Planetarion Forums - Mulholland Drive

Deffeh · 25 Mar 2005, 18:37

Don't buy into whatever anyone tells you about this film, dont let it be said it is a "masterpiece" - films dont come more pretentious and self obsessed. For a start, the acting was unbelievably appalling - i felt like i was watching a sunset beach rerun, where they had no other way of conveying emotions rather than saying "i feel xyz" or "my god i totally get that". Whenever the plot broke down into a sludgefest, theyd try and overcompensate with heavy breathing, at every second of silence. There wasnt a lot of silence either though - in an attempt to cover up the complete lack of suspense, or atmopshere, cliched background music ripped from every horror and thriller of the last fifty years would play over everything. The dialogue was uninspired, and overused - "i guess they arent in" - and lo and behold the door opens. Gratitious nudity was the only was to cover up a plethora of untalented actors and actresses - though to give them some credit Lynch somehow managed to create characters that make the Mr Men seem more 3D. The plot was awful - ive seen plots with holes in them - but never the thinly covered self gratifying rubbish that mulholland drive subjects the hapless viewer to. You can say all you like about abstraction, surrealism, but i'm afraid you simply can't defend characters like "the cowboy" and that ridiculous ogre - they have no purpose other than to sustain Lynch's ego. The ending was rushed, and even when you do "get" the film, its embarrassingly crap, and you want 140 minutes of your life back. Seriously, if you want surreal and abstract, watch Arthouse films. If you want good time shifts in hollywood, look no further than something like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. If you want to see the same actors playing different characters, changing faces - Vanilla Sky did it well enough. If you want Lesbianism, download some porn. If you want entertainment, don't watch this self-indulgent pile of crap.

Some films are so bad they are funny, some films are just really really bad. I think this is the worst film ive ever, ever seen that hasnt been "so bad its funny", which really says something about the quality of it.

EL SILENCIO! EL SILENCIO! woooooooooowoooo. Yeah.

Dace · 25 Mar 2005, 18:44

This is more like the bitter angry Deffeh we've come to know.

Blastoderm · 25 Mar 2005, 18:52

I'm still waiting to rent the bloody film.

MrL_JaKiri · 25 Mar 2005, 18:56

I respectfully disagree.

Deffeh · 25 Mar 2005, 19:01

How on earth can you defend such a sludgefest? When we finished watching it, we all compared our displeasure at watching it to that of watching "Future Sport" with Wesley Snipes and Dean Cain - but that was one of these "so bad its funny" films - but even then i realised as embarrassingly woeful as it was, the acting, plot, and cinematography was better.

Seriously, David Lynch is either
a/ Deranged, self-loving, unbearably stupid and untalented - its a film, not a soap, we dont need a recap from your unbearable hatable paper thin characters every ****ing scene
b/ Hilariously talented, by shitting out a film and watching millions of so called movie "critics" and fans wabj over something he let slip by accident when he relaxed his muscles in the bath

MrL_JaKiri · 25 Mar 2005, 19:03

You don't like [edit2]him[/edit2] so it must be terrible

[edit]

I will admit the ending was a little rushed, but the main reason for that is that it went from a TV Pilot to film in a short space of time.

Deffeh · 25 Mar 2005, 19:05

i also gave reasons, and backed them up, yo.

Ste · 25 Mar 2005, 20:04

maybe you didn't 'get it'

Don't worry - i didn't either and thought it was shit too.

Deffeh · 25 Mar 2005, 20:28

"get it"? The only reason the ending is so ambigious is so that people can use that shitty excuse. Theres nothing to get. Seriously, its not clever at all, its just rubbish and obscure. I'd rather sit through t4 second chance sunday while a rabies infected prostitute knawed at my scrotum than have that shit forced down my throat.

Seth Mace · 25 Mar 2005, 21:03

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0166924/ <- 7.9/ 10

http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=FMulholland|Drive <- 4.5 / 5

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mulholland_dr/ <- 80%

Real critics give this film v.good ratings and those sites are the best online for film reviews imo.

Personally i thought the film was pretty good, it was different and certainly kept me wondering wtf was going on (in a good way;D).

The cheesey acting was INTENDED, if you are slagging it off it kinder highlights to me that you didnt "get" the film (although i suppose in a way this is the films fault). Lynch may be feeding his ego but he doesnt give a sh1t about the masses, i think he very much made this film inaccessible for various reasons. The film makes numerous comments on Hollywood and the darker side of the industry, dumbing down films to appease everyone is one reason why this film ISNT easy to understand.

Back to the acting, the two main characters are dizzy blondes who kind of float through their parts. This is intended (i cant say to much without spoiling the films twist), however one of them has lost her memory, so she aint exactly "on the ball".

There are a number of sites online that explain the twisted plot btw, if anybody wondered what the film was about.

Anyway, i thought it was worth watching, its unique and better then most of the sh1te out there.

Deffeh · 25 Mar 2005, 21:29

There are 18 Pages of 1 out of 10 ratings for Mulholland Drive on imdb, and every one of them that goes into any depth is entirely accurate. What more can i say? Its unique in the sense that someone was foolish enough to fund it. As to being better than most of the shite, i dont know - what are you comparing it to - a plethora of comic book films? Zing, take that hollywood - fire another random superhero at me because i just cant get enough of colin farell, ben affleck, keanu reeves and all the other c-class actors of the world. Even then, their simplicity and lack of jizzing all over themselves make them a moronic but almost acceptable way to waste a couple of hours before bed.

If you're going to give me the whole "critics rate it" shite, i'll point out that mulholland drive is one place above the worldwide recognised classic (and not totally flash in the pan, honest) pirates of the carribean, and lies under such epic films as die hard (.), monsters inc, and "fanny och alexander"

"The film makes numerous comments on Hollywood and the darker side of the industry, dumbing down films to appease everyone is one reason why this film ISNT easy to understand."

You didnt half talk a load of bollocks, but this is just unbelievable. I dont even have words to attack it either, its just clutching at straws for some sort of deep ingrained reason for this film to exist.

Even considering your "they are dizzy blondes!" theory, i've seen more convincing acting in Eastenders, or Dawsons Creek. The dialogue was so poorly scripted, it treated the viewer like an absolute moron, as if we'd forgotten the previous scene every minute or two, the use of music and breathing like i say was so formulaic and overdone.

Tomkat · 25 Mar 2005, 23:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

"get it"? The only reason the ending is so ambigious is so that people can use that shitty excuse. Theres nothing to get. Seriously, its not clever at all, its just rubbish and obscure. I'd rather sit through t4 second chance sunday while a rabies infected prostitute knawed at my scrotum than have that shit forced down my throat.

So what is your interpretation of what Lynch was trying to show?

If you supposedly "get it", then feel free to tell us your interpretation. You haven't demonstrated any indication that you understand any of the concepts in it though, you're just bitter because it requires quite a bit of lateral thinking, which you can't be bothered to do.

That's how it looks from here, anyway.

MrL_JaKiri · 25 Mar 2005, 23:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

a plethora of comic book films

As I said very recently, there are lots of good comic book films. Sin City, for example, looks incredible. Oh, and just to make this set in stone, the films are bad because they're adapted by idiots, not because the source material is poor. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and From Hell are examples of this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Even then, their simplicity and lack of jizzing all over themselves make them a moronic but almost acceptable way to waste a couple of hours before bed.

Whilst you have some respectability for the comments on Mulholland Drive, this just is reactionary bullshit.

Deffeh · 25 Mar 2005, 23:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomkat

So what is your interpretation of what Lynch was trying to show?

If you supposedly "get it", then feel free to tell us your interpretation. You haven't demonstrated any indication that you understand any of the concepts in it though, you're just bitter because it requires quite a bit of lateral thinking, which you can't be bothered to do.

That's how it looks from here, anyway.

Are you wanting a synopsis, or an analysis?

Because im not going to give you an analysis of anything even remotely as shit as the ogre, or the cowboy. To do so would be pandering to the pretentious faggotry that mulholland drive exposed me to. You can't possibly derive meaning from some of it is what im saying - because you're stretching a point thats so implausible, pathetic, and not worth the audiences time.

And i do ****ing English, for god sake. My entire time at university has been spent stretching points that dont exist.

Deffeh · 26 Mar 2005, 00:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Whilst you have some respectability for the comments on Mulholland Drive, this just is reactionary bullshit.

Because i dont have time to watch comic book film after comic book film? Its an entire genre that i dont have time for (much like action), and while im sure theres such things as good comic book films and bad comic book films, none of them really have any significance on the movie world. In the same way that i like sports films - and there are good and bad ones - i wouldnt be as silly as to say that even the best sports movie has any real significance in terms of cinema history.

MrL_JaKiri · 26 Mar 2005, 00:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Because i dont have time to watch comic book film after comic book film? Its an entire genre that i dont have time for (much like action), and while im sure theres such things as good comic book films and bad comic book films, none of them really have any significance on the movie world. In the same way that i like sports films - and there are good and bad ones - i wouldnt be as silly as to say that even the best sports movie has any real significance in terms of cinema history.

Comic Book Film =! Super Hero Film. Check out the Sin City trailer if you haven't already.

By and large, of course, the films we see are superhero films after the success of, say, X-Men and Spiderman. Partially it's because these are the ones that are really well known, character wise, partially because most comics do involve some sort of "special powered individual" for whatever reason.

I could talk on this for a while, today I've been reading Sin City, and a lot of them have Frank Miller comments on censorship and the rights of the "talent" at the back of them.

Knight Theamion · 26 Mar 2005, 02:08

rage rage rage

Seth Mace · 26 Mar 2005, 14:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

There are 18 Pages of 1 out of 10 ratings for Mulholland Drive on imdb, and every one of them that goes into any depth is entirely accurate. What more can i say?

Where are you getting this from? There was 35000 user rankings and the average score is 7.9 out of 10.

Quote:

Its unique in the sense that someone was foolish enough to fund it. As to being better than most of the shite, i dont know - what are you comparing it to - a plethora of comic book films? Zing, take that hollywood - fire another random superhero at me because i just cant get enough of colin farell, ben affleck, keanu reeves and all the other c-class actors of the world. Even then, their simplicity and lack of jizzing all over themselves make them a moronic but almost acceptable way to waste a couple of hours before bed.

Eh? Anyway, i find the film industry to contain so many bad films compared with ones that I find entertaining. We are all like this, we of course just differ in our choice of good & bad (as with this thread

) and imo 7 out of 10 films made dont interest ME.

Quote:

If you're going to give me the whole "critics rate it" shite, i'll point out that mulholland drive is one place above the worldwide recognised classic (and not totally flash in the pan, honest) pirates of the carribean, and lies under such epic films as die hard (.), monsters inc, and "fanny och alexander"

All i was saying, is that i think Mulholland Dr was a decent film and i've got the best Film Reviewers on the Internet, on my side:P (very bitchy yes

)

Quote:

"The film makes numerous comments on Hollywood and the darker side of the industry, dumbing down films to appease everyone is one reason why this film ISNT easy to understand."

You didnt half talk a load of bollocks, but this is just unbelievable. I dont even have words to attack it either, its just clutching at straws for some sort of deep ingrained reason for this film to exist.

Rofl, im just giving back as much as you give out m8:P ( i also made that comment having heard an interview with Lynch, who said as much) Like this;

Quote:

"get it"? The only reason the ending is so ambigious is so that people can use that shitty excuse. Theres nothing to get.

Just to clear it up for you, the ending of the film is not the ending of the story.

Quote:

Even considering your "they are dizzy blondes!" theory, i've seen more convincing acting in Eastenders, or Dawsons Creek. The dialogue was so poorly scripted, it treated the viewer like an absolute moron, as if we'd forgotten the previous scene every minute or two, the use of music and breathing like i say was so formulaic and overdone.

Its not a theory, the main characters are both fooked up individuals (1 on drugs, the other trying tto recover her memory), so my theory stands:P

I also thought the dialogue was simple because the narrative was so abstract (if you dont know, the film doesnt start at the beginning but akin the the snake of infinity - it goes full circle near the last third), so by using "on the nose" dialogue, the film could explain things that bit clearer.

Dont get me wrong, i wouldnt buy this on DVD, i wouldnt even pay to see it at the cinema, i just think your slaggings at it are unfair and misdirected. Maybe Lynch should have fooked off all the sub-context, twisted narrative and instead just made another everyday f#cking drama?

I do however, find your hostility towards the film as some sort of deep ingrained reason for the film not to exist.

Dante Hicks · 26 Mar 2005, 15:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

i wouldnt be as silly as to say that even the best sports movie has any real significance in terms of cinema history.

How on Earth is that relevant in whether an individual film (or even genre of films) are good? Do you honestly watch a movie and say "Well this movie is really enjoyable but it doesn't have any signifcance in cinematic history, so the experience is devalued"?

Also, I don't think you can reasonably say there is a "comic book genre" as MrL has pointed out. There are super hero movies (even then to lump them together would seem odd) but trying to create a genre based on the medium of the source material seems unsustainable. 'From Hell', 'Road to Peridition', 'Batman', 'Akira' and 'Spiderman' are all "comic book movies" but don't have a great deal in common. I'm not even sure you could even tell what their source was (from just watching the movie).

On another note : Pirates of the Carribean was pretty good I thought.

MrL_JaKiri · 26 Mar 2005, 15:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

Where are you getting this from? There was 35000 user rankings and the average score is 7.9 out of 10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0166924/usercomments

Although the first 3 pages have yielded 3 "1" results, one "middle" result, and 26 "10/10"'s.

There are apparantly 36 pages of people who "hated it". There are 51 pages of people who "loved it".

[edit]

Found my 4th on page 7. Which started out by praising some of the things which Deffeh critcised, so it really shouldn't count.

Seth Mace · 26 Mar 2005, 15:55

Pirates of the Carribean was a great fun movie, im sure i wasnt the only guy leaving the cinema wanting to be Jack Sparrow

MrL_JaKiri · 26 Mar 2005, 16:05

PotC2 (and 3

) is going to be a terrible film, I think. The only thing that redeemed PotC from being a mediocre action film were Depp's ad libs, which, knowing how these things happen, will have been written into the script by some talentless hack and therefore lose all their actual interest or humour.

Seth Mace · 26 Mar 2005, 19:09

Aye i agree, the whole appeal of his character was thought up by Depp so the movie probably would have sucked bigtime if some1 else had been cast.

Vaio · 26 Mar 2005, 20:35

Obviously a few people haven't seen 'Dungeons and Dragons'. Voted a piece of crap by the 'Deaf, Dumb and Blind Nationwide Conference League referee film club', and probably everyone else that has had the misfortune to sit through it.

~Vaio~

s|k · 26 Mar 2005, 23:18

I concurr, this movie sucked ass. The plot went from bizaare to wtf to omg why did I rent this. The girl on girl scene rocked though.

MrL_JaKiri · 26 Mar 2005, 23:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

I concurr, this movie sucked ass. The plot went from bizaare to wtf to omg why did I rent this. The girl on girl scene rocked though.

You liked Blade Trilogy. Your opinion is striken from the record.

Blastoderm · 26 Mar 2005, 23:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

You liked Blade Trilogy. Your opinion is striken from the record.

Only Blade 1 is acceptable.

Deffeh · 27 Mar 2005, 00:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

You liked Blade Trilogy. Your opinion is striken from the record.

Agreed, he didnt help my case

Blastoderm · 27 Mar 2005, 00:13

Just watched Sin City trailer, they didn't have the cheek to mention Devon Aoki in the trailer when you could see her in the trailer.

Dante Hicks · 27 Mar 2005, 09:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blastoderm

Just watched Sin City trailer, they didn't have the cheek to mention Devon Aoki in the trailer when you could see her in the trailer.

She has an incredibly freaky looking face. Did she play the alien-looking bird in the Playstation ads?

edit : D.E.B.S. looks like the greatest film ever though!

MrL_JaKiri · 27 Mar 2005, 10:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blastoderm

Just watched Sin City trailer, they didn't have the cheek to mention Devon Aoki in the trailer when you could see her in the trailer.

She's a fairly minor actress with a fairly minor part. They introduced many characters they didn't mention.

Blastoderm · 28 Mar 2005, 13:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

edit : D.E.B.S. looks like the greatest film ever though!

Seen it last year at the London Film Festival. Quality.

Tomkat · 28 Mar 2005, 14:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Are you wanting a synopsis, or an analysis?

Because im not going to give you an analysis of anything even remotely as shit as the ogre, or the cowboy.

Well what about the rest of the film?

You did a good job of avoiding my question.

Phang · 28 Mar 2005, 14:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

i've got the best Film Reviewers on the Internet, on my side

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

www.imdb.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

i've got the best Film Reviewers on the Internet, on my side

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

www.imdb.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

i've got the best Film Reviewers on the Internet, on my side

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

www.imdb.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

i've got the best Film Reviewers on the Internet, on my side

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

www.imdb.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

i've got the best Film Reviewers on the Internet, on my side

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

www.imdb.com

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Dace · 28 Mar 2005, 17:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phang

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This man said what i was thinking.

Weeks · 28 Mar 2005, 17:50

Your post actually makes me want to see the film.

Seth Mace · 29 Mar 2005, 19:18

Lol, go look again at that site and you'll see lots of reviews from everyday joe public and also the average rating they give it.

imdb is one of the most visited sites for film related info, so why isnt it a good place to get an impartial overview of the quality of a film?

Phang · 29 Mar 2005, 19:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

Lol, go look again at that site and you'll see lots of reviews from everyday joe public and also the average rating they give it.

imdb is one of the most visited sites for film related info, so why isnt it a good place to get an impartial overview of the quality of a film?

we all know what imdb is.

We also all know that a good 98% of the people who review films on IMDB are morons.

Seth Mace · 30 Mar 2005, 00:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phang

we all know what imdb is.

We also all know that a good 98% of the people who review films on IMDB are morons.

We all know? Who is "we"?

Are you just generalising intentionally or what? Because it could also be said that people who blindly generalise are morons too.

Whatever you say about that site, most of the 35000 users who rated the film liked it (7.9 out of 10 avg). I dont know about you but thats a lot of opinions supporting any arguement that Mulholland Drive is nowhere near as bad as what you and a few others think?

1-X · 30 Mar 2005, 00:47

I've seen it a couple of times and enjoyed it. I'd recommend it to others

JonnyBGood · 30 Mar 2005, 02:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

We all know? Who is "we"?

Are you just generalising intentionally or what? Because it could also be said that people who blindly generalise are morons too.

Whatever you say about that site, most of the 35000 users who rated the film liked it (7.9 out of 10 avg). I dont know about you but thats a lot of opinions supporting any arguement that Mulholland Drive is nowhere near as bad as what you and a few others think?

I've heard this shocking leftist rumour that maybe judgements on film content and theme are subjective. Confirm/deny?

MrL_JaKiri · 30 Mar 2005, 10:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I've heard this shocking leftist rumour that maybe judgements on film content and theme are subjective. Confirm/deny?

That would be all well and good were not the original post's arguments based on absolutism.

Radical Edward · 30 Mar 2005, 10:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I've heard this shocking leftist rumour that maybe judgements on film content and theme are subjective. Confirm/deny?

</nodrog>

Treveler · 30 Mar 2005, 12:50

I loved the film. Not because I understood most of what was going on, not because of great acting nor a great plot. Its just that most of David Lynch`s work just put a big fat smile on my face and I cant point at any specific reason why it does so. He is able to create a feel or mood that greatly appeals to me and I will never forget the first season og Twin Peaks. The chills, the spooky feeling and crasy Bob (Davola?)

Anyway. I loved the film!

Tomkat · 30 Mar 2005, 17:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I've heard this shocking leftist rumour that maybe judgements on film content and theme are subjective. Confirm/deny?

You know what happens to people who spread such lies.

THAT'S RIGHT.

JonnyBGood · 30 Mar 2005, 17:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

That would be all well and good were not the original post's arguments based on absolutism.

Hardly. For example disagreeing with the choice of music because you find it cliched is not an objective judgement.

MrL_JaKiri · 30 Mar 2005, 19:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Hardly. For example disagreeing with the choice of music because you find it cliched is not an objective judgement.

Quote:

Don't buy into whatever anyone tells you about this film, dont let it be said it is a "masterpiece" - films dont come more pretentious and self obsessed.

Lot of subjectivism there champ.

JonnyBGood · 30 Mar 2005, 19:27

I'm pretty sure that for the comment

Quote:

That would be all well and good were not the original post's arguments based on absolutism

to be accurate you'd require more than that.

MrL_JaKiri · 30 Mar 2005, 20:28

You shut up, I was barely awake.

Dace · 31 Mar 2005, 02:45

Lots of people eat in Burger King and McDonalds and KFC.