--- title: "Mulholland Drive" year: 2001 kind: "film" canonical: "https://film.one/film/mulholland-drive" fi1m_id: "mulholland-drive" imdb_id: "tt0166924" tmdb_id: 1018 wikidata_id: "Q272608" fi1m_score: 92 critics_score: 82 critics_reviews: 19 published: "2026-09-14" updated: "2026-09-18T08:38:02.189565+00:00" region: "US" licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Mulholland Drive (2001) Directed by David Lynch · 2h 27m · MPA R · Thriller, Drama, Mystery ## Identity Mulholland Drive - **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/mulholland-drive - **Type:** Film - **Fi1m ID:** mulholland-drive - **IMDb ID:** tt0166924 - **TMDB ID:** 1018 - **Wikidata ID:** Q272608 - **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0166924/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/1018, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q272608 **Fi1m score: 92** · Critics 82 from 19 reviews *In a sentence:* Naomi Watts makes Hollywood look worth the trouble, which is the first thing to worry about > David Lynch’s Hollywood mystery is frightening, funny and more moving than its reputation for confusion suggests. Naomi Watts gives its strangeness a human cost, though some wandering passages ask for patience they have not quite earned. ## Synopsis Betty Elms (Naomi Watts) is an aspiring actress drawn to Hollywood and the prospect of becoming a star. Her story becomes entangled with that of Rita (Laura Harring), a woman searching for herself. Around them, the film industry offers glamour, uncertainty and reasons to mistrust appearances. Justin Theroux plays Adam, with Ann Miller as Coco and Patrick Fischler as Dan. Written and directed by David Lynch, *Mulholland Drive* follows its women through a mystery in which dreams, performance and identity complicate the search for a straightforward account of what is happening. ## Review *Mulholland Drive* is a frightening, deeply moving film, and its difficulty is worth the effort. David Lynch takes the familiar prospect of an aspiring actress hoping to become a star and makes the hope itself feel worrying: Betty wants this so much that we begin to fear what disappointment might do to her. Her enthusiasm gives us a reason to care before the mystery has properly taken hold. Lynch asks for more trust than a thriller usually needs, and earns most of it through Watts. Naomi Watts plays Betty’s brightness without inviting us to feel superior to her. Her eagerness can seem excessive, yet the performance lets us recognise the work involved in keeping that much hope alive. Laura Harring’s Rita has enough vulnerability to make their closeness matter, without making the uncertainty around her feel like an acting exercise. We were moved by the tenderness between them; Watts and Harring make the women’s growing attachment worth caring about even when the story becomes difficult to follow. Peter Deming’s cinematography makes Hollywood’s glamour persuasive enough to explain Betty’s enthusiasm, while allowing unease to persist in the same images. The beauty never gives us much comfort. Jack Fisk’s production design makes the contrast between Hollywood glamour and the horror at Winkie’s feel credible, rather than an opportunity to show off two different styles. We were frightened by that sequence, and by the ease with which Lynch makes the nightmare belong there; afterwards, even the film’s more welcoming surroundings are difficult to trust. Mary Sweeney’s editing keeps the dream logic clear enough from moment to moment, even when the connection between passages is elusive. We can follow an encounter without knowing where it belongs in the larger story. Angelo Badalamenti’s music deepens the unease without telling us exactly what to feel about each strange occurrence. Together, the cutting and score keep uncertainty from becoming a constant strain. Lynch can leave a question hanging because the immediate experience remains absorbing, though that licence occasionally encourages him to linger. Some of the supporting-character detours are less rewarding, and Lynch the writer occasionally seems too pleased with a peculiar encounter. At 147 minutes, the film gives that peripheral business more room than it always deserves. We sometimes wanted to get back to Watts and Harring rather than spend longer wondering how another fragment might fit. The looseness is part of its appeal, but that does not make every passage equally compelling. The consensus is more reserved than we are. We disagree especially with the complaint that the style crowds out feeling: Watts makes Betty’s eagerness too exposed for us to regard the film as an elaborate puzzle. Harring gives their relationship a delicacy that makes the surrounding menace harder to dismiss as cleverness. Their scenes together remain involving even when we cannot confidently explain what is happening. As a mystery, it offers fewer reassurances than most: paying attention does not guarantee that every detail will settle into place. That can sound like an excuse for muddle, but Lynch’s control of mood and the precision of the performances make it worth accepting here. There is no need to turn the first viewing into an examination. Watch it with someone willing to sit quietly for a minute afterwards. *Fi1m score 92, published 14 September 2026.* ## What the critics say Most critics admire it, and the praise gathers around Lynch’s dream logic and the way the film wears the clothes of a Hollywood noir without behaving like one. Reviewers return to the same qualities: a mystery that resists solving, images that stay with them, and a portrait of the film industry as a dream factory turned sour. Naomi Watts’s double performance draws frequent and specific notice. Several reviews remark on the film’s origins as a rejected television pilot and find the finished feature more coherent than that history suggests. The reservations cluster at the final stretch. Variety and The AV Club find the closing section a sharp turn into confusion after a controlled first hour, and Time Out feels style wins out over feeling. The one outright dissent, from the Evening Standard, calls the whole thing empty pretension. Otherwise the spread is narrow, and the later reviews, written after rewatches and a restoration, are if anything warmer than the first. ## Straight answers **Is Mulholland Drive worth watching?** *Mulholland Drive* is worth watching for anyone prepared to accept a mystery that does not explain itself, and we scored it 92. Naomi Watts and Laura Harring make the women's attachment moving enough to carry the strangeness, though at 147 minutes some supporting detours ask for more patience than they repay. Most critics are cooler on it than we are. **How long is Mulholland Drive, and what is it rated?** *Mulholland Drive* runs 2h 27m and is rated R by the MPA in the US. It is a thriller and drama film. **Where can I watch Mulholland Drive in the US?** *Mulholland Drive* is available to rent from Amazon Prime Video from $3.99. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service. **How violent or frightening is Mulholland Drive, and is it suitable for children?** *Mulholland Drive* carries a 15 certificate and is frightening rather than bloody, with one sequence at a diner that unsettled us and made the rest of the film harder to trust. There is adult sexual content and a mood of sustained menace, so it is not for children, and nervous viewers should know the fear comes from atmosphere rather than gore. **How does Mulholland Drive compare to Vertigo?** *Mulholland Drive* and [*Vertigo*](https://film.one/film/vertigo) are both mysteries about desire making it impossible to see clearly, but Lynch's film abandons the straightforward account altogether where Hitchcock's keeps a plot, however far-fetched. Vertigo is the more contained and the easier first viewing; Mulholland Drive is the more frightening and, for us, the more moving, if you can let the questions stay open. **What should I watch after Mulholland Drive?** After *Mulholland Drive*, try [*Persona*](https://film.one/film/persona) (1966, Fi1m 89): Two women grow close, and certainty about who they are begins to slip. Then [*Vertigo*](https://film.one/film/vertigo) (1958, Fi1m 92): Desire makes looking unreliable in another mystery that rewards close attention; and [*Burning*](https://film.one/film/mississippi-burning) (2018, Fi1m 72): For the same unease about desire, appearances and what a mystery can explain. ### Reviews we read (19) - **RogerEbert.com**, Roger Ebert (4/4): The critic praises Lynch's film as a masterful surrealist dreamscape in the form of a Hollywood noir, where the lack of conventional sense makes it all the more compelling and hypnotic to watch. [Read](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/mulholland-drive-2001) - **The Times** (★★★★★): The critic praises Lynch’s madness-saturated mystery as a gripping, inexplicable experience with double identities and Möbius-strip narrative strands. It notes the film’s origins as a rejected TV pilot extended to feature length and its enduring appeal in a new digital restoration. [Read](https://www.thetimes.com/culture/film/article/mulholland-drive-2001-hnzbcjdt3) - **Empire**, Simon Braund (90/100, inferred): Lynch orchestrates a liquid, undulating dreamscape that is beautiful, heartrending, madly confusing and awe-inspiring in its daring and execution. The critic calls it a bona fide masterpiece and an erotic, deeply unsettling journey through the subconscious. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/mulholland-drive-review/) - **Film Comment**, Amy Taubin (90/100, inferred): The critic views the film as a radical, formally inventive realization of surrealist theory of film as dream, constructing a bifurcated narrative that transforms meaning through shifting identities and anxiety. It singles out the psychosexual dynamic of the lesbian love story and its portrait of woman as patriarchal pawn within a paranoid vision of the Hollywood industry. [Read](https://www.filmcomment.com/article/in-dreams-mulholland-drive-review/) - **Los Angeles Times**, Kenneth Turan (90/100, inferred): Mulholland Dr. is a mystery that doesn’t want to be solved, a dark dreamscape that needs to be experienced rather than explained. Lynch constructs something that looks like a conventional story but refuses to act in any expected way, creating unforgettable images from a dreamlike world. [Read](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-oct-12-ca-56240-story.html) - **Slant Magazine**, Ed Gonzalez (90/100, inferred): The critic hails the film as a haunting, selfish masterpiece that literalizes surrealism as a perpetual dream state, commending its intricate dream logic and portrayal of Hollywood's dark underbelly. [Read](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/mulholland-drive/) - **The New York Times**, Stephen Holden (90/100, inferred): Lynch has created a nervy full-scale nightmare of Tinseltown that seizes the dream factory cliché and hurls it through the looking glass. The film evolved from a rejected TV pilot into a fascinating example of how a great film can evolve out of adversity. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/06/movies/film-festival-review-hollywood-a-funhouse-of-fantasy.html) - **Total Film** (90/100, inferred): Lynch subverts the soap-opera glamour of the film industry with nightmare logic and a wonderful cast, holding the manic, psychotic mood right up to the harrowing finale. [Read](https://www.gamesradar.com/mulholland-drive-review/) - **Sight and Sound**, Kim Newman (85/100, inferred): The critic praises the film's disturbing unity despite its origins as a shelved TV pilot and subsequent re-edits into a feature, noting how Lynch probes narrative, performance, and identity through dream-like layers. Naomi Watts delivers a standout dual performance, shifting convincingly from bright aspiring actress Betty to the more damaged Diane. [Read](http://old.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/review/1886) - **The New Yorker**, Anthony Lane (80/100, inferred): The critic finds the film a lush, confident neo-noir that excels in its sensual, dreamlike exploration of identity, Hollywood dreams turning to nightmares, and erotic tension, with standout moments in the leads' chemistry and Betty's audition scene. Some Hollywood satire elements feel coarser and less effective. [Read](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/10/08/road-trips) - **Time Out**, Tom Huddleston (4/5): The critic finds style dominating over soul in Lynch’s glamorous, slippery Hollywood noir, which gleefully trashes narrative with memorable sensory moments like the Winkie’s creature and Silencio nightclub. While visually stunning and moodily maintained, it lacks the emotional heart of Lynch’s strongest work. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/mulholland-dr) - **The Guardian** (75/100, inferred): Lynch returns to his signature surreal style after The Straight Story. The film is praised as a complex but coherent subversive noir with emotional depth from leads Naomi Watts and Laura Elena Harring, though it may be too weird for some. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2002/aug/21/dvdreviews) - **The AV Club**, Scott Tobias (70/100, inferred): The critic praises Lynch for salvaging a challenging and seductive narrative from a rejected TV pilot, highlighting the first hour's dream logic and Watts' performance while noting the second half's shift into psychotic excess. [Read](https://www.avclub.com/mulholland-drive-1798192780) - **Variety**, Todd McCarthy (70/100, inferred): The first three-quarters build compelling suspense, atmosphere, and emotional intensity with strong performances, especially Naomi Watts as Betty, and effective Lynchian dread in its Hollywood setting. The final section shifts abruptly into confusing, mind-twisting territory that risks alienating audiences. [Read](https://variety.com/2001/film/awards/mulholland-drive-david-lynch-1200468290/) - **Evening Standard** (20/100, inferred): The film adds up to nothing and creates mystery without explanation; it is surreal pseudery that arrogantly intends to make no sense at all. [Read](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/mystery-without-an-end-7433070.html) - **The Ringer**, Adam Nayman (90/100, inferred): The review hails the film as Lynch's crowning achievement and an inexhaustible masterpiece that sums up his obsessions. It singles out Naomi Watts' layered, star-making performance and the film's satirical take on Hollywood as standout elements. [Read](https://www.theringer.com/2021/10/19/movies/mulholland-drive-20th-anniversary-david-lynch-naomi-watts) - **Eye for Film**, Angus Wolfe Murray (85/100, inferred): Lynch returns to his signature territory of illusion and unease, where appearances deceive and nothing fits neatly into place. The critic highlights the film's persistent fascination and Lynch's skill in massaging reality out of shape through deliberate dialogue, odd characters, and glitches in the storyline. [Read](http://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/mulholland-drive-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray) - **Consequence** (80/100, inferred): The critic recalls an early, disorienting college viewing and a recent rewatch, reflecting on the film's fractured structure, dreamlike pliability of reality, and status as Lynch's personal favorite. It praises the neo-noir's confounding yet resonant power two decades on. [Read](https://consequence.net/2021/10/mulholland-drive-anniversary-essay/) - **HeyUGuys**, Dave Roper (80/100, inferred): The critic celebrates the film's complex, elliptical structure as a source of particular satisfaction and rewards for the viewer who perseveres. They single out the reality-bending transition involving the blue box for its jarring yet thought-provoking effect on themes of identity and dreams. [Read](https://www.heyuguys.com/mulholland-dr-joy-complicated-yarn/) ## Details - **Director:** David Lynch - **Director:** David Lynch - **Writer:** David Lynch - **Cinematography:** Peter Deming - **Editor:** Mary Sweeney - **Music:** Angelo Badalamenti - **Production design:** Jack Fisk - **Costume design:** Amy Stofsky - **Producer:** Tony Krantz, Mary Sweeney, Neal Edelstein - **Cast:** Naomi Watts as Betty Elms / Diane Selwyn; Laura Harring as Rita / Camilla Rhodes; Justin Theroux as Adam; Ann Miller as Coco; Mark Pellegrino as Joe; Robert Forster as Detective McKnight; Dan Hedaya as Vincenzo Castigliane; Angelo Badalamenti as Luigi Castigliane - **Runtime:** 2h 27m - **Certificate (MPA):** R - **Release (the US):** 19 October 2001 - **Genres:** Thriller, Drama, Mystery - **Also in:** [Golden Globe Best Drama winners](https://film.one/collections/golden-globe-drama.md) (Nominee, 2001) - **Budget:** $15 million - **Box office:** $20 million - **Trailer:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oa64ktrwKY ## Where to watch in the US - Amazon Prime Video: rent $3.99, hd - Amazon Prime Video: buy $12.99, sd *Checked 2026-09-14.* Also available in: AT, AU, BE, BG, CA, CH, CZ, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, GB, HU, IN, IT, JP, NL, NO, NZ, PL, PT, RO, SE, US. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country. ## Awards - Academy Awards 2002: Best Director (nominated) ## If you liked this - *Persona* (1966), Fi1m 89: Two women grow close, and certainty about who they are begins to slip. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/persona.md) - *Vertigo* (1958), Fi1m 92: Desire makes looking unreliable in another mystery that rewards close attention. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/vertigo.md) - *3 Women* (1977): An uneasy friendship becomes harder to explain without becoming less absorbing. - *Burning* (2018), Fi1m 72: For the same unease about desire, appearances and what a mystery can explain. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/mississippi-burning.md) - *Perfect Blue* (1997), Fi1m 82: A performer’s changing public image feeds an increasingly frightening crisis of identity. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/perfect-blue.md) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/mulholland-drive