Originally posted by Capo de La Cosa Nostra: Lynch isn't for everyone, and I know that you know that, but I can't quite fathom "weird for the sake of being weird" as a criticism. Isn't The Godfather "serious for the sake of being serious"? Isn't X-Men "action-packed for the sake of being action-packed"? Isn't Dumb and Dumber "funny for the sake of being funny"? If anything, "weird for the sake of being weird" is a good thing, no? It certainly makes a film original. And let's face it, how many films can you compare Mulholland Dr. to? In fact, I've read many times the adjective "Lynchian" being used to describe somebody else's work, but I've never read a review of Lynch's films with overt reference to others.
I agree Lynch isn't for everyone and sure, you can say any comic book movie made in the last 6 years has probably been made as "action for the sake of action." And you can say Dumb and Dumber is "funny for the sake of being funny." etc. But when a very small percentage of those who have watched Mulholland Dr. understand it fully, I think it defeats it's purpose as a movie.
Monty Python and the Hoil Grail **
The first 20-30 minutes were good but towards the end I was bored and felt like I was watching The Yellow Submarine or something.
