Well that was shit

well that was shit.

>dude wooden acting
>dude nonsensical plot
>dude making an open ended plot by forcing a perspective onto the audience then twisting it to make it seem that it's really thought out but really it's just a convoluted mesh of ideas

what the fuck I just marathoned it like 30 mins ago. OP we have a connection. But me opinion is different.

Agreed the acting was pure dogshit

>dude nonsensical plot
You're dumb.

You're autistic. Pretending to understand "artistic" diarrhea doesn't make you look smart.

Being unable to understand one of Lynch's most accessible movies does make you look stupid though.

Priding yourself on pretending to understand it makes you autistic

i agree the acting was weak. but i enjoyed the movie.

best bits were
>cuck coming home to cheating wife and he wrecks her jewelry with a can of paint
>the diner scene was my favorite dialogue and the hobo behind there genuinely spooped me
>the hitman coming to the cucks house and that bitch jumps on him
>the cowboy

...

people have forgotten how to watch movies, which is sad because it was never really that hard to begin with. the artform of the proletariat and yet any break from realism is "wooden" or "nonsensical" . we have been duped somehow, as a collective, by the allure of the documentary. even in fiction films we only want to be fed "truth"

You should probably just watch more movies. MD is a relatively straightforward story told in a less straightforward way, but it is a coherent narrative. It's literally the most acclaimed film of the century so far, do you think all of the filmmakers and critics who praise it are just pretending to understand it to look smart?

>wooden acting

Naomi Watts' performance in this is literally perfect.

i feel like autistic people are less likely to understand art, and would be less inclined to say they understoof something they didn't.

>i agree the acting was weak. but i enjoyed the movie.
why does everyone throw the acting under the bus? all your favorite parts you listed are good acting. is it just because it is melodramatic? because it's not 90's "gritty realist" acting?

>Naomi Watts' performance in this is literally perfect.

This.

OP is fucking bait

>is it just because it is melodramatic?
That's entirely it. Watts is playing a broad, idealised version of the Hollywood starlet for most of the movie, but by the time it shifts from dream to reality it should be obvious that it wasn't ineptitude. I'm sure anyone who's seen Twin Peaks could figure out what Lynch was going for with that.

What do you mean by "truth" in this context? I definitely agree that documentary-style filmmaking has started a trend of drab realism that stifles actual visual or cinematic creativity. But I'd say "truth" is a slippery enough term that one could say a film like Mulholland Drive presents certain truths of its own.

Holy shit please kill yourself.

OP

You missed every single point of the film

>lets force a storyline onto the viewer
>le switcheroo
>hey look mom the films deep

You're confused just as you should. Now, just let your thoughts wander back to all the tits ass and legs you saw. Naomi Watts in the audition scenes was so fucking hot in the skirt hnnngh. Also that betrayal in the end, and Lynch's own music is fantastic, I listen to "mountains falling" every once in a while because it's so depressing

>lets force a storyline onto the viewer
What does that even mean? Isn't that what all film does? Are you capable of expressing your thoughts outside of 'le greentext'?

Really? I liked it.

Lynch has tried so hard his whole career to make a film like videodrome but has failed at every turn. He really is a shitty cronenberg

>>dude wooden acting
>>dude nonsensical plot
weak bait.

also sage

The film is quite clearly meant to be open ended but lynch relies on surface level trickery such as completely changing the narrative half way through the film. It's a completely failed attempt at what it tries to be and only exceeds in being a pretentious nonsensical collection of non stories

Because of this you gain nothing from rewatching it unlike say the sixth sense where there are obvious hints throughout the film. The end result is a film that feels like Lynch said "dude plot twist" halfway through production without any real consideration to the film

>It's a completely failed attempt at what it tries to be
So what exactly does it try to be, and how does it completely fail at that?
>and only exceeds
*succeeds

I can understand the frustration with the film's switcheroo, but Mulholland Drive takes responsibility for the twist, I think. It sticks with it, sees it out, ties it back into what you've seen before. It's not a jump from one narrative to another, but more like a sliding between two which are both seen through to the end, and fleshed out in a way that makes the latter not as much a twist ending zinger as a contrast. I won't claim I know what it's trying to do, but I think it works.

>Because of this you gain nothing from rewatching it unlike say the sixth sense where there are obvious hints throughout the film.

You haven't rewatched it, have you?

>Described as a psycho-sexual thriller
>Is a comedy
BRAVO

I've seen it 4 times now. And every time I rewatxh it more and more

>I rewatch it I hate it more and more