LA Movie Watch: Under the Silver Lake (2018)

Watched:  05/01/2026

Format:  DVD - library

Viewing:  First

Director:  David Robert Mitchell

Under the Silver Lake (2018) is an interesting movie.  For what it sets out to do, I think it succeeds.  I am not, however, particularly a fan of movies that basically say "you'll get it when you watch it again and everything at the beginning will mean something different now that you know the end".  I mean, it's fun in a way, but I ain't got time for that.

SPOILERS

It's a movie that is having great fun encoding the hidden jokes and meaning in the movie while being about someone who is falling down the well of conspiracy theory and seeing hidden messages in everything.  From an academic exercise - it's no doubt an interesting magic trick, what writer/ director David Robert Mitchell is doing.

I guess I'm kind of caught on the "...and so what?" of it all by the end.  Like, it's a neat trick.  But...  to what end? 

Deciphering what was actually happening and why could absolutely be something one could try.  And maybe the movie even could have spoken to the moment as, in 2018, QAnon was still a force, and America was fully descending into seeing hidden meaning in everything (we just live there now).   

It's certainly saying something about the ephemeral (and corporate) nature of pop culture, music and things we value versus the lives we envy - which it pitches somewhere between the ascension of Christ and the damnation of Dracula and his brides.  

Our lead, Sam, is a loser on his way down - but who harbors delusions of grandeur.  He's 33 and still basically hanging around the scene of 20-somethings, jobless, where it's no longer cute to be a slacker. Banging an actress who *is* working.  And, of course, he's maybe a serial dog murderer.  And in a movie laced with codes, and hidden meaning, we can name someone else who had a big year when *they* were 33.

But, yeah, it's a movie with an unreliable narrator/ protagonist.  Which is absolutely an unusual thing to see.  It just takes a beat to figure it out.  I guess I figured out something was up when we first meet Sam (Andrew Garfield) looking at the "dog killer' messaging painted on a window and then he has dog biscuits and claims to have just had a dog die.  

A lot of folks want to frame this as neo-noir, including the movie's marketing.  It just never really landed with me as neo-noir.  It was pretty clear from jump that our lead is delusional, so his pursuit of the missing Sarah is suspect for the audience from the second he decides he has to find her.  So, yeah, I guess if it's about someone in a mystery where they're in over their head - sure.  Neo-noir.  I'm not here to play Noir Cop.

The movie is essentially the hazy POV of someone who may be hallucinating for a good half of the movie.  It's open to interpretation what is real and what isn't.  I suspect large portions in the second half are just Sam's version of events.  

I guess I just didn't care enough about what was happening at some point to care to put the pieces together.  That "so what?" of the movie - which it puts on the table about all pop culture and therefore about itself as a mass-release movie - is a tough question to ask.  At some point, it's just the writer/ director being clever.  And that's fine.  I just didn't give a shit anymore as we rounded the corner into the last forty-five minutes (the runtime was something like 2hr 20 min).  

I've seen plenty of movies that left me off-kilter and were not direct narratives.  I'm fine with that.  We should all enjoy a challenging viewing of a movie.  I happily accidentally sat through three hours of Inland Empire in the theater.   I watched The Holy Mountain and gave it a "I'm glad I did that" thumbs-up.  But I just couldn't get excited about a movie that seems like it was kind of just saying Los Angeles is actually for making some people rich, but not you.  And that's something anyone paying attention kind of knows about every city in the world in every year should be pretty aware of.  

But the movie also wears the face of something serious while insisting it's not, while asking you to do a bunch of homework and watch it a few more times.  And that's a silly thing.  No thanks.  If you want that, don't be such a drag to watch the first time.

I am sure there are dozens and dozens of sites deconstructing the film from clues - basically Sam with his Nintendo Power Magazine and the viewer from the cereal box.  And I wish those people well.

I just wish the movie had actually felt interesting after the first hour.  And if it had something to say, cool.  Text me what it was when you get a chance.