It has elements of a movie with a plot, but the producer should be fired, and half of the movie should’ve been left on the cutting room floor. Intersecting semi-independent storylines is nothing new in movie telling. But this movie struck me as the writers trying to be more clever than they actually are. I suspect they saw Pulp Fiction and decided they wanted to make something similar, but they tried too hard and failed spectacularly.
Sure, there’s a main plot that they could’ve worked with, but most of the characters and sidestories seem superfluous, and they should’ve been dropped in an effort to make this movie into a reasonable runtime. For example, the diner scene with the hobo-goblin and the heart attack could’ve been dropped in its entirety. It adds absolutely nothing to the story.
One of the first things I noticed was the overly campy acting. I know these actors from elsewhere, and I know that most of them are good actors who can act properly. It’s as if David Lynch told them to deliberately overact as if it was a highschool play. For example, when landing at an airport and being amazed at this magnificent new place, nobody looks like that. Nobody looks up and into the distance to take in the view IN THE FUCKING TERMINAL. Yay, I see a pigeon roosting next to a sign that says “Exit”.
Then there’s the matter of Chekovs Shoehorned Prop. And by that I mean the golf club in the meeting. Fine, you’re a bigshot director in an important meeting, and you like golf… bring your golf clubs with you. Yes, plural. Why did he bring just one? I don’t golf myself, but it is my understanding that you need a set to play golf. Ergo, he brought just one for some other purpose than golf. And if they were so invested in that particular meeting you try to be professional about it, and not leave the golf club on the table.
Then there’s the espresso snob during the same meeting. “NaPkIn!1, I mAy VoMiT bEcAuSe Of BaD cOfFeE!1”. Nobody reacts that voilently to what can probably at least be described as perfectly OK coffee, even if it’s not their favorite. I know a few coffee snobs, and when they’re heading something where they’re at risk of being served sub-par coffee, they bring their own. No point in putting on a show as if you’re a toddler.
And then there’s The Cowboy character. For starters, this is another one of those scenes they could’ve skipped altogether, but secondly, the way they set the scene is B-movie tier at best. Light bulbs don’t work that way. People don’t talk that way. And cowboys don’t dress that way. And nobody behaves that way. Any person instructed to go meet “The cowboy” would’ve just left as soon as this clown starts talking in riddles. “Yeah, no, fuck this.” Would’ve been the only appropriate reaction.
The dialogue is yet another point where the writers deserves to be curbstomped by a medium-sized ogre. Halfway through the movie I had given up on actually hearing characters speak substance in a realistic way. It had become clear that most of it would consist of pretentious and janky sentences that some 90’s writer thought sounded smart. I’m not a writer, but I’m sure I could’ve written better dialogue in primary school. “What if instead of having a normal conversation, everyone answers questions with a riddle?”
“Silencio! No hay banda!”…Yay, spanish theater scene. They spent way too long in that place just to find the purple cube. Seeing as she (one of the main characters, whose name I don’t remember because I don’t care enough about her) remembers part of the dialogue, does she go to the same theater and the same play all the time?
And then there’s the “Big Reveal”. It was yet another threesome drama with jealousy that resulted in a hit job. There’s a million ways of telling this story, most of them better than this movie.
David Lynch, I hear you’re a good at your job. But I have yet to see any proof of this other than movies that reek of “Trying too hard to seem smart”.
You might prefer to watch a Marvel movie instead. Less ambiguity there.
Alright, your claim seem to be that I’m too low brow to enjoy Mulholland Drive, so explain to me, where am I wrong, and what should I instead enjoy about this movie?
And I couldn’t tell a Marvel movie from a DC movie if my life depended on it.
I’m not saying you’re lowbrow—you’re talking to a guy who unironically loves Chopping Mall. But I am saying you may prefer less ambiguity. So let’s try this again.
Mulholland Drive isn’t enjoyable because it’s a tightly wound plot machine. It’s enjoyable because it isn’t.
Lynch doesn’t make movies that move in straight lines—he makes movies that spiral, twist, and drop you in the middle of something uncanny. For people who like surrealism, ambiguity, and symbolism, that’s the draw. The movie isn’t telling you what to think—it’s inviting you to get lost.
That diner scene you dismissed as pointless? That’s the purest example of what Lynch does. It doesn’t “advance the story.” It advances the feeling. You watch it and you know you’re inside a nightmare. Not a slasher-movie nightmare, not a jump-scare nightmare. Instead, the kind where reality bends, logic collapses, and you wake up with your heart racing even though “nothing happened.” That’s worth more than ten minutes of plot efficiency.
The campy acting? Deliberate. It’s not supposed to look like real life—it’s supposed to look like a dream about real life. That’s why it feels “off.” Later, when the film cracks open, that over-the-top style turns into commentary on Hollywood itself—on performance, on artifice, on self-deception. What looks like bad acting at the start becomes part of the larger game Lynch is playing.
And the so-called “big reveal”? Sure, you can reduce it to “jealousy leading to a hit job.” But the real fun is that there isn’t one definitive reading. Is the second half reality? Is the first half fantasy? Is it all about fractured identity? Is it all about Hollywood chewing people up and spitting them out? Yes, yes, and yes. It’s a cinematic Rorschach test. The ambiguity is the point.
So no—it’s not “writers trying too hard to look smart.” It’s a director making a movie that works on dream logic instead of story logic. Some people hate that. Other people love it.
If you want clarity, watch a Marvel movie. If you want to feel like you just woke up from a dream that won’t let go of you, then watch Mulholland Drive.
I do enjoy ambiguity and non linear storytelling, It’s just that there are so many movies with convoluted storytelling that does it so much better than Mulholland Drive.
I do enjoy movies that don’t follow the “default” Hollywood formula, in fact I prefer that they don’t, but when formulaic avoidance seem to be the main point of the movie and the actual story takes the back seat, it stops being entertaining.
PS: I had to Google Chopping Mall because I’d never heard of it. I must admit that I am 50/50 whether I would dislike it for the 80s horror tropes that have since been overused, or whether I’d like its goofiness.
Sure—there might be movies that do non-linear storytelling cleaner than Mulholland Drive.
Thing is, almost every modern movie that plays with fractured timelines owes something to David Lynch. He’s the director who kicked Hollywood out of its box. Tarantino straight-up yoinked from him. Spielberg respected him enough to give him a cameo. And Lynch’s fingerprints are so distinct that we literally have a word for it now: Lynchian.
And if anything, his influence on TV is even bigger. Before Twin Peaks, television was formula and filler. After Twin Peaks, the door blew open. The Sopranos, Mad Men, Breaking Bad—none of them happen without Lynch proving TV could be art. Prestige TV exists because he broke the mould.
That I can appreciate. I feel the same about many music acts in that I appreciate what they began, even if I’m not particularly fond of their works. This might be sacrilege to say on the internet given the news as of late, but I’m not that into Black Sabbath. Still a metal head, though.
i used to not get mullohand drive too and my friends absolutely love it. so i dug deeper and found this review and it clicked me why so many people love david lynch. it still doesnt make me totally love it but now i ‘get’ it
Saved for later reading
I read your rant, and comments.
You’re too hung up on story and believability. Neither are important.
Some movies use them sparingly, or even not at all. They aren’t worse off for it.Honestly, Mulholland Drive is not my favorite David Lynch either.
Do you like any David Lynch? Eraserhead? Blue Velvet? Twin Peaks TV and Fire Walk With Me movie? 1984 Dune?
Those would be my greatest hits list.
Only one I know for certain that I have seen is Dune. I actually enjoyed it, but it’s the complete opposite of Mulholland Drive in that it should have been a lot longer. Dune seemed rushed to me, and in an effort to fit it all into the movie they reverted to endless exposition scenes that would’ve worked better as part of the actual movie. I enjoy Dune and its book for the world building and the complexity of the politics, but fitting it all into one movie simply didn’t work. I enjoyed it for what it is: An attempt to tell the story of Dune way too much with too little.
Funny enough, most people hate Dune because it’s the most un-Lynch of the David Lynch movies.
It’s a strange, strange film because what came out was this awkward hybrid of Lynch’s weird instincts and Dino De Laurentiis’s desire for the next Star Wars.
Most people who love Lynch love him for the Lynchian stuff. Dune has almost none of that. Instead, it has voiceover exposition dumps, truncated story beats, and production meddling all over the place.
It feels more like a half-finished franchise pilot than a Lynch movie.
That said, if you want a David Lynch movie that’s more accessible that still nails the Lynch vibe, I recommend Wild at Heart because the plot is probably more straightforward for you.
It’s not so much that the plot isn’t straight forward. It’s just that there are so many movies with convoluted storytelling that does it so much better than Mulholland Drive.
I do enjoy movies that don’t follow the “default” Hollywood formula, in fact I prefer that they don’t, but when formulaic avoidance seem to be the main point of the movie and the actual story takes the back seat, it stops being entertaining.
Formulaic avoidance isn’t the point.
The bigger point is feeling, atmosphere, humour. Something that disturbs or delights your subconscious. And if you’re looking for meaning there’s plenty of symbolism to go around too.
Think of his films almost like a Dali painting. You see a world that similar to your own, but it’s dream-like and “off”.
If ambiguity is not your cup of tea—I get it. Nobody says you have to like David Lynch. I’m just explaining why many people do.
Removed by mod
Here’s my unsolicited opinion on something only I care about.
I enjoyed all David Lynch’s movies up to Mullholland at which point the ambiguity/surrealism/whatever-you-wanna-call-it got too high for me. Lost Highway (the preceeding movie to Mulholland) was a favourite. Inland Empire I couldn’t stand. But I know others who love the direction his work took from Mulholland onwards. I think its something personal maybe about what you’re looking for in a movie.
Will check out Lost Highway in the name of science: I need to properly evaluate whether I hate the Lynch factor or just Mulholland Drive. I have been lead to understand that Dune, the only other Lynch film I know for certain that I have seen, is very different from everything else he has made.
Yes Dune was a very troubled project, not representative really as he joined it late and (much to Lynch’s enduring frustration) he did not have the right to approve the final cut. I don’t think he agreed with what was released. There’s a few different cuts of it too I think and some are definately inferior to others. Tragically there never was a ‘director’s cut’ so we are left to wonder what it could have been.
Thank you for that! Not heard of it before.
I hear you. If you didn’t like Mulholland Drive, skip Inland Empire. When I was young, I LOVED Eraserhead, the symbolism the twists, and the wierd offset horror of a man being thrust into unwanted fatherhood. Dune, Blue Velvet, Wild at Heart, and later (on video rather than the theater) Elephant Man: loved them all. Twin Peaks was must-see TV.
Then… something happened. I don’t know if it was simply getting older, or if I’d seen too many other surrealist things, or learned too much about Lynch himself, or if Lynch’s style changed in a way that no longer meshed with me, but I lost my connection to the director more and more as he released more movies. I liked Lost Highway alright, but didn’t think it as strong as earlier work and The Straight Story was atypical Lynch so I didn’t put it on the same scale. Then came Mulholland Drive.
I felt actively cheated by Mulholland Drive. I went in with a back catalog of expectation and came out thinking I’d just watched the director prank the audience. I didn’t know he’d initially planned on making it another TV series, or maybe I’d have been more forgiving.
All that said, there are scenes and concepts in the movie that stick with me. The audition scene and Club Silencio (sp?) are both masterful. The exploration of Hollywood is worthy. Unfortunately, it took me a while to conclude that it was an overall good movie for reasons other than the central plot/exploration, for which I still have not forgiven Lynch.
I skipped Inland Empire in theaters, but later I saw the Criterion re-release and got hung up on the comparitively minor aspect of sex workers – but that is a personal quirk of mine because I feel like male writers/directors are too ready to add prostitutes to everything. After that, I slogged through the rest of the film and still loved Laura Dern, but was happy to be done with it. Much of it felt like a rehash of earlier work and it was too long for my bladder to tolerate.
For more Laura Dern, I recommend Citizen Ruth and – if you aren’t too mad at of Lynch – Wild at Heart. You already know about her Jurassic Park stuff.
For more Naomi Watts, I recommend Birdman or I Heart Huckabees, or go WAY back for a small part in Tank Girl (which is not a ‘good’ movie, but was rather fun and unique for its time).
Not just a series, I’ve read somewhere that it was supposed to be a Twin Peaks spin-off with Audrey Horne as the main character!
