The Worst Movie of all Time? - Mulholland Dr. (2001) Discussion

[–] shastwell-57685 7 years ago

Does the fact it recently came top of the BBCs best films of the century so far, taken from 170 film critics round the world , cause you in anyway to doubt your opinion?

reply

[–] picturetaker 7 years ago

Same critics that said Ghostbusters is good?

reply

[–] seedless421 7 years ago

Do you have no soul? Ghostbusters is f#*%ing awesome.

reply

[–] Franco_Zed 7 years ago

Ghostbusters is tons of fun.

__ __

Hate leads to anger.
Anger leads to the Dark Side.
This is a Haiku.

reply

[–] ghghghgt 7 years ago

critics are these "pseudo-intellectuals" who are thinking they are better than everyone, this is an awful movie and anyone who is not thinking they are better than everyone understands it

reply

[–] Medinensis 7 years ago

critics are these "pseudo-intellectuals" who are thinking they are better than everyone

Interesting rationale to defend what sounds like a very fragile ego.

Are you this easily offended in all areas of life when disagreed with?

reply

[–] blowmonkeySA 7 years ago

Do you have any reasons to support your opinion? So far it sounds like you don't like it because you don't understand it, and don't want anyone to explain it to you. That's not really an intelligent position, but you have every right to take it.

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

Not mine. I may be interested to hear what certain critics think about a film but that wouldn't make me doubt my own opinion. The most celebrated critics were Siskel and Ebert people disagreed with them all the time.

reply

[–] Medinensis 7 years ago

It's ok that you didn't care for the film. Really.

Hopefully you'll respect the fact that many others disagree with you, just as we respect your disagreement with us:

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150720-the-100-greatest-american-films

Ever hear a joke for which you get the intended humor but just don't break out in laughter?

If someone explained why the joke was hilarious and they spilled their guts laughing at it, is it likely the joke will induce a different response from you?

Probably not.

We're all wired a little differently and may not always understand why we like or dislike something.

For me I find the film masterfully crafted in all phases, that, and I think Ebert said it best (he often did):

This is a movie to surrender yourself to. If you require logic, see something else. "Mulholland Drive" works directly on the emotions, like music. Individual scenes play well by themselves, as they do in dreams, but they don't connect in a way that makes sense--again, like dreams. The way you know the movie is over is that it ends. And then you tell a friend, "I saw the weirdest movie last night." Just like you tell them you had the weirdest dream.

reply

[–] shastwell-57685 7 years ago

Medinensis.
Your comments are very lauderble, But the OP does Not deserve such respect.

From his tone he is clearly someone who is not interested in reasonable debate.

He tells us we are either liars or retarded for liking the film. (as presumably are all those critics)
so why would he take our views seriously?

it's clear he is someone incapable of reasoned debate from the start.

reply

[–] tornado2449 7 years ago

It's good that you brought that up Medinensis cause with 20 minutes to go that I brought up the review page and as soon as I saw Ebert's description that you posted...I understood why I wasn't really feeling the movie.

I mean I could piece together things here and there...but there just didn't seem to be a big picture story for me to get behind. It just didn't click for me. I know I'm not the smartest guy, but I like my share of psychological thrillers that have a deeper story (Jacob's Ladder, The Machinist ect) and this one just didn't do it for me.

I guess I just don't see how the A story and B story really connected in a way that was a realistic payoff for the previous 2 hours. But maybe I'm looking too much into the story to all add up when some of the pieces don't fit.

reply

[–] shastwell-57685 7 years ago

Tornado. Thanks for a post that says you didn't like it, why you didn't , but still respecting others views.
it's very rare!

I would only say, Don't worry about it not makeing sense. (at least in the normal redutive way)

I treat film like music or painting, it does not have to make sense.
It does not Have to be a Narrative like a play or book (not that they Have to be either actually)

Its only expectations put on it by the great majority that film Has to "tell a story" . it no more "has" to than instrumental music does or abstract painting.

I love Lynch #1 due to the sensual qualities of the films. The look and v much the sound. the editing, the repitions of motifs (like in music) . the emotions it provokes......, the poetry...Not the Narrative.
Not to say there is no narrative.....but if there is its hidden. Fun to try and find, but Not the main point IMO.

So i quite uderstand many not liking it as most expect a narative in film. I think its their loss as they miss getting Lynch and a lot of other great things. But i dont mind them as long as they dont call me a liar etc etc for liking it.
If they do that they show they dont have the open mindedness to have a hope of getting Lynch anyway.

its not a question of intelligence either.... but i think it Is a question of being a bit more open minded than average.
Willing Not to go along with the general expectations that a film has to make sense in a reductive way

for an objective point in Lynches favour....you cant discount the huge regard he is held in by critics, and the fact he is cited by many many film and TV writers and directors as a major influence.
Im watching Mr Robot now, Lynch is all over it.
So i would give this as a reason not to go with your initial negative view and give him another chance.

reply

[–] tornado2449 7 years ago

Thing is, the most important thing for me is the writing. It's one of my few natural talents so it's the main concept of what I judge entertainment on. I can appreciate the other merits certainly, but the story/writing is what I look for most. So it's a little tougher for me to shut that off. I mean I didn't hate it by any means. But I'm more of a story than a art guy so even with an open mind (which I certainly have given some of the crazy films I've seen over the years) I'm not sure it will ever mean as much to me as to others. But thanks for noticing my attempt at not being an ass in disagreement of taste. That's my goal after all.

It's interesting that you bring up Mr. Robot though..cause that's been on my to do list for some time. I was a big fan of Dexter (until they ruined it of course) and I heard there are elements of that show in Mr. Robot as well. Looks like I have another piece to look at influence wise for that show.

reply

[–] shastwell-57685 7 years ago

What do you not like about. the writing? is it the fact theres loose ends and does mot make sense at least in the traditional narrative sense.? or that the dialogue is not good , or charatorisation not good?

I see Lynch films i nthe tradition of "Stream of consiouness". Virgina woolf is my faverite writer ( though im not a big reader).

Would seeing lynch as part of that style make sense to you? In that style the story is not of primary importance IMO.

reply

[–] Medinensis 7 years ago

Here is another way to describe what Lynch is about with this film:

http://www.rogerebert.com/balder-and-dash/poetic-logic-on-david-lynchs-mulholland-dr

Excerpts:

Lynch says of the film, “I think [audiences] really know for themselves what it’s about. I think that intuition—the detective in us—puts things together in a way that makes sense for us ... [p]oets can catch an abstraction in words and give you a feeling that you can’t get any other way.”

When watching "Mulholland Dr.," then, viewers’ enjoyment is decided not by the film itself but by the degree to which they can let it, as William Carlos Williams once said of the modern poem, “spray in your face.” And this is where Lynch has gotten into trouble with his critics. Rather than accepting that a film might build itself on poetic logic, they expect novelistic logic . . . .

Hope that wets your appetite. It's a good read.

reply

[–] KingCobra686 7 years ago

Did i miss something?

PS: don't give me the philosophical BS answer like its a commentary on Hollywood or explain the message of the movie

What? You are asking if you missed something, but you don't want any explanations of what you missed?

reply

[–] ghghghgt 7 years ago

not the worst but I am willing to bet in the top 10 of the worst movies ever made

reply

[–] oldgoldtop 7 years ago

"The worst movie of all time?”

“don't give me the philosophical BS answer like its a commentary on Hollywood …I get all that…”

"Just because it has great "themes..."

"Am I missing something?"

UnknownVillian may be on to something, but viewers who stop there likely do not perceive the complete "film language" (missing something?) and are perhaps ignoring or possibly unaware of what things seem to be of interest to DL and could be expected to "drive" his creative expression (still missing?). I agree if it were indeed simply an eccentric commentary on Hollywood that it would be a rather clumsy and unfulfilling effort with a very trite and stereotypical POV, not at all worthy of Lynch’s creative talents (IMHO)…and certainly NOT a great film (nor a "great theme"). And I suggest such an interpretation does not represent Lynch’s personal view of the physical world of Hollywood and I am unaware of anything in his history to strongly suggest he would be inspired to focus on such a clichéd "Hollywood" POV.

What seems often "missing" from most viewers’ analysis is any connective consideration of likely inspiration that may reside within the artists' mind. There is a wealth of material available to begin to form some basic understanding of DL’s world. It is not necessarily the dark and scary landscape that some might have imagined. Learning about Lynch can help enlighten the curious viewer to possibly lead to a deeper understanding of what can be depicted in MD. At least I still am enjoying exploring MD and find it quite amazing.
"Go "West"..."
ogt

reply

[–] mike-848 7 years ago

The music is annoying. At the end all I got out of it was that I was watching delusions of an insane jealous lesbian. Nothing more.

reply

[–] Medinensis 7 years ago

The music is one of the overwhelming pluses.

Having said that, preference in music is as subjective as it gets, so . . .

reply

[–] mike-848 7 years ago

I shoulda been clearer. The music is perfect for the film. It's just constant.

reply

[–] blacknyellowsquid 7 years ago

I was watching delusions of an insane jealous lesbian.

Lol, basically, but for whatever it's worth, it's one of my all time favorite movies. Unlike the OP, to me it IS the execution that makes it worthwhile. I really like that we get to see inside what an insanely jealous person might be feeling...the dream was such an obvious contrast to reality, it was her wishful thinking, all with the undercurrent that something really bad was lurking and ever-present, unshakable (which was true -- in real life she knew Camilla/her ex-lover had successfully been assassinated by her doing and there was nothing she could do to change it). I just really liked seeing how the real life facts got interpreted into the dream. And, to me, the reveal of what was REALLY going on (contrasting with the dream) was awesome.

And the scenes with Adam were funny!

But, to each their own, naturally.

reply

[–] DracTarashV 7 years ago

Um, no. No.

You want something corny? You got it!

reply

[–] woundedtomato 7 years ago

I watched this when it first came out and actually to me its great. The first half is the start of one great movie and the second half is the ending to a great movie. Now I got to say I think if th ey were the same movie it might be better. It's like somebody dropped two great scripts and mixed them up when they put them back together.

reply