Explain this to me

[Xenox]

I recently saw Mulholland drive, and it kept me very interested and on the edge ( not to mention lesbo scene, nice!) until the ending. It didn't tie anything together or answer any of the questions it presented very early in the movie.

Seemed like this guy sniffed a bottle of rubber cement and decided to write a movie.

If anyone saw this and understood it please explain it, thanks

[Zinke]

I saw it and remembered being very very angry. I so thought it was gonna have a nice trick ending that makes you re-think the entire movie and I'd be like 'wow!!'

yea so that didnt happen. David Lynch likes to fuck with his audience. Some people say he's a genius and that the whole movie is just visual metaphors. Others say it really does make sense if you pay attention to tons of tiny clues.
I tend to agree with the former, he just films things that are interesting thoughts but doesnt finish them. I believe this is the technical description for film noir? (I'm not a noir buff at all, someone correct me if I'm wrong) Sort of like if you were in a dream, things don't necessarily tie together.

I think he is a talented director, the movie just had a feel to it that I can't describe. Very emotional I guess. There were scenes that were incredibly sad, scary, intense, funny, but didn't necessarily have anything to do with a plot.

so to answer your question, no it made no sense

[Eager Val'Sharess]

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_...10/101205.html

This is the link to Ebert's review, which summed it up better than I ever could.

[Szlia]

It's the pilot of a TV serie that got refused and a french producer gave him money to turn it into a movie. That's why about the 3/4 of the movie is opening many doors that will provide a lot of materials for a whole tv serie and when Lynch realized he can't close all these doors in the time frame of a feature film, he decided to blurry all trails.

I found Mulholland Drive to be a very disappointing movie because it sounds immensely inferior to the TV serie it was supposed to be in the first place (like would be this pilot of Twin Peaks turned into a movie - not Fire Walk With Me, but The Last Days of Laura Palmer, or something like that - if the serie as a whole did not exist).

Edit: spelling

[Synd D`nys]

While David Lynch's movies contain elements of Film Noir, they can be better classified as Surealism.

Yes his films are very metaphorical but there generally is a point or a theme to them. Figuring out what hes trying to say is usually the trick.

Loved the film when I saw it in the theaters. I just bought the DVD a couple days ago and haven't got around to watching it again but theres a list on the insert that tells you specifically what little clues to pay attention to.

[Xaen]

Well.. You'll find LOTS of ideas floating around about this movie.. David Lynch wont budge on what is right and wrong, though. He wants people to keep tuned into it .. Much like how people were always wondering if Deckard was a replicant or not (But the ass director came out and said YES a while back and ruined that... oh well!)

Somewhat of a spoiler, or at least my interpretation of a part of the movie...

Anyways.. I was obsessed with the whole box scenes, and how they related to the old people .. The old couple tie into the box perfectly because they come "out" of it later in the movie. Then the old couple proceeds to scare the lady into killing herself. I'm pretty much stuck on that the old couple are her inner thoughts/drive because of the beginning of the movie with them in it. It really didn't make sense why the old couple would be SO freaking happy, and then it was just obvious Lynch was trying to say something to us by doing that, and then he showed how Betty was SO happy at the same time. It ties the old people to Bettys moods and thoughts.. Them coming out of the box just reinforces that the box contained her memories that she has had locked up .. She killed her lover, and wanted to pretend she didn't. And that also ties in to the nightclub where he constantly says it's an illusion, and she starts to convulse as she slowly realizes what she did and then .. finds the box.. she can now "unlock" her memories which releases all her anger and psychoness (played by the old people again who are all angry and psycho) and she kills her self.

[Searyx]

Most of David Lynch's work defies explanation.

[Xenox]

Some of the statements he's trying to make through imagery of the movie are pretty obvious, but some of it makes no fucking sense, whatsoever.

Such as:

The cowboy, wtf was up with that?

The scary dude that was behind the restaurant in the first part of the movie, then in the ending with the box.

How all the girls reverse roles in the end with the waitress etc.

The random scene where the blonde girl is singing?

Guess I'm just trying to make sense of this movie, but it's impossible cause it obviously was not intended to make sense.

Maybe I should watch again, being stoned as fuck does alter your viewpoint a tad.

[Iannis]

wha? Deckard wasn't a replicant, although Dick kicked that notion around for awhile in the book. I haven't watched it in awhile, but he wasn't one in the movie either...silly director.

classic film noir...seedy characters, black and white, filmed back in the 40s/50s.(and other stuff, but i forgot those film class definitions...heh. i'm actually EDUMICATED, i just prefer to not put much though into my posts!)

Lynch...beh, I don't like him. One of my friends says it's because I don't "get" the symbolism. I prefer to think I just don't "get" all the drug-induced hallucination stuff that is the bulk of lynch movies...hah. Although a backwards speaking midget is a kickass character.

[Synd D`nys]

I've always interpreted the freaky dude behind the restaurant as symbolizing the evil of Hollywood. The role reversal thing is something Lynch likes to do. Lost Highway is another good example of him using juxtoposition of personality.

While I admit that I don't see all of what Lynch is trying to say with this movie I think the most important theme is loss of innocence.

I do agree that I think there are some things in his movies just for the sake of being weird. The Cowboy is a good example of this.

[Kaylum]

Originally posted by Iannis
[b]wha? Deckard wasn't a replicant, although Dick kicked that notion around for awhile in the book. I haven't watched it in awhile, but he wasn't one in the movie either...silly director.

Director Ridley Scott has finally revealed the answer to a plot twist in his film Blade Runner which has been the topic of fierce debate for nearly two decades.
Movie fans have been divided over whether Harrison Ford's hard-boiled cop character Deckard was not human but a genetically-engineered "replicant" - the very creatures he is tasked with destroying.

Little suspicion was raised by the 1982 original version of the film, based on Philip K Dick's novel: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

But a decade later the Director's Cut edition - although deliberately ambiguous - convinced many that the hero was indeed a replicant and in a Channel 4 documentary Scott at last reveals they are correct.

'He's a replicant'

quote from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/825641.stm

i suppose youll have to ask Philip K Dick about the book version being a replicant or not, but as far as the movie goes, the director intented him as a replicant.

youll find dozens of sites devoted to the still on-going debate:
http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=...plicant+or+not

[Synd D`nys]

i suppose youll have to ask Philip K Dick about the book version being a replicant or not

Hard to do since PKD is dead.