I didn't like the film. Reasons why seem to explain why I loved Muholland Drive so much. The narrative is great in both films, the ideas of how the viewing itself is so intense and emotional and the ambiguilties are endless in what could mean what as nearly two storylines are merged together to think what it all could mean. The problem though is that I don't think the film has any weight to the narrative to really give interest to want to think more about it. Nothing, besides the technical and style, really pushes the film to further think about it and what it could really mean.
As Ebert said, its more the execution of a style and an idea closely related to the one made famous in Bunuel's "That Obscure Object of Desire". That film was also dissapointing in that the technical switch of actresses had little to think about besides what both actresses could represent to the viewer as an image of the normal/exotic and how Bunuel played with our desires by showing the exotic in less revealing and sexual scenes. The story just had little weight of intrigue to further think about.
With Muholland Drive, a convention is shown in clear narrative being present for a while with the relationship of the two girls, but its a set up for making all the breaking of the conventions later on intriguing in that are thoughts and wonders extend with the film and beyond. Muholland Drive is like a puzzle, but ambiguous and really a great film in my opinion. Gets better the more I think of it. It just shows that when dealing with ambiguilties, content has to be there so ambiguilty can take place.