I believe those who didn't understand a dime from david lynch movies, also won't get anything from bunuel's movies. It is true that lynch had inspried a lot from Bunuel and he had put lots of surrealism into his movies, starting with "Un Chien Andalou". Bunuel doesn't want from us to think about "what happened and what should have take place next." So as Lynch, he never made his point as separating what is real and what's imaginary.
Other than Blue Velvet, I think David Lynch is an extremely overrated director - I have yet to see Eraserhead, though. I've loved what I've seen from Bunuel though, very much so. I absolutely despise Mulholland Dr.
The thing I keep learning with each new Bunuel film I see (been through all of Lynch years ago), is how different these two are. Most basically, Bunuel´s surreal flourishes are mainly conceptual while in Lynch, they also define the general aesthetic. And it also has to be said that, unfortunately, I´m having serious trouble finding a Bunuel movie I really, really dig. Un Chien and Viridiana come closest in these regards, but neither´s quite there. Just saw this Bourgeoisie thing for the first time and while it´s undeniably good and witty and all that, it still don´t truly "do it" for me. Still something missing, sort of.
"Lynch's movies (much as I enjoy them) don't stand up to repeated viewings".
Oh but they do. In fact, with a lot of Lynch's work, at least two viewings is a requirement as pretty much no one has been able to make too much sense of Lost Highway, Mulholland Dr or Inland Empire (all of which I've watched more than 25 times) with only one go-around. And Lynch is far-far ahead of Bunuel as a visual stylist - and his work is usually more complexly built as well. His films are subtly enigmatic gifts that just keep on giving. Bunuel's on the other hand tend to be rather obvious.