Tag: Naomi Watts (Page 1 of 3)

First Watch: “Mulholland Drive” (2001)

Mulholland Drive movie posterMany film critics and commentators consider “Mulholland Drive” to be a masterpiece. Some have called it one of the greatest films of the 21st century. Roger Ebert loved it, and that’s notable as he’s not always a big fan of David Lynch’s films. He opens his review with the following: “David Lynch has been working toward ‘Mulholland Drive’ all of his career, and now that he’s arrived there I forgive him ‘Wild at Heart’ and even ‘Lost Highway.’ At last his experiment doesn’t shatter the test tubes. The movie is a surrealist dreamscape in the form of a Hollywood film noir, and the less sense it makes, the more we can’t stop watching it.”

With that context, it’s a bit of a crime that I had not yet seen the film. I’m old enough to remember watching “Twin Peaks” on television, so I’ve had ample opportunity over the years. The recent passing of Lynch gace me the motivation to go back and check out his films, so I was pleased to see that “Mulholland Drive” was streaming on Tubi.

As Ebert points out, the film doesn’t present a logical narrative. Most people watching it for the first time will be confused, and you just have to let go and follow along with the dream. But Lynch plays a clever trick on the audience, as the film opens with scenes that seem completely real . . . it’s only later that we realize this portion of the film was more of a dreamlike fantasy for one of the characters.

The film begins with a mysterious woman (Laura Harring) surviving a car crash on Mulholland Drive and suffering amnesia. She adopts the name “Rita” from a Rita Hayworth poster and hides in an apartment, where she meets Betty Elms (Naomi Watts), an optimistic aspiring actress newly arrived in Los Angeles. Betty helps Rita uncover her identity, leading them into a web of intrigue involving Hollywood auditions, shadowy figures, and bizarre subplots (like a bungled hit job or a terrifying encounter behind a diner).

Naomi Watts in Mulholland Drive as Betty in pink sweater

About two-thirds in, the narrative abruptly shifts: characters’ identities flip, and we follow Diane Selwyn (Watts again) and Camilla Rhodes (Harring again) in a grimier, more fragmented reality involving jealousy, betrayal, and despair.

If you knew this going in, the film would make a bit more sense, but it also would soften the experience, which is meant to disorient and confuse the audience. I’m eager to watch the film again and experience how it lands a second time through.

Watts and Harring are stunning in the film. They’re both beautiful of course, but they both contribute to layers of sensuality and eroticism that permeate the film. And they brilliantly portray their dreamlike and then reality-based characters. This manifests in many ways, not least of which is the contrast in their two love scenes.

Watts has described the film as a life-changing moment. “That’s why I will never forget what David Lynch did for me. When he cast me in Mulholland Drive, I was literally at the lowest place, and yet he managed to pull away all those masks.” – IMDb She was simply brilliant here, with the contrast between the wide-eyed Betty and the broken and bitter Diane Selwyn.

Harring was a revelation. She had that haunting beauty needed for the role, but also managed to pull off two characters as well. She credits Lynch for her performance. “Lynch told me to ‘walk like a broken doll’… ‘There’s a cloud following you wherever you go, like a dark black cloud that’s very scary.’”

Laura Harring as Rita in Mulholland Drive

For his part, Lynch has always been famously reticent about explaining the full meaning of the film, preferring to let viewers interpret it personally. He has described it as “a love story in the city of dreams” and emphasized its emotional and intuitive origins. Lynch explained: “I always try to tune into those first ideas and let them talk to me, and follow them wherever they lead . . . I guess the initial spark for the film was the name, Mulholland Drive; the signpost in the night, partially illuminated for a couple of moments by the headlights of a car.”

In the end, the film is a brilliant depiction of Hollywood as a city of dreams that can crush the spirit of many who dream of stardom. Now on the more films by David Lynch . . .

Dream House

Months before its late-September release date, we received notification that “Dream House” would be screened in our area. And then, at the last minute, the screening was pulled. The screening for a movie that starred Daniel Craig, Rachael Weisz, and Naomi Watts…was pulled. That is not a good sign, to say the least. It speaks to a sudden lack of confidence in your product, and the studio has gone into damage control mode in order to preserve whatever box office potential it may still have.

Good call, as it turns out, though that’s not to say that “Dream House” didn’t have a wealth of promise. Will Atenton (Craig) quits his job to spend more time with his wife (Weisz) and kids while writing the Great American Novel, but almost as soon as he’s home, his family is threatened by a mysterious stalker. His neighbor Ann (Watts) is sympathetic, but she’s the only one. Once Will discovers that a mass murder took place in his house, he decides to find out more about the crime in question, only to discover that the trail leads directly back to him.

That’s a pretty damn good setup – the only question is where you go from there, and that is where “Dream House” loses its way. There are a myriad of paths the story could have taken, but damned if they didn’t take the simplest option available. Seriously, the explanation for why things went down the way they did is just head-slappingly dumb, and it kills us that we cannot explain why. Add just one more layer to the story, and this could be one of those “Jacob’s Ladder”-type movies where you never really know what is real and what is fantasy. Instead, they took the easy way out. Sometimes it’s better to keep it simple. This, however, is not one of those times, not when you begin the movie by pulling the wool over the audience’s eyes. If your movie is high-concept, then see it through to the very end.

Anyone who grew up watching M. Night Shyamalan movies – and are therefore always on the look for the hook or the twist – will not miss the clues in “Dream House,” which form a veritable trail of bread crumbs. Hopefully the three leads will make another movie down the road, because goodness knows that under better circumstances, they could create something special. (Universal 2012)

Click to buy Dream House from Amazon

Weekend box office: “Megamind” rules the ‘plex, more or less

MegamindThe “divide and conquer” strategy for this weekend pretty much worked as planned. The cuddly supervillain-centric 3D animated comedy with an all-star voice cast from Paramount/Dreamworks “Megamind” underperformed slightly to come in at $47.65 million according to Box Office Mojo. That’s a couple million lower than the numbers bandied about earlier, but actually a few million above the opening of another Dreamworks Animation, “How To Train Your Dragon.” As Anthony D’Alessandro reminds us, that one had strong enough legs to carry it to a major success after an opening that was originally deemed very disappointing.

Next up was the heavily promoted Robert Downey, Jr./Zach Galifianakis vehicle, “Due Date.” The R-rated road comedy earned an estimated $33.5 million for Warner Brothers. It’ll be interesting to see if the lackluster reviews are reflected in less than awesome word of mouth and theatrical legs for the film. Nikki Finke reports that it got a decent B- from Cinemascore, but I remain eternally somewhat skeptical of those surveys.

Robert Downey, Jr. and Zach Galifianakis exchange bon mots in

The #3 film was Tyler Perry’s theatrical adaptation of a very non-Tyler Perry play, “For Colored Girls.” The heavy-duty drama earned true to Mr. Perry’s form with his traditional audience base, and generated an estimate of $20.5 million for Lionsgate. Say what you will about Mr. Perry, an adaptation of an acclaimed poetry-based play earning that kind of cash requires someone with his kind of populist sensibilities and appeal.

In the #4 spot, the age-spanning action-comedy, “RED,” continues to maintain its hold on the box office with an estimate of over $8.85 million for Summit. Last week’s Halloween #1, “Saw 3D,” had the expected big second weekend drop, plus a bit extra. It lost 63.6% for a Week 2 estimate of $8.2 million. “Paranormal Activity 2” is also dropping, but less dramatically (55.8%). It earned an estimated $7.29 million for Paramount in its third week.

Among limited releases, the four theaters showing Danny Boyle’s much discussed James Franco near-one-man-show, “127 Hours,” showed that audiences were willing to pay an arm, if not a leg, to see the fact-based ordeal film and things look promising for a wider release. It endured a spectacular per-screen average of $66,500 for a total of $266,000. Less stratospheric, but still healthy, was the 46 theater debut of the fact-based political ordeal drama, “Fair Game,” featuring Sean Penn and Naomi Watts as Bush-era National Security Council analyst Joe Wilson and his wife, spy Valerie Plame, who was very illegally outed by members of the Bush Administration. (Their defense: it was an accident. Woops.) It earned a per-screen average north of $15,000 and a total of $700,000.

fair-game-watts-penn

« Older posts

© 2026 Premium Hollywood

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑