Like the title said, this is my first David Lynch film. I do not know who David Lynch is, nor have I heard of his previous films. So maybe I am missing something by not seeing the others. I do hope that this is not the case. I was told to watch this my a close friend as she regarded it quite highly. This is not an easy movie to understand, so to be fair, I watched it three times, each time with a different mindset. The conclusion, unfortunately, is that this film is not one that should be hailed for being a "piece of art" or anything extraordinary. This film has some beautiful scenes, but that is about it.
Many people have claimed that this film is art. Well, I must respectfully disagree with them on this regard. If all art is is putting pretty pictures together, then anyone can be an artist. True art goes much deeper. This is where Muholland Drive fails. During my second time of watching, I was told to "think less and let it (the movie) flow". This is quite impossible as whatever flow this movie tries to achieve is destroyed by its inconsistency.
My final time I tried to pick up certain parts of the movie, and tried to make some sort of sense to it. However, it leaves 40% of the scenes unexplained. Is the director trying to lure people in by showing us eye candy and hoping the rest would flow as people get too caught up with their desperate attempts to scrounge up some meaning for it? I think it might be the case.
Should you watch this movie? I don't know. It is a beautiful movie but that is it. Pure eye candy with no substance. I really wanted to try to find some meaning to this film, but it seems that it is the movie that is preventing me from doing so.
Many people have claimed that this film is art. Well, I must respectfully disagree with them on this regard. If all art is is putting pretty pictures together, then anyone can be an artist. True art goes much deeper. This is where Muholland Drive fails. During my second time of watching, I was told to "think less and let it (the movie) flow". This is quite impossible as whatever flow this movie tries to achieve is destroyed by its inconsistency.
My final time I tried to pick up certain parts of the movie, and tried to make some sort of sense to it. However, it leaves 40% of the scenes unexplained. Is the director trying to lure people in by showing us eye candy and hoping the rest would flow as people get too caught up with their desperate attempts to scrounge up some meaning for it? I think it might be the case.
Should you watch this movie? I don't know. It is a beautiful movie but that is it. Pure eye candy with no substance. I really wanted to try to find some meaning to this film, but it seems that it is the movie that is preventing me from doing so.