life becomes a performance, which transforms Karl Marx's meaning of the word "alienation", because here, the men and women in the office, "do" identify with their labor, like actors in a play who conspire to make their fictionalized selves appear real. But the bothersome man never fully participates in the facade. He's always aware of the cracks.

From a wooden bench, Andreas witnesses the aftermath of a jumper, who impales himself on an iron fence while people on their lunch breaks walk on by, indifferent to his escaping intestines that create red splatters on the clean sidewalk. Andreas faces the same impassivity from his own co-workers after he purposely cuts off his own finger, with the hope that he'll feel the pain, on a paper slicer. He doesn't. It's just another sensation, in addition to being able to taste and smell that's lost to the bothersome man. This inability of being able to take solace in the simple pleasures, amplifies the bothersome man's need for love,where simple pleasures compensated for his loneliness in the physical world. At a dinner party, hosted by his boss, Andreas meets Anne Britt(Petonella Barker). They hit it off. He walks her home. She invites him in. They become a couple. He moves in. When they have sex, however, it's good for neither Andreas, nor Anne, who seems to get more pleasure out of interior design. Love is an abstract concept, another sensation that's unattainable in this world, but love matters to the bothersome man, so he tries again with Ingeborg(Birgette Lagen), a girl from work. "Den Brysomme mannen" deconstructs love by presenting its foundation as a series of gestures that require performances from both the man and woman. When Ingeborg doesn't elicit the same tender feelings for Andreas after his hyper-romantic gesture of leaving Anne Britt for her, this Norwegian film reveals its secrets about the prosaic, but odd city, with an open-endedness that's solvable, and offer up multiple interpretations.

Wounded by Ingeborg's apathy towards his avowal of love for her, the bothersome man wanders into the same subway station, stands at the same platform, leers at the same couple aggressively making out, and jumps. This time, he can't die. How can you die when you're already dead? Hit repeatedly by train after train, Andreas' face turns into ground beef; his body contorts in angles previously seen only seen in art. When the bothersome man realizes that love and death are out of his grasp, he seeks out the man from the club, who was willing to say what goes unsaid in this city of the walking dead. Which is: death, not life, has no meaning.

Getting to the bottom of the mystery behind Andreas' whereabouts drives the narrative, and to the filmmaker's credit, this enigma is satisfactorily addressed, in a scene that recalls Spike Jonze's "Being John Malkovich", when Andreas crawls through a tunnel in order to cross over into another world, like a newborn baby, which resembles the portal to Malkovich's brain that Craig Schwartz charges people to crawl through. Andreas' attempt to traverse the great divide presents a beguiling paradox. Since heaven and earth are literally separated by a wall, this vulnerable boundary acts as a perfect encapsulation of the atheistic belief that "heaven is a place on Earth". But at the same time, heaven is proved by the reality of a hell; the place that Andreas is sent to after being banished from the city of his destination.


It would seem we should acknowledge Scandinavian cinema for more than merely the Dogma 1995 movement as cooked up by the Danish all those years ago. Den Brysomme Mannen, or The Bothersome Man in English, is a surreal and deeply thought through film yet deeply entertaining and rich in content both on and under the surface. As a film alone, it is a scathing comedy on society and attitudes in the post-modern world we live in; a world that judging by The Bothersome Man has reached the regions of Norway and the like. But along with this black comedy feel to it, it would seem the film delves a little deeper and raises issues, at least to me, of metaphorical religious spaces and our human instinct to want to uncover the truth amongst so much material in our world that perhaps seems alien to us.

This was, in truth, a fantastic introduction to contemporary Norwegian cinema for me. The film very much falls into that category of the European art cannon with its deep themes and ambiguity shrouded atmosphere whilst maintaining an open finale and not so much a narrative as a procession of events that may mean one thing or another. So many times we've seen films that use the set up The Bothersome Man adopts and so many times it's turned into a close to predictable routine revolving around a detective story or a chase story or something along those lines but this film allows its setting and situation to act as a mere backdrop for its protagonist, named Andreas (Fausa Aurvaag), to explore who he is; where he is and what the possible mysteries behind this location really are.

The set up I'm talking about involves said hero arriving at a location with no prior memory or what happened before this. I'll jump right in and say it's in my opinion he's dead and has been sent to some sort of purgatory, as have all the city's inhabitants. Everybody in the city that Andreas mixes with are of the same age; same mentality and same attitude suggesting to me that most of them are victims of their own suicide and have been sent to a purgatory devoid of any emotion, feeling, colour or most importantly, pain.

When we first see Andreas, he gets off a bus which he later discovers is uncanny in its abilities, and approaches a petrol station in the middle of rural nowhere. He is scruffy and has a huge beard but soon he will be the opposite, sporting a suit and tie; clean shaven face and a home of his own complete with new job in which the film makes one of the best transforming shifts between the rural and the urban that I've ever seen. But the new job as well as the new city is uneasy; you can take breaks whenever you like; bosses are unusually kind and there just seems to be no emotion or reaction to anything. These ideas are best put across in a cinema when Andreas, still a relative newbie to the city, is crying and is clearly affected by a film on show but everyone else watches in stone faced style. There is also the initial example when one man has jumped from a window and lies impaled on some spikes but everybody walks on by without fuss.

To back up my idea on everyone already being dead and the city acting as a sort of purgatory, death and harm in general is impossible. There is a particularly nasty scene involving an electronic paper guillotine and someone's thumb, but everyone's reaction to the event is stone faced and it grows back within the hour. Similarly, a suicide attempt involving trains later on comes to nothing and instead we get the point of view regarding what it's like to be dragged down tube tracks with invulnerability on your side. The city acts as a barrier, a painless society in which the masochistic need to self-harm oneself is impossible; a place in which sexual relations can occur and break-ups equally so but both under emotion-less and passion-less circumstances; a place in which people can attempt suicide but it is impossible to actually die. The city adopts these powers because the damage has already been done in 'real life' and thus, the film says you cannot kill yourself twice, indeed you cannot feel pain or emotion in an afterlife of purgatory.

But the film's best part is the one that sneaks up on you. Judging by the closing five minutes of the film and the side-story that opens up involving some music coming from another man's house, it would seem there is a fine line between the spaces the film dictates as 'heaven' and 'hell'. We get to see these spaces only very, very briefly  so briefly that they consist of a single shot. The 'heaven' is a colourful kitchen with music and children playing: it offers life, hope, emotion and happiness whereas the hell is a snowy nowhere which haunts you thanks to its hopeless build up and eerie cut off point. The introduction of these two spaces at the very end of the film suddenly informs you of the reality Andreas and co. faced: purgatory and everything that came with it, the afterlife just was not ready for Andreas and his freethinking, adventurous mind  and look where the thinkers end up.


Den Brysomme Mannen is one of the better films of all time and is about a man trapped in a world where there are no senses, no feelings, no Love, no Truth and definitely no Freedom. A world where people become afraid when someone speaks their mind, expresses himself or show affection, a world where no one is Free and no one has any idea what the Meaning of any of this is. Just like the world we live in, the world in Den Brysomme Mannen is a world of lost souls trying to become fulfilled but focus on the complete opposite of what fulfills them, materialism, social acceptance and mediocre satisfactions.

Den Brysomme Mannen deserves full attention by every human soul, because we could all use a fresh Wake Up call.


A bus drops off a nameless man outside a run-down Standard Oil gas station in the middle of nowhere. We never learn where the bus came from, or why he is on it, or who he even is. Why is he the only passenger? Is he a prisoner? Is he the "bothersome man" referred to in the title of the movie? Has he died and gone to heaven, or hell? Like our man, we don't get a chance to stop and wonder. He is met by a gatekeeper of sorts and shuttled off to a nondescript city. From day one, all the choices are made for him. An apartment has been rented, a job has been found, an office assigned. In fact, his life is not entirely unlike life in the virtual reality of corporate cubicles and suburban condos. Women are heartless, dinner parties are a drag, office jobs suck. But some pieces don't fit the puzzle. Silently efficient, gray-clad goons roam the streets. Are they some sort of paramedics, or the secret police? And why are there no children? Is the story even set in the real world? Whenever we think we might be getting some answers, new mysteries unfold. "The Bothersome Man" leaves you half relieved that it's over, half wanting more. I hope they make it into a computer game soon.


The Bothersome Man is one of the best foreign films I have ever seen. All the technical aspects are, in my opinion, perfect (lighting, acting, directing, pacing, etc). The STORY is breathtaking.

Seemingly beyond death, our main character finds himself inhabiting a world without beauty, passion or anything remotely pleasing to the human senses. His work is cold and uninteresting; his relationships are numb and uninspiring, and when it all becomes too much, he seeks to end it in front of a train. But it doesn't end - he can not leave this strange world by suicide! Working his way back to a man who seemed to be feeling he same isolation and loneliness, our main character joins him in excavating a stone wall in hopes of revealing the source of a strange and wonderful smell and music. Just as they break through - and I will not reveal THAT much, it all comes to an end and the movie ends as oddly as it began.

Suffice it to say you will either love this movie or hate it. I feel that it is like a magical poem - open to many different interpretations and all of them as valid as the next. If you enjoy new experiences in film and want to be taken away from Hollywood's crap-feast, try this movie!

9/10 (and I don't rate easily!) because in spite of its darkness, this movie left me with a sense of something greater...something mysterious and beyond ourselves. Well done!


This Norwegian film starts with a man jumping over the subway, apparently committing suicide. But the next scene shows him arriving in a lonely bus into a desert. He meets a man, and is shipped off to a mysterious city, where he starts working in an aseptic modern office as an accountant. The coworkers seem nice, if guarded, he soon meets a girlfriend, yet the city seems utterly strange, as food has no taste, alcohol doesn't make you drunk, and there's nary a children around. Is this a dream, or is he in paradise, or in hell?. While at times, the films looks as extended episode of The Twilight Zone (even at ninety minutes, the movie seems a bit long), it is quite thought provoking. The best scenes are those in which the exaggeration is minimal, as when the people engage in banal conversations about interior decoration, and recoil at discussing deeper issues. I always thought there was something inhuman in advanced capitalist societies, in the way they try to repress the basic urges of human nature. And this movie is best when it devastatingly critiques this life style. Unfortunately, the movie ends up a big long, and the director doesn't seem to know how to end it, but most for of the running time this is very much worth seeing.


What a great movie this was. Is it heaven? hell? or something in between? I disagree with many reviews of this movie saying that this is a depiction of hell. It is not even clear if the opening scene starts the movie or is a flashback from the end. Further, it is not clear that the main character goes to hell, but perhaps someplace in between. The review I read on IMDb says this is hell, but I disagree whole-heartedly. Take into consideration that perhaps good people who commit suicide may not be condemned to hell...this only one religious belief. This is indeed a thinker, and I have/would recommend it to anyone who likes that type of movie. Definitely worth it!


first real movie in this year. amazing long shots, sometimes with fix camera, so specific for Nordic cinema (let aside Dogma). A true auteur film I find it. Athmospherique :-) It simply delighted all my senses and keep in mind how the image goes violent and painful during the scenes when he's trying to kill himself. That's the point I don't think it stands up in the whole plot. Why, if this was an ideal world, couldn't you die but still you were keeping your conscience ? Either was the real world with "tailored" rules or was a "fantastic" world but in this case no accidents like people remembering how it was before can happen.

It reminded me of Kafka and maybe more, of Huxley's Brave New World, especially in that part where sex was actually available to everyone, since it was viewed like a right to pleasure. It lacked a plot but I think it was better like this, since you realized and sensed the whole strange behavior of everyone, the absurdity and the lack of real sensations in this "happy" world.

I think also that the end was brilliant. true world is indeed a homo homini lupus, you're eaten if you are not strong enough.


Synopsis: Andreas (Trond Fausa Aurvaag) finds himself alone on a coach, getting dropped off on a desert land, at what seems the last stop of his journey. He doesn't know how he arrived there, but a welcome sign has been erected for him. After momentarily pondering his whereabouts, he is greeted by a man who takes him to his new life. He then enters a world different to the one he came from.

As Andreas is quickly introduced to his new job as an accountant, he senses that his surroundings are a bit too uniformed for his liking. As he takes his first lunch break, he instantly notices that everyone in the city walks around in grey suits. On this same day, he sees a fellow businessman dead on some fencing spikes, of what looks like an act of suicide. The strange thing is, the city folk pay no attention to this horrific act and walk on by as if it never happened. It is quick to see that these people are genetically desensitised, and their ability to distinguish between anything humane or inhumane is absent.

To help Andreas settle in, he is invited to go out with his co-workers to a local nightclub. The club appears to be one step away from becoming as exciting as a bingo night..and as Andreas drinks his sorrows aways, he realises that no matter how much he drinks, the alcohol has no effect on him. As he tells these observances to a stranger in the men's room, a man in a toilet cubicle starts to utter words which have been on Andreas' mind all along. Realising that this man is thinking what he is, he follows him to his house, and notes where he lives for future reference. The plot predictably evolves with Andreas wanting an escape. He seeks out the man he once followed...hoping that he could lead him to becoming human again...but is it too late?

My thoughts: This norwegian film is something which everyone should see, as it holds the answer to the big question! What is the meaning of life? (well, close enough). The film sketches out the dark realities of what has become of today's working man (or woman). It's sole purpose is making people realise that life is too short to be materialistic. It tries to show that small cliché things, such as the sound of children playing, should not be taken for granted, because the moment you stop hearing that sound, is the moment you're one step away from becoming a robot. The ending of the film reiterates what happens when its too late to escape the mundane routine you've now become used to. You start to adopt the saying of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it', and become too comfortable to take a risk of change.

Even though this film is not to be taken as a piece of realism...its message is more than real. The lack of empathy conveyed in the film, and that of which Andreas sees, is a bold statement of what life can become. The director, Jens Lien has put together a film, which in any other director's hands would have failed. This is a fine piece of cinematic genius, and i eagerly await to see what he does next.

The lead role, played by Trond Fausa Aurvaag is perfectly cast. Representing the average Joe, Trond provides a good catalyst in making this picture darkly humorous. The supporting actors also do an apt job, and for some reason, i feel that Keanu Reeves would have been perfect in this film, as most of the supporting cast required their acting to be emotionless.

The score for this film was beautifully composed. The recurring theme was always a delight to listen to, and it provided a very sombre but welcomed feel to the movie.

Set for a release date in the UK for 25th May 2007, i will definitely be going to re-live this experience on the big screen. This film has gained its way in my top 10...now quickly becoming my top 20! It has some shocking scenes, and is darkly humorous throughout...A MUST -SEE!!


The Bothersome Man is a smart, surreal movie that makes you reevaluate what you're doing with your life and what makes you tick. When you see these people in zombie like trances doing everyday events and realize that's what we do and what we want in real life it really hits close to home. This is a surprisingly effective movie that at the end leaves you asking questions about your direction and not so much the movie.

Andreas is the main character whose life we get a 3rd person view of as he tries to adapt to a new life after being relocated. In the beginning he seems to be the most popular guy in town as everyone at work caters to him and he's invited to dinners etc. A good example of this is in the scene with his new boss who offers him an envelope of an unspecified amount of cash saying "here's a little something to get you started". Andreas even gets a girlfriend 20 minutes into the movie, which he eventually moves in with. This seems like an ideal living situation as his girlfriend is an established interior designer, attractive, and doesn't ever nag about anything he does. But Andreas is unfulfilled with their relationship as with everything else in this world. He then begins an affair with a coworker named Ingeborg who he eventually leaves Anne for and claims he is in love with. After telling Ingeborg how he feels she tells him that she is also seeing other coworkers and says all of the relationships are "nice". Soon after we see Andreas at a train station where he tries to end his misery and to the audience's disappointment doesn't come about. Still looking for salvation Andreas meets Hugo who has found a hole which music can be heard coming out of. So they embark on a mission to get to the other side, will it be better or will it be worse?

"The Bothersome Man" shows us society's obsession with appearances and its materialistic mindset. It does a great job making fun of us by filling homes with IKEA products that the characters spend each lunch picking out. I think he is mostly poking fun at the dull Scandinavian society and its high suicide rates. For example there is a scene in the movie where Andreas comes across a man who jumped out of a building and onto a spiked fence. Also, Andreas fed up with this world cuts his finger off and then later jumps in front of a train; this is one of the most weirdest/outrageous scenes I've seen. This world created by Lien is equivalent to purgatory where there is no punishment or reward. In this world drink after drink Andreas never got drunk, sex was unfulfilling, and no matter how many times he tried he couldn't kill himself. This movie reminded me of "Fight Club" and how both main characters were kind of out of sync with the world around them. In "Fight Club" Tyler Durden creates a second persona that does everything he wouldn't and in this movie the awakened Andreas is the equivalent to Tyler Durden. After a while he wakes up and tries to escape the bland life he is now apart of by escaping through a hole in a wall.

Lien does a great job with continuity in this movie meaning when a character has a half full cup in his hand and they cut away then come back they have the glass in the same hand and its not full or empty showing that the shot was done another day. Nowadays directors are more worried about the sound effects and overlook the little things like is that character wearing the bracelet on the same hand as yesterdays filming? Since I took TV Production for three years in high school it's hard for me not to look for continuity or voice overs which drive me nuts. Lien does the little things well he's got great lighting in each shot, never leaves you wondering why something is in a shot and brings about an interesting topic. This film really worked for me because it not only mocks Scandinavians' but the western society and what's wrong with it. The only real issue I had was with the man who commits suicide by jumping on a spiked fence. Because you eventually find out this world has no death but he laid motionless forcing you to assume he was dead and this never gets answered in my opinion.

Andreas is the only main character as others come and go and never do more than support his him. His first girlfriend Anne Britt is an interior designer who at the surface seems perfect for him but eventually turns out to be dull. This leads him to Ingeborg who he starts an affair with and falls in love with. He soon finds out that she was with a handful of other men and that what he felt was not real. Andreas eventually meets Hugo in the bathroom of a bar complaining about how nothing tastes good anymore and how he can't even get drunk anymore. He follows Hugo home to find the hole in the wall with that is filled with children's laughter and birds chirping.

Lien doesn't have a lot on the resume but "The Bothersome Man" is more than a jump start to a great career but a preview of an up and coming director. If this is any indication of his talent and potential as a story teller, Lien has a bright future and we can only hope that his future movies don't take so long to make it overseas for our viewing pleasure. So take a seat and enjoy the ride as Director Jens Lien takes you from the comfort of your home to the dreamlike world that is "The Bothersome Man".


Enjoyed 'Den brysomme mannen' http://ow.ly/PTTp (my wife didn't, so I watched it in bits over a few days.)

Reviewers mainly confused - most agree it's allegorical, but not of what; 'Heaven', 'Hell', 'Socialism', 'Capitalism'?

That most people don't wish to escape, and it's, essentially, forbidden goes with most of those options.

So, presumably you're supposed to project your favourite preoccupation/prejudice/fear onto it.

So I'd say it's about an a-epicurean life. A live desaturated of colour, literally in the film, figuratively in the interpretation.


Grabbed my attention on Netflix Instant Play because it was only an hour and a half long (it's nearing 4 am here), and because it's Norwegian, which I wanted to follow up with Dead Snow and see what else the country is offering in international cinema right now. A droll and deliciously wry romp, this movie features a man, Andreas, who gets shipped out to some Purgatory of a Brave New World city, where everyone is happy and bland and food has no taste, nothing smells, and even sex loses its appeal. Driven to the edge by his lack of common senses, he feels nearly ready to kill himself.

After an hilarious botched attempt at latter, Andreas tracks down a man with similar complaints and the two discover a tiny, vagina-shaped hole in a concrete wall from which music emanates. The two attempt to break through to see what is on the other side, tracking a tiny bit of light they can barely see. But of course, in fantasy allegory land, desire and nonconformity are not allowed and the elements of the city operate to end Andreas' attempt at freedom and sensuality.

Jens Lien and crew create a simple, straight-forward movement to the story, one that flows well with its themes and moves along at just enough of a pace to keep from lagging. The similarities in other similar science fiction aren't worth enumerating, but still the movie has a unique feel and balances some very funny scenes with some pretty horrifying ones. I like the limited but effective use of gore in this movie, some disembowelment and flagellation that will get your heart stammering harder than The Passion of the Christ simply because it is so perfectly out of place from the gray-toned mise-en-scene. Trond Fausa Aurvaag is a dependably squirrelly actor who physically feels out of place from his surroundings, which works very well. Despite the fact that the concept itself isn't anything to write home about, everyone involved makes it work and the movie fully realizes its own world.

--PolarisDiB


Scandinavians are pretty good at making me laugh at the drab nothingness of my soulless life, huh.

The film-making here was incredibly meticulous, every piece of framing, every deadpan stare, every element of the colour palette, every snippet of muzak or whooosh of those street cleaners was there to hammer home this world's calm emptiness.

In fact, I think I might have found the general sense of emptiness overbearing had its absurdity not been genuinely funny and relatable. Like when Andreas is telling his boss that he misses children and looks up and the guy is smiling and halfway out the door, it's a sort of sad but true reflection of working with people, spending 7/8 hours a day with them, seeing more of them than the folk you love, but ultimately knowing deep down they don't give a damn about your troubles and you the same.

This might have been a film the Coens had made had they been born in Oslo and not Minnesota. I think their humour is more aggressive and more wrapped up in cinema's past but they have the same mastery of technique and their films have the same underlying sense that life is pretty inconsequential.

I'll stop before I talk myself into taking a bus into the wintry wilderness.


The film is a great watch very thoughtful.I believe it is a film about how your like would be if you lived in a world created by catalogues. The scenes are all perfect recreations of an Ikea catalogue they even watch furniture on their TV. When they break into the kitchen they break into another perfect picture of how a kitchen would look like in a catalogue. When he is reborn or whatever you would like to call it he returns to the harsh reality of life. I love the bit when he tells his new love he has left his partner. It pokes fun at commercial bliss by saying you can have it all and whilst it it is nice to have the same things, but some things you do not want to share. A film without children also per Say makes for a perfect ten.


A very interesting addition to the Scandavian surrealistic collection. Recommended viewing for those who like their movies complicated. My interpretation of the 'strange' ending would be that Andreas' journey ends in Hell. He dislikes the bland consumer-led emptiness of purgatory; a sort of 'living' but not progressing, i.e. not getting anywhere - even the city's metro trains don't stop at the stations. It has a Metro system, like you should be able to travel, freedom, escape, but you can never actually board those trains. He is unable to reach fragrant, sensory heaven and winds up continuing his bus journey to its final destination. The old Norse version of Hell (Hades, NOT Hell the terrestrial city) isn't burning hot like the British version, its cold, freezing, the land of Niflheim (land of cold and mists). This appears to be where Andreas end up, having just failed to access Heaven through that tunnel.


A man arrives in a strange, beautiful, sterile city where no-one feels any emotion and obsesses instead about interior design. The essential sameness of his days is reminiscent of 'Groundhog Day'; the strange passages in and out of this world more remind one of 'Being John Malkovich'. But truly, this is a Scandanavian movie, a piece of self-satire that is also Scandanavian in style: the tone is austere, and even the most fantastic scenes are played straight, daring you to laugh at the absurdity. To my mind, the combination isn't wholly successful: there aren't enough genuine laughs to compensate for the difficulties of taking the piece as pure drama. It certainly is original; perhaps my problem is that the world that it satirises is not one that I recognise. Perhaps I should move to Scandanavia!


The whole movie made me think of the first circle of Dante's Inferno, Where the souls who 'fool' themselves in believing that they are happy go to. They never realize they are actually in an inferno, but nothing is enjoyable, they just move on without any emotion. In that sense Dante thought that they the were in the worse part, as they would never actively try to change their situation. Nobody can die in that place, but trying to certainly does hurt. I am not sure if the writer based his story on this medieval manuscript or not, but the resemblance is absolutely striking.

I didn't enjoy the movie when I was watching it, as I was expecting a climax which never came. Nevertheless, it made me think afterwards and now I actually think it's a good film - it surely does stick.


In the beginning, with the careful, remote location and sweeking metal sound, I thought of the opening scene in "Once upon a Time in the West". When it gets to the city, then it begins to feels like "Kitchen Stories", or "Drifting Clouds", even possibly "Grimm".

Then it turns out that this is more similar to "Joe Versus the Volcano" in theme (not style). And the movie executes from beginning to end the same, understated style. Letting you observe, take in the steel, blue-grayish tone of the suites, dresses, wall color, furniture, bedsheets, mirrors, cars, music, background sounds and even people's expression. Then near the end, there is one shot of a completely different tone - warm orangeish-yellow with soft music and ocean splashing, children and laughter.

But maybe the observation is too long for me, I would much rather to see the alternative side or what happens to the character after the ending shot. Still beautifully done.


10/10

PLOT DISCUSSION

This is one of the best movies ever made and I am not saying that because I am being fooled by the seemingly nonsensical presentation. Those who dislike the film because they don't understand the story often criticize those who are praising the film by saying that they are assuming its genius because they don't understand it. I don't view this movie as very allegorical. To me, it is a story with a beginning, middle and end. People become confused by the film because they expect it to have a deep, philosophical meaning that they are to interpret from the allegedly meaningless scenes. I feel they fail to realize that the crypticness comes from a chopped-up and rearranged plot combined with a very long and rather explanatory fantasy sequence and not from a chaos of visual allegory. Because of the limitation of length, I will try to keep this short and to the point and touch on the major concepts.

The general plot: Diane moves to L.A. after jitterbug contest to get into acting. At an audition, she meets Camilla with whom she falls in love. Diane becomes enraged with jealousy since Camilla sleeps with other men and women. Diane discovers the other man (the director) at a film shoot and discovers the other woman (a random blond) at the engagement party for Camilla and the director. Motivated by her rage and possessiveness, Diane hires a hit man to kill Camilla. After that is done, she is overcome by loneliness and slips into an unconscious fantasy world where she lives the life she wants to. Diane is then awakened. In her conscious state she is haunted by what she has done.

The significance of the fantasy: The film starts out, after the credits, with a 1st person p.o.v. shot depicting somebody collapsing onto a bed and slipping into unconsciousness. This is where Diane's fantasy starts. The accident is there as an excuse for her to "bring back" her dead girlfriend and justify the fantasy life. She depicts her girlfriend as meek and innocent because that is what she wished she was. In the meantime, she acts like everything is "like in the movies" because she has an escapist personality. She also, in a sense, kills herself off and assumes the identity of a waitress named Betty at a diner. The story revolving around the director is a direct result of her feeling that he was in someway victimized in reality just as she was and "convinces" herself that he was forced to choose Camilla. It was also an unconscious expression of the lack of control she felt during the party. Camilla Rhoades in the fantasy is actually the random blond from the engagement party. She hated her so much that she turned her into Camilla and made the ultimate antagonist. She then took the real Camilla and turned her into a perfect, submissive out-of-the-movies girlfriend and used Rita Hayworth as an inspiration. She also paints the hit man as a very clumsy and incapable person to further justify the survival of Camilla. Her fantasy world, unfortunately for her, was a search for Diane which ended up being herself and made the dreamworld die by taking her through a series of reminders of reality. The first reminder was Club Silencio which chanted that "there is no band" and the "instruments" you hear are not really there; this is a metaphor for the fantasy. She begins to shake violently because it shakes her perception of her surroundings. The other reminder is the blue box... Actually, the blue box is not the reminder itself (more of a Pandora's Box, really), but the blue key that opens the box. The blue key reminds her of the actual death of Camilla because it is what the hit man said would show up when it was done. Along with having love, this entire creation of hers is an escape from reality by living in the idealized Hollywood that she expected to be part of when she arrived.

This is a story showing the psychology of a very troubled woman who lost a dream. It is not series of random things specifically designed to disturb and it is not a cryptic philosophical message. It is an unfortunate chunk of the human condition that is presented beautifully.

However, ultimately this is all my opinion. I may be way off. Or it may not be intended to mean any one thing. There are many who disagree with me. Great! Afterall, why does it have to mean anything? Why can't it just be a statement in itself? What if coherent, sensible narratives are shackles for artistic expression? Peter Greenaway, for example, has spent many words eloquently supporting that idea by such statements as "I would argue that if you want to write narratives, be an author, be a novelist, don't be a film maker. Because I believe film making is so much more exciting in areas which aren't primarily to do with narrative." And where is the written rule that everything must be immediately understandable with only one possible interpretation? There is no such rule because the clarity of the movie is unrelated to the art of it. "I didn't understand it!" So...? "Mulholland Dr.," story or not, affects the viewers, harasses them, drags them, awes them, lulls them. The way it lends itself to interpretation is amazing. It never gets old. It never loses its luster. Its visuals are always effective and beautiful. It is cinematic perfection no matter what. Enjoy.


There's a sign on The Lost Highway that says:

*MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD*

(but you already knew that, didn't you?)

Since there's a great deal of people that apparently did not get the point of this movie, I'd like to contribute my interpretation of why the plot makes perfect sense. As others have pointed out, one single viewing of this movie is not sufficient. If you have the DVD of MD, you can "cheat" by looking at David Lynch's "Top 10 Hints to Unlocking MD" (but only upon second or third viewing, please.) ;)

First of all, Mulholland Drive is downright brilliant. A masterpiece. This is the kind of movie that refuse to leave your head. Not often are the comments on the DVDs very accurate, but Vogue's "It gets inside your head and stays there" really hit the mark.

David Lynch deserves praise for creating a movie that not only has a beautifully stylish look to it - cinematography-wise, has great acting (esp. Naomi Watts), a haunting soundtrack by Badalamenti, and a very dream-like quality to it -- but on top of it all it also manages to involve the viewer in such a way that few movies have before. (After all, when is the last time you saw a movie that just wouldn't leave your mind and that everyone felt compelled to talk and write about, regardless of whether they liked it or hated it?)

Allright, enough about all that, it's time to justify those statements.

Most people that have gone through some effort to try to piece the plot together will have come to the conclusion that the first half of the picture is an illusion/a dream sequence.

Of course, that's too bad for all those trying to make sense of the movie by expecting "traditional" methods in which the story is laid out in a timely, logic and linear manner for the viewer. But for those expecting that, I urge you to check the name of the director and come back again. ;)

MD is the story of the sad demise of Diane Selwyn, a wannabe-actor who is hopelessly in love with another actor, Camilla Rowles. Due to Diane's lack of talent, she is constantly struggling to advance her career, and feels she failed to deliver on her own and her parents' expectations. Upon realizing that Camilla will never be hers (C. becomes engaged with Adam Kesher, the director), she hires a hitman to get rid of her, and subsequently has to deal with the guilt that it produces.

The movie first starts off with what may seem as a strange opening for this kind of thriller; which is some 50s dance/jitterbug contest, in which we can see the main character Betty giving a great performance. We also see an elderly couple (which we will see twice more throughout the movie) together with her, and applauding her.

No, wait. This is what most people see the first time they view it. There's actually another very significant fact that is given before the credits - the camera moving into an object (although blurry) and the scene quickly fading out. If you look closely, the object is actually a pillow, revealing that what follows is a dream.

The main characters seen in the first half of the movie:

Betty: Diane Selwyn's imaginary self, used in the first half of the movie that constitutes the "dream-sequence" - a positive portrayal of a successful, aspiring young actor (the complete opposite of Diane). 'Betty' was chosen as the name as that is the real name of the waitress at Winkies. Notice that in the dream version, the waitresses' name is 'Diane'.

Rita: The fantasy version of Camilla Rhodes that, through Diane's dream, and with the help of an imaginary car-accident, is turned into an amnesiac. This makes her vulnerable and dependent on Diane's love. She is then conveniently placed in Betty/Diane's aunt's luxurious home which Betty has been allowed to stay in.

Coco: In real life, Adam's mother. In the dream part, the woman in charge of the apartment complex that Betty stays in. She's mainly a strong authority figure, as can be witnessed in both parts of the film.

Adam: The director. We know from the second half that he gets engaged with Camilla. His sole purpose for being in the first half of the movie is only to serve as a punching bag for Betty/Diane, since she develops such hatred towards him.

Aunt Ruth: Diane's real aunt, but instead of being out of town, she is actually dead. Diane inherited the money left by her aunt and used that to pay for Camilla's murder.

Mr. Roach: A typical Lynchian character. Not real; appears only in Diane's dream sequence. He's a mysterious, influential person that controls the chain of events in the dream from his wheelchair. He serves much of the same function as the backwards-talking dwarf (which he also plays) in Twin Peaks.

The hitman: The person that murders Camilla. This character is basically the same in both parts of the movie, although rendered in a slightly more goofy fashion in the dream sequence (more on that below).

Now, having established the various versions of the characters in the movie, we can begin to delve into the plot. Of course I will not go into every little detail (neither will I lay it out chronologically), but I will try to explain some of the important scenes, in relation to Lynch' "hint-sheet".

As I mentioned above, Camilla was re-produced as an amnesiac through her improbable survival of a car-accident in the first 10 minutes of the movie, which left her completely vulnerable. What I found very intriguing with MD, is that Lynch constantly gives hints on what is real and what isn't. I've already mentioned the camera moving into the pillow, but notice how there's two cars riding in each lane approaching the limo.

Only one of the cars actually hit the limo; what about the other? Even if they stayed clear of the accident themselves, wouldn't they try to help the others, or at least call for help? My theory is that, since this is a dream, the presence of the other car is just set aside, and forgotten about. Since, as Rogert Ebert so eloquently puts it "Like real dreams, it does not explain, does not complete its sequences, lingers over what it finds fascinating, dismisses unpromising plotlines."

Shortly after Rita crawls down from the crash site at Mulholland Dr., and makes her way down the hillside and sneaks into Aunt Ruth's apartment, Betty arrives and we see this creepy old couple driving away, staring ghoulishly at each other and grinning at themselves and the camera. This is the first indication that what we're seeing is a nightmare.

Although the old couple seem to be unfamiliar to Betty, I think they're actually her parents (since they were applauding her at the jitterbug contest). Perhaps she didn't know them all that well, and didn't really have as good a relationship with them as she wanted, so the couple is shown as very pleasant and helpful to her in the dream. They also represent her feelings of guilt from the murder, and Diane's sense of unfulfillment regarding her unachieved goals in her life.

A rather long and hilarious scene is the one involving the hitman. Diane apparently sees him as the major force behind the campaign trying to pressure the director to accept Camilla's part in the movie (from Adam's party in the second half of the movie), and he therefore occupies a major part of her dream. Because of her feelings of guilt and remorse towards the murder of Camilla, a part of her wants him to miss, so she turns him into a dumb criminal.

This scene, I think, is also Lynch's attempt at totally screwing his audience over, since they're given a false pretence in which to view the movie.

Gotta love that 'Something just bit me bad' line, though. :)

The next interesting scene is the one with the two persons at Twinkies, who are having a conversation about how one of them keep having this recurring nightmare involving a man which is seen by him through a wall outside of the diner that they're sitting in. After a little talk, they head outside and keep walking toward the corner of a fence, accompanied of course by excellent music matching the mood of the scene.

When reaching the corner, a bum-like character with a disfigured face appears out from behind the corner, scaring the living crap out of the man having the nightmare. This nightmare exists only in Diane's mind; she saw that guy in the diner when paying for the murder. So, in short, her obessions translate into that poor guy's nightmares. The bum also signifies Diane's evil side, as can be witnessed later in the movie.

The Cowboy constitutes (along with the dwarf) one of the strange characters that are always present in the Lynchian landscape -- Diane only saw him for a short while at Adam's party, but just like our own dreams can award insignificant persons that we hardly know a major part in our dreams, so can he be awarded an important part in her dream. We are also given further clues during his scenes that what we're seeing is not real (his sudden disappearance, etc.)

The Cowboy is also used as a tool to mock the Director, when he meets up with him at the odd location (the lights here give a clear indication that this is part of a dream). Also notice how he says that he will appear one more time if he (Adam) does good, or two more times if he does bad. Throughout the movie he appears two more times, indicating to Diane that she did bad. He is also the one to wake her up to reality (that scene is probably an illusion made to fit into her requirements of him appearing twice), and shortly thereafter she commits suicide.

The espresso-scene with the Castigliane brothers (where we can see Badalamenti, the composer, as Luigi) is probably a result of the fact that Diane was having an espresso just before Camilla and Adam made their announcement at Adam's party in the second half. It could at the same time also be a statement from Lynch.

During the scene in which they enter Diane's apartment, the body lying in the bed is Camilla, but notice how she's assumed Diane's sleeping position; Diane is seeing herself in her own dream, but the face is not hers, although it had the same wounds on the face as Diane would have after shooting herself. This scene is also filled with some genuine Lynchian creepiness. Since Diane did not know where (or when) the hitman would get to Camilla and finish her off, she just put her into her own home.

In real life, Diane's audition for the movie part was bad. In her dream, she delivers a perfect audition - leaving the whole crew ecstatic about her performance.

Also interesting is the fact that the money that in real-life was used to pay for Camilla's murder now appears in Rita/Camilla's purse. This is part of Diane's undoing of her terrible act by effectively being given the money back, as the murder now hasn't taken place.

When her neighbor arrives to get her piano-shaped ashtray, another hint is given; she takes the ashtray from her table and leaves, yet later when Camilla and Betty have their encounter on the couch, we see the ashtray appear again when the camera pans over the table, suggesting that Betty's encounter with the neighbor was a fantasy.

The catch phrase of the movie Adam is auditioning actresses for is "She is the girl"; which are the exact same words that Diane uses when giving the hitman Camilla's photo resume.

The blue box and the key represent the major turning point in the movie, and is where the true identities of the characters are revealed. There's much symbolism going on here; the box may represent Diane's future (it's empty), or it may be a sort of a Pandora's box (the hitman laughs when she asks him what the key will open). Either way, it is connected to the murder by means of the blue key (which is placed next to her after the murder has taken place). The box is also seen at the end of the movie in the hands of the disfigured bum.

Club Silencio is a neat little addition to further remind the viewer that what s/he is viewing is not real. It also signifies that Diane is about to wake up to her reality (her reality being a nightmare that she is unable to escape from, even in her dreams).

During the chilling scene at the end where the creepy old couple reappear, Diane is tormented in such a way that she sees suicide as the only way out in order to escape the screams and to avoid being haunted by her fears.

Anyway, that is my $0.02. Hope this could help people from bashing out at this movie and calling it 'the worst movie ever' or something to that effect, without realizing the plot.

As usual, Lynch is all about creating irrational fears, and he certainly achieves that with this picture as well.

10 out of 10.


After two brief scenes that at first seem unrelated to the rest of the film, we see a dark-haired, obviously rich beauty in the back of a limousine. Her driver stops at an odd location on Mulholland Drive, which is a twisting, thickly wooded two-lane road full of mansions overlooking Los Angeles. Just as her driver and another man in the passenger seat turn around to kill her, two drag racing cars from the opposite direction come crashing into the limo. Only the dark-haired woman survives. She works her way down the ridge to Sunset Boulevard and hides in a vacationing woman's apartment. Shortly after, Betty (Naomi Watts), the vacationing woman's niece, shows up at the apartment and runs into the dark haired woman, who now has amnesia. The bulk of the first part of the film is Betty and the dark haired woman trying to figure out who she is, why people were trying to kill her and why she had thousands of dollars and a strange key in her purse. This is interspersed with oddly surreal threads about Hollywood producers and directors, with occasional forays into a land of hoodlums and prostitutes.

The above may sound a bit complicated and disjointed, but that's not the half of it. The film is constructed so that the meaning will always be open to interpretation. It's basically guaranteed that you will not understand this film and you will not have very much confidence arriving at your own interpretation the first time around. Even if you have a lot of experience with like-minded films--such as Memento (2000), Donnie Darko (2001), The I Inside (2003) and The Butterfly Effect (2004)--you may not understand it on a second viewing, either. The studio was aware of this to the extent that they had director David Lynch write "10 clues to unlocking this thriller" and they put it on the back of the chapter listing insert in the DVD. Lynch being of a particular disposition, these clues are almost as cryptic as the film itself. It doesn't help when trying to figure it out in the early stages that the structure is extremely complex. It takes a very long time to figure out what parts are supposed to be "real" and there is a complex nesting of flashbacks in some sections, with only contextual clues that they're flashbacks.

But is the film worth watching, or worth trying to figure out? That depends on your tastes, obviously. On a surface level, the film is certainly attractive if you are a fan of surrealism, although it will tend to seem a bit slow and overly disjointed to some viewers. But those qualities, and many other surrealist aspects of the film, are typical of Lynch. A prime Lynchian moment is the old couple in the beginning bizarrely smiling almost as if they're alien pod people trying to put on a front. If you're familiar with that style and like it, you'll find much to love here, although in many ways, Mulholland Drive is fairly understated for Lynch. It's also worth noting, for viewers who'll primarily be interested in it or who enjoy it just as much as other aspects, that Mulholland Drive has a quite steamy lesbian scene. It's not gratuitous, although I have no problems with gratuitousness, but is instead an important hinge in the film.

Like all of Lynch's films, it's easy to become enraptured in his unique approach to every aspect of filmic art and his attention to detail. Any serious student of film (including "armchair students"/"cinephiles") should study Mulholland Drive; many will love it. Lynch doesn't let anything pass unmanipulated. He includes brilliant color schemes (such as the plethora of reds and pinks) with important symbolism. He makes unusual use of sound, such as the ringing telephone carrying over into the section of score that follows it (when Betty first arrives at the airport). He directs his actors to deliver their lines in a plethora of bizarre ways, such as his characteristic odd pauses. He lets his odd and surprising sense of humor poke through, such as the name "Winkie's", and the "Hot Dogs--made for Pinks" sign that provides a clue to some of the color symbolism.

Lynch's attention to detail in production design provides important, subtle clues throughout the film to help one unlock the meaning. It's interesting to note that Lynch even apparently demands that the DVD programming be unusual--there are no chapters on the disc; you must either watch the film in real time or fast forward or rewind to get back to particular points.

If the surrealism and veiled meaning of the film are attractive to you, or if you're just fond of "puzzles", then Mulholland Drive is well worth watching for that aspect. There is a fairly accepted interpretation of the film, at least on a broad, generalized level. I won't recount the standard interpretation here--it is worth researching, but only after you've seen the film a couple times and have reached your own conclusions. Many articles and monographs have been written on the film and interpretations; there are even websites dedicated to it.

For my money, however, although I generally love Lynch and find many things about Mulholland Drive attractive, it is not quite a 10 for me, at least not yet (I have a feeling that my score could still rise on subsequent viewings). To me, though, the "twist" aspect of the film is done much better in other works such as The I Inside and The Butterfly Effect. Mulholland Drive is more attractive to me for its surface surrealistic touches, but the plot doesn't carry them as well as some of Lynch's other films.

Still, Mulholland Drive is certainly recommended for the right crowd. If you're serious about film and do not mind having to think about what you watch (as if those two would not necessarily coincide), you shouldn't miss this one.


"twin peaks" and "blue velvet" have always been two of my favourite pieces of film-making, and even though past films by lynch have been slightly disappointing for me they have always been worth watching a number of times. to be pretentious, lynch can be like a good wine - he must be savoured and mulled over. but in the end you must make up your own mind about what you have seen, for lynch never gives you the full answers.

many people will walk out of "mulholland drive" possibly wanting to throttle themselves over the mind-bending visual jigsaw puzzle that has just unfolded before them. but there is a twisted logic to this film, you just have to look for the clues. betty (naomi watts) arrives in hollywood, doe-eyed and in search of stardom. she then finds an amnesiac in her bathroom who has escaped from an attempted murder on mulholland drive. together they try to uncover the secrets behind the amnesiac's life. this all leads to a club called silencio, where a blue box will reveal all. and that is when the film throws everything out the window. people we thought we knew are entirely different people altogether... is it a dream? a reminiscence about life's previous escapades? you will either love this film or hate it. david lynch always draws such extreme reactions from his viewers. but as his universe itself is always about extremes, it is fitting that his films provoke such reactions.

It is best to look at this film thematically, rather than as a straight-forward narrative. and appreciate the fact that lynch is a film-maker who will still let you draw your own conclusions. he has had many imitators as of late, particularly in "vanilla sky", where a mind-bending film decides to give you all the answers in the last rushed five minutes, and you will probably forget about that film as soon as you walk out of the cinema. mulholland drive will haunt you.


Hitchcock would be proud of this movie. Even when nothing happens, it is suspenseful. Director David Lynch overuses a few cheap thrill tricks here and there, but he intersperses them with other cinematographic techniques to keep it from becoming obtuse.

Altogether surreal, this movie is like waking up and remembering most of a dream but not enough to make it sensible. I am still trying to figure it all out and will probably have to see it again to catch things I missed and which may help me understand it better. It is a very detailed plot that very slowly comes together, so you must be patient and pay attention. Get your bathroom trip out of the way before it starts. And yet, the plot is overshadowed by the theme, the mood, the character development, and the filming techniques.

The dual roles of the main actress, Naomi Watts, showcase her enormous talent. That is, when I could get my eyes off of her co-star. What an acting pair.

Lynch surprises throughout the movie with unusual camera angles, the length/timing of editing cuts, jumping back and forth between scenes. Combined with smart use of music and sounds, it all helps to build suspense in our minds, doubtless a major objective of the director. Well, he kept me on the edge of my seat, even had me talking to the actors to be careful here, and not be so naive there. You know, the kind of stuff you want to smack your kids for doing at the movies.


Originally filmed in 1999 as a TV pilot, "Mulholland Dr." was rejected. The next year, David Lynch received money to film new scenes to make the movie suitable to be shown in theaters. He did so - and created one of the greatest, most bizarre and nightmarish films ever made.

The film really doesn't have main characters, but if there were main characters, they would be Betty (Naomi Watts) and Rita (Laura Elena Harring). Betty is a perky blonde who's staying in her aunt's apartment while she auditions for parts in movies. She finds Rita in her aunt's apartment and decides to help her. You see, Rita's lost her memory. She has no clue who she is. She takes her name, Rita, from a "Gilda" poster in the bathroom. So the two set out to discover who Rita really is.

David Lynch has been known for making some weird movies, but this film is the definition of weird. It's bizarre, nightmarish, and absolute indescribable. It's like a dream captured on film. By the 100-minute point, the film has become extremely confusing - but if you've been watching closely, it will make perfect sense. Having watched the movie and then read an article on the Internet pointing out things in the film, I now understand the movie completely.

The acting is very good. Watts is terrific. Justin Theroux is very good as a Hollywood director facing problems with the local mob. The music is excellent. Angelo Badalamenti delivers one of his finest scores. And the directing - hah! David Lynch is as masterful a filmmaker as ever there was.

Is this your type of film? Well, that depends. You should probably view more of Lynch's work before watching this movie. You'll need to be patient with the film, and probably watch it a second time to pick up the many clues Lynch has left throughout the movie. For Lynch fans, this is a dream come true.

"Mulholland Dr." is a masterpiece. It's brilliant, enigmatic, and masterfully filmed. I love it.


The case history of 'Mulholland Dr.' is known: What should had been another excursion (after 'Twin Peaks') into the rivaled field of TV-series ended up abruptly after completing the pilot. It was too risky and twisted for the producers to venture an investment. Lynch used all the filmed and cut material and started new shootings to finish a completely new feature film. The result: One of the most impressive cinema experiences of this decade which can be ranked among the best works of David Lynch. His earlier movies 'Eraserhead', 'Blue Velvet' or 'Wild at Heart' kept aloof in an irritating way which hustled the viewer into the role of a voyeur, but never involved him as part of the plot happening such as here.

'Mulholland Dr.' is a puzzle where pieces are missing, others obviously were taken from 'Eraserhead' and 'Lost Highway', but it never seemed to be unfinished work. In the internet I came across with a lot of instructions and essays to explain this film. I am aware now that it loses its magic when you try to decipher it completely. All those detailed solution explanations are not only waste but also the questionable attempt to offer an answer where no such thing is completely required. Imagine this scenario: A little child is dissecting his teddy bear to find out where the secret and the specific of that bear lies. Is it because it wants to destroy his toy? Does the secret lie in the teddy bear or actually in the heart of the child? Transferring this to 'Mulholland Dr.' it means innocence is one of the most important conditions to watch and appreciate it.

David Lynch succeeds not only to picture the surface of human behavior life but also to grapple with everything beneath that. Human desires, dreams, obsessions and fears - all that what remains unspoken; emotions that are often repressed. 'Mulholland Dr.' has the intensity calling for a cast that completely takes issue with the substance. Actresses and actors who are ready to follow the visions of the director selflessly.Laura Elena Harring, Naomi Watts, Justin Theroux solve their task in such an impressing way that you wouldn't want or couldn't imagine another cast. While their acting at the beginning seems to be a little superimposed you soon will realize that this stereo typing is set in with a purpose to manipulate the viewer and to baffle him as soon as the red thread of the film is visible.

When you claim the criterion of a well made film in being able to lose yourself and dive into what you see on screen than Lynch succeeded in making a masterpiece. A modern masterpiece that manifest David Lynch's status as one of the most important, creative and courageous directors of the present. Like every film maker who go beyond the limits he is confronted with criticism and ignorance. This will fade as soon as you find the individual key to Lynch's world of films. 'Mulholland Dr.' is more than just a sleeper  it is a must see for everyone who loves ambitious cinema. And besides, the film is a pay-off with Hollywood, in form and content, which in that distinctness was hardly dared before.


Spoiler Alert - although this is a plot almost as impossible to spoil as it is to completely explain.

'Mulholland Drive' is by far the most successful expression of David Lynch's cinematographic style and vision since the first season of his 'Twin Peaks' TV series. As Lynch enthusiasts know, his is a style and vision uniquely blended from film noir, horror movies, surrealism, and parapsychology  with a healthy dose of postmodern self-consciousness and black humor thrown in for good measure. All these elements are richly at work in 'Mulholland Drive,' making for a riveting, hair-raising, and highly satisfying film experience  especially if one does not become overly obsessed with trying to make all the plot pieces fit into a logical, mystery-unraveling whole.

The film features wonderful performances by Naomi Watts and Laura Harring in the lead roles of young women whose lives intersect in various ways amid a Hollywood setting that is itself an hallucinated blend of contemporary reality, retro '50s nostalgia, and satirical self-aggrandizement. Their seemingly random initial meeting occurs after the film's opening scene, in which Harring's character escapes an attempt on her life thanks to a fortuitous, not to mention horrific, automobile accident. Staggering down the hillside from Mulholland Drive to Sunset Boulevard (the two most archetypal of Hollywood thoroughfares), she finds her way to the very apartment that Betty (Naomi Watts) is about to sublet from her 'Aunt Ruth,' a purportedly successful actress who is off to Canada to begin a new movie. As we later learn, Betty had herself arrived from Deep River, Ontario, shortly after winning a jitterbug contest.

A highly energetic and stylized flashback to the contest forms one of two pre-credit prologue sequences that frame Betty's descent from the clichéd would-be-starlet's bright-eyed innocence to the debauched madness of spurned lover and going nowhere bit-part actress. Unable to remember her own name, the Harring character adopts the name 'Rita' from a movie poster for the film noir classic 'Gilda' that adorns Aunt Ruth's apartment. (Actually, it turns out Aunt Ruth has long since deceased and whose apartment we're really in is a good question to be resolved in future viewings.) Anyway, Betty determines to help Rita find out what happened and to discover the source of the rolls of cash and a mysterious blue key that the women find in Rita's purse. The two women begin to piece together clues that would seem to lead to Rita's true identity. They also, by the way, become lovers, at one point radiating such an incendiary chemistry that I cannot recall its equal in mainstream treatments of Lesbian lover affairs (if a Lynch movie can ever be designated 'mainstream').

At the local Winkies restaurant (a recurring location fraught with dream-like significance behind its grubby realistic facade), Rita's attention is caught by a waitress's name-tag reading 'Diane.' This leads her to a recollection of someone named 'Diane Selwyn,' whose apartment the two women soon visit and, at Betty's insistence, break into. I won't reveal what they find within, but suffice it to say the scene is rendered with vintage Lynchian creepiness. Subsequently, Rita wakes in night sweats speaking Spanish and hurrying Betty to an all-night magic show/theater called 'Silencio,' where the arts of illusion and lip/instrumental- syncing are practiced with manic intensity and where the Blue- Haired Lady, as she is noted in the end credits, reigns as the presiding Muse. Framed by the blue-lit, red-curtained Silencio Theatre, the blue-haired lady occupies the last shot in the film, perhaps a symbol for the controlling artistic imagination  rather like Steven's "man with the blue guitar" as filtered through bad- drug surrealism.

During the Silencio sequence, and as Rebekah Del Rio cameo lip-syncs her own powerful Spanish rendition of Roy Orbison's 'Crying'), a shattering epiphany occurs when Betty opens her own purse to discover a blue box with a keyhole that obviously matches the key in Rita's purse. Even if we do not delve too deeply into the Freudian sexual symbolism of purses, the moment is a singularly Hitchcockian one in that the matching of the key and box leads to a complete inversion of what we thought we knew and into a whole new set of character relationships and meanings. Not the least of these reversals is the discovery that Betty is the sought-for Diane Selwyn and the spurned lover of Camilla Rhodes (i.e. Rita). Camilla in turn is a Latin femme fatale movie star to whom Diane is indebted for the few minor roles she has managed to secure and, more significantly, to whom she is emotionally subjugated.

After these and other discoveries in the last third of the film, the problem of accounting for the first two thirds of the movie is not so straightforwardly resolved as in 'Vertigo.' While bits and pieces of imagery and dialog suggest that much, if not all, of the earlier material is projected and displaced from the fevered subconscious of Diane herself, other bits and pieces suggest the perhaps supernatural intervention of a cast of characters drawing direct inspiration from 'Twin Peaks,' including Michael J. Anderson reprising his unearthly dwarfish powers and a Bob- variant who hangs out behind Winkies and is the ultimate repository for the blue box and its id-like associations.

However one fits the pieces together, though, the whole of 'Mulholland Drive' is much greater  and more mysterious  than the sum of its parts. Lynch takes us on a wonderfully inventive, provocative, and pleasurably disturbing mind trip. What's more, the film's cinematography is stunning, the soundtrack filled with evocative atmospherics, the acting superb, and the directing /editing masterful. This may well have been the unacknowledged Best Picture of 2001 among major American releases.