--- title: "Mulholland Drive: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/mulholland-drive/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/mulholland-drive" critics_score: 82 critics_reviews: 19 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): what the critics said Critics' score 82 from 19 reviews: 18 positive, 0 mixed, 1 negative. 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. ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Rating 4/4. 12 October 2001. 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 the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/mulholland-drive-2001) ## The Times Rating ★★★★★. 7 April 2017. 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 the review](https://www.thetimes.com/culture/film/article/mulholland-drive-2001-hnzbcjdt3) ## Empire — Simon Braund Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 4 January 2002. 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 the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/mulholland-drive-review/) ## Film Comment — Amy Taubin Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 1 September 2001. 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 the review](https://www.filmcomment.com/article/in-dreams-mulholland-drive-review/) ## Los Angeles Times — Kenneth Turan Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 12 October 2001. 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 the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-oct-12-ca-56240-story.html) ## Slant Magazine — Ed Gonzalez Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 26 September 2001. 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 the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/mulholland-drive/) ## The New York Times — Stephen Holden Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 6 October 2001. Festival review. 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 the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/06/movies/film-festival-review-hollywood-a-funhouse-of-fantasy.html) ## Total Film Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 4 January 2002. 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 the review](https://www.gamesradar.com/mulholland-drive-review/) ## Sight and Sound — Kim Newman Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2002. 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 the review](http://old.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/review/1886) ## The New Yorker — Anthony Lane Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 1 October 2001. 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 the review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/10/08/road-trips) ## Time Out — Tom Huddleston Rating 4/5. 10 April 2017. 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 the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/mulholland-dr) ## The Guardian Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 21 August 2002. 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 the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2002/aug/21/dvdreviews) ## The AV Club — Scott Tobias Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 12 October 2001. 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 the review](https://www.avclub.com/mulholland-drive-1798192780) ## Variety — Todd McCarthy Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 16 May 2001. Festival review. 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 the review](https://variety.com/2001/film/awards/mulholland-drive-david-lynch-1200468290/) ## Evening Standard Fi1m's normalised score 20/100 (inferred from the text). 10 April 2012. 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 the review](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/mystery-without-an-end-7433070.html) ## The Ringer — Adam Nayman Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 19 October 2021. 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 the review](https://www.theringer.com/2021/10/19/movies/mulholland-drive-20th-anniversary-david-lynch-naomi-watts) ## Eye for Film — Angus Wolfe Murray Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 2 January 2002. 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 the review](http://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/mulholland-drive-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray) ## Consequence Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 13 October 2021. 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 the review](https://consequence.net/2021/10/mulholland-drive-anniversary-essay/) ## HeyUGuys — Dave Roper Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 13 April 2017. 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 the review](https://www.heyuguys.com/mulholland-dr-joy-complicated-yarn/) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/mulholland-drive.md