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”.

  • neidu3@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    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.

    • atomicpoet@piefed.socialM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      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.

      • neidu3@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 days ago

        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.

        • atomicpoet@piefed.socialM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 days ago

          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.