look here all you artsy beatnicks. this movie sucked. end of story. it wasn't nearly as art house, or even as strange as Lynch's prior films. it was just a cheap stab at doing something "strange". i remember a little film called "north" that everyone hated. it was an awful film indeed, and in my opinion, the whole "it was all a dream" ending is a scam. i could make a film of anything and pull that, and have people go ooohh, ahhhh. it's a lousy conclusion. just plain awful. i was so disapointed with this movie, i had to call three friends to ask them what the hell it meant to them before i even got on here to rant. ugh. i should have sold it in that garage sale for the $1 that old cogger wanted to pay me. then i wouldn't have wasted 2 hours of my time.

well you either loved it or hated it
i loved it but thats not the point. i believe the concept of the movie was one of the best i have seen ever, and deserved the respect it got. you cant tell me that the concept and story was just a jumble of events that were thrown together, and then tied together under the blanket of 'a dream', and if you believe that then you dont know what you are talking about. i dont think you understand the movie...maybe try reading up on this review
http://dir.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2001/10/23/mulholland_drive_analysis/index.html
, then watching it again. why does this movie have to be more arthouse than lynch's previous ones?
anyway well i guess not everyone can appreciate cinematic gems when they rarely surface
hey and im sure the two hours you 'wasted' watching mulholland drive would have be used more effectively...like selling expensive movies you havnt already seen!?

You're a dumbass. Just because you didn't understand anything, doesn't mean that none of it makes sense. I'm sorry you're not up for USING YOUR BRAIN when watching a movie. Stick to mindless action shoot-em-ups and leave the intelectually challenging movies to those of us willing to use our brains a little.

All right you "smart aleck". If you understand the film Iīm sure you can answer the following questions about the film:

What about that hooker the hit man questions and then ushers into his van? And what about those diner waitresses? The hit man thing is confusing. Who is Ed, the long-haired guy he murders? I have no idea why the hit man had to kill his friend Ed. But still, why was Ed's black book of phone numbers so important? Just because Diane saw it in the diner? And what about the prostitute he ushers into the van? Is that Diane, too?
Why does the Cowboy visit Diane to wake her up?

I hope you or anybody like you who "understood" the film can shed some light because I donīt have a fucking clue.

I just watched this movie and as the credits started to roll, I said "This move really sucked. What a waste of my time." However, after reading Franks Reel Movie reviews, I think I understand the movie now. But I agree with you there are too many loose ends and BS scenes that are irrelevant. Like the cocky director was so proud of himself, he wouldn't let saner minds in the business yank those scenes out. It makes more sense now BUT... any movie that drags on and on and on like that and requires I go to several internet discussion sites to get a handle on what the hell I just watched SUCKS! I don't feel like spending my precious time watching it again to appreciate it either. Time is precious and this movie wasted mine.

...one caveat. I also thought "Pulp Fiction" sucked the first time I watched it. After watching it several times, I now love that movie.

The lesbian scene was hot. Had to put the movie on pause for a few minutes and take care of business!

Have you ever made a movie? Then don't talk like an idiot, idiot.

To suggest that someone has to have made a movie to know what is good is ridiculous. That is like saying, you have to be a chef to know if food tastes good.

I don't know why I waste any time on message boards. Its always the same. "I think this is dumb." "Well you are a dumbass because you don't get it." "I don't have to understand anything to know it sucks." "You don't make films so who are you? We understand and, BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND, only WE can appreciate the enormous brain power and artistic sophistication to understand and appreciate its greatness."

No, a former poster is right. It would be a great movie IF it allowed joe blow, without something to prove to other net zanies, to spend some time working it out on their own and coming to a conclusion.

I agree with some, even with other movies I watch, if I don't get it all I'm still gratified that it made me think and I love that. However this one only made me think: 1) neophyte comes to LA, 2) neophyte gets into affair with established actress, 3) neophyte jealous, 4) established dumps her, 5) neophyte (who by now, maybe years later?) is now jaded, strung out and far from Sally Smalltown anymore, 6) hires hitman 7) has dream that is fascinating to disect I admit 8) kills herself. Yawn..

HOWEVER, the dissection alone is not satisfying. Its also annoying to spend the ENTIRE F'G movie to wait for a point. AND, if the ultimate point is to 'reveal' the vacuous, delusionary, obscene meat market that is Hollywood, (in Al Pacino voice) "it's been done, sweetcakes. And a helluva lot better".

This movie sucks, period. My wife and I agreed at some point that we were still watching because we just HAD to know if it had a point. We didn't CARE anymore about the characters or any ending, we just wanted to know if Lynch could wrap at least an appreciable amount of it up to make a statement.

Having said that, there is only ONE THING that would turn this stinker into the greatest movie of all time. What if Lynch was ultimately saying something to his audience and wanted them to re-analyze themselves? What if Lynch's ultimate goal was to belittle his most prized audience - the artsy elite snobs who 'get everything' and are somehow unique and special because they exist on a higher plain of thought in their minds? What if his actual goal was to send these snots onto chat rooms and bulletin boards to post a thousand theories and flex their self-congratulatory mental muscles and superior imagination?

What if these very exchanges are the 'ultimate goal' of the movie and by bringing the great lower class of 'don't get it's' head to head just for the very reason of EXPOSING the elitist mentality of the very people who applaud his own work - to THEMSELVES?

You know, like Roger Waters of Pink Floyd in "The Wall". The artsy elitists imagining themselves to be unique yet really just an audience of pig faces all looking the same. People that cheer when they are belittled in the name of art.

Maybe he's making fun of people like me who pummel snot noses. Hey, fine with me. If THAT is the half of his aim... WELL DONE LYNCH!

And just because a movie bucks the norm and is refreshly different from the cooker cutter movies of our day, it does not automatically make it a true piece of art. A statue of a cherub fling a pile of dung would still stink.

I have to make my own snotty comment though. When we watched "Sixth Sense", even though we totally missed the signs along the way, and even though it was explained at the end, we were THRILLED that we missed it. I've always thought of myself as a great critic of scripts and able to discern direction before it becomes obvious. And I was THRILLED to be challenged and beaten.

The difference I see is that while I explained parts to my wife, I was doing it because it was a DELIGHT to share. Not to prove how great I was or to denegrate someone else. She was thrilled, BUT if she still thought it stunk, out of decency and respect I would say fair enough. No reason to elevate myself at her expense.

Challenge... are any of you 'artsy elitists' up to the task of treating your fellow critics with respect, or are you too far gone as perhaps Lynch is trying to tell you?

Joseph

p.s. and are any of you older than 12?
p.s.s. oops, sorry about that..