Mulholland Dr. (2001) – 3/5

I grasped and enjoyed it, but only until one major plot twist

„Mulholland Dr.“ is a co-production between France and the United States from 2001, so this film had its 20th anniversary last year already. The dominant production country are the United States here because of who made this film, but also in terms of the cast and who you see in front of the camera. And another factor is what you see in front of the camera because this film is set in Hollywood (Los Angeles area) and you even see the famous Hollywood Hills during the watch. Fittingly, it is a film about film as we see directors, aspiring actors etc. The one name that absolutely needs to be mentioned here is American David Lynch who wrote and directed this picture and who also supervised the recent restauration that I got to see last night. Even without an Oscar win, Lynch has been considered among America’s most influential filmmakers for a long time now and everybody really knows the name, not just film buffs and with all the pretty notable works he has released, it is quite telling that this one here is perhaps considered his most famous work at this point, maybe even will stay this way once his career is over. So it was high time for me to finally check this out and I took the chance when a local theater was showing it. It has become a bit of a cult classic, so chances are not too low that it will also play from time to time in a movie theater in your area. Go for it if you like to. I will come to the recommendation part later on. „Dr.“ stands for „Drive“ of course and not „Doctor“ as you could also think in terms of abbreviations. This movie for sure scored some pretty strong awards recognition too, won a BAFTA where Lynch was ignored, scored several Golden Globe nominations (including one for Best Drama), but seemed to have lost some of the attention as the awards season continued because at the Oscars, only (or „only“) Lynch managed to score a nomination for his direction. You don’t see it too often that nothing from a film is nominated except the director. Says it all about his icon status though.

The cast did not get totally snubbed, but also did not score the attention you could have thought, especially in the case of Naomi Watts for whom this was apparently a bit of a breakthrough film and performance and she surely managed to back up nicely in the two decades since this film’s release. I saw her character described as „perky“ in here and that fits pretty well I would say. But the rest of the cast deserve mentions too. It is a mostly female-centered cast. The guys do not have that much screen time and only play minor characters. The one exception is Justin Theroux, but he did not feel too memorable either. Performance-wise, this is really all about Watts, who is also quite pretty in here. Same can be said about Laura Harring and Michele Hicks. Pity the latter has almost no screen time or text at all. Lee Grant deserves a mention too. She is still with us in 2022 at the age of 96 now. I hope she reaches 100, also because of her Columbo performance. Oh and I absolutely have to mention Billy Ray Cyrus. Not because his character did a lot, but it was a funny cameo. He is the handsome fella that the partner of the male protagonist has an affair with. Of course. Cyrus‘ character beats up a guy on one occasion and is beaten up himself a little later. Karma I guess. Miley was not even 10 at that point. But back to this movie now: As I stated in the title of my review, I enoyed it. A lot at times even. There were some really tense and memorable scenes in here. The camera work really elevated the material so many times in terms of how thrilling some mysteries felt. Be it the scene when the fella is talking about his nightmare and what he expects to see in the restaurant’s backyard. Be it the dude who shoots and kills three people when he only wants to kill one and that first killing also came a bit out of nowhere or be it the scene in which the two female protagonists enter the house and find a corpse there. There was some really nice atmosphere to it all I’d say.

Comedy is nothing you really get here at all. If you want to laugh a lot, this is not the movie to go for. I mean here and there there is some situational comedy like with the jewellery destruction or a little later the big bully who searches for the director and beats up his wife and her lover and how he acts and talks like some robot. The scenes with the director and how the Mob basically forces him to cast a certain actress for his new big movie were also entertaining. Had things stayed like this or become even better in the second half of the film, then I maybe would have considered increasing my rating to 4 out of 5, but I must say that the opposite was the case and I did not like the second half (or final hour) as much as everything before that. Not even close. Like I am talking about the moment when Watts basically takes over a second character, something that happened so often in old films (The Wizard of Oz for example). A character from the past? Ths is where the film kinda lost me. When she wakes up in bed where we saw the corpse lie before that and the other neighbor arrives in a bit of a grumpy state to finally take back her belongings from her neighbor. A bit strange though. I would have expected the two to be friends when they switched apartments before that. But it’s just a monor thingey. Oh yeah, I totally forgot with the cast that there are no really big names on board here, but Robert Forster is also a bit of an exception. That’s why I found it a bit of a pity to see him wasted like that. I mean he only has one scene when he is there in his duty as a police officer to witness the aftermath of a heavy car crash with several dead people. Did the kids all die? Is it maybe his voice we hear on the phone a little later? I am not sure, but I certainly would have liked to see more from him. Oh well, maybe I have to watch Jackie Brown for that. Some Tarantino. Speaking of Tarantino, the film had an ounce of Tarantino to it here and there I felt, even if I myself always preferred Tarantino over Lynch from what I have seen. Admittedly, I have not seen too much from Lynch, but this will change for sure. Like the place they were eating, Winkie’s, felt like something that definitely also could have come from a Tarantino film or so, like the location in which several characters from Pulp Fiction are eating.

Okay what else can I say? This film is not only puzzling, but also a bit of a puzzle. I mean the pieces go together eventually when we see how Watts‘ character makes a contract with a killer near the end and we know who he is from his previous scene. Jealousy may be the motive. As for the guy who collapses after seeing this strange creature/man in the restaurant’s backyard, I have no idea. He was just there because it was the same location? I really don’t know. As one of not too many aspects from the final hour that I liked, I would mention the parallel with Watts‘ character saying something to the men in her car that this is not supposed to be the place where they stop and get out. This was really a harmonic, maybe even romantic surprise there, while the film’s opening was the exact opposite with the woman perhaps about to be killed before the horrible car accident happens. Ironically, she was the only one who survived there apparently. Interesting connection and coincidence too. But the two inside the car did not include the dude who at the end is paid to kill her, did they? Anyway, just some brainstorming. Why would somebody expect to understand a Lynch film at first viewing? Maybe I will give it another go at some point. This is also not really a chronological movie, which makes things more difficult. Apart from that, there are also more than just a few inclusions and references that are fully open to interpretation. Unless Lynch himself elaborates (or already elaborated) on stuff like the dark room at the end and all the light then and Watts‘ face, everybody will have their own perception of the meaning behind it all. If there has to be a meaning at all.

What can be said is that this is a film that has a bit of everything in terms of depictions that some may not find suitable, no matter if we are talking violence or sexuality/sensuality. We see women topless on a few occasions, the stunning actresses I mentioned earlier, but it is just used to move forward with the story, even if the ladies‘ sexual orientation here is nothing that truly defines the film. There are other aspects and inclusions that felt more relevant to me and more at the center of the story. Maybe you will see it the same way if you decide to give this one a watch. Personally, I would say that with the drop in quality (or at least that’s how I saw it), it is a film that deserves a positive recommendation and thumbs-up, but not really an enthusiastic one. I would have liked Watts though to be nominated for the Oscar, but maybe the film was also too weird for many Academy members to honor anything other from it than the man who made it. I came across many people saying that Watts gives the best performance from 2001 and one of the finest from the decade and new millennium even. I am not sure if I would go so far, but if you are curious about excellent female lead performances, then this is a film you can surely go for. If you are not among the over 350k film fans who already rated it on imdb or the millions and millions who watched it without rating it here or anywhere else. Anything else? Oh yeah, animals are not a factor at all with this film and another scene I liked that I have not mentioned yet is the one when the two leads are watching the stage show and how the music in the background goes on still so powerfully after the singer collapsed already. That felt extremely Lynch somehow. So yeah, go watch! I am sure you will find a few scenes you like and appreciate as well. There was never a moment when I regretted going to see this one. Despite its massive length.