Rating: 
Summary: Dennis Hopper, the two stars are for you
Review: To make a long story short-this movie is not a masterpiece, calling it that would be laughable.This is a mediocre film at best.There is nothing shocking or controversial or boundary breaking about it, as has been said.Truth to be told the film starts out intriguingly and you're actually thinking this is going to be a great movie, it is a little strange, but nevertheless convincing and even fascinating.This keeps up for about ten minutes, and then the film becomes a typical mystery with nothing new to offer.IN fact,only thanks to Dennis Hopper's convincing role as drug-addicted maniac Frank Booth, did I keep watching this.None of the other performances were convincing,and Isabella Rossellini was just pathetically laughable,her portrayl was completely overblown, and overacted.I know I'm going to get about 30 negative votes for this, but I could care less.One of the most unjustly overrated films of all time.Not to mention the ending was like something out of a Lifetime movie,yes that predictable and unnafecting.And I guess,if you're really bored one Saturday night you could rent this movie for mild distraction.That's all I got from it.See Mulholland DR. instead
Rating: 
Summary: To think I used to HATE this film...
Review: I hated it. I really did. I was deeply offended by this film when I first saw it. It disturbed the hell out of me, in all the wrong ways. Then I saw Lost Highway - a film that, it seems, everyone hated BUT me. I thought it was a masterpiece of psychological horror; a real mind-bender with an extroardinary interior perspective on homicidal madness. So I got to thinking: maybe I should give Blue Velvet another shot. Maybe I just wasn't ready for it 17 years ago. This time I would be prepared for Dennis Hopper's demented Frank Booth. I would be ready for the ear in the field. I would be ready for the unbelievably creepy and kinky scenes in Dorothy's apartment. What I saw was a different film - not because the film had changed, but because I had changed. A lot can happen in 17 years. A guy can grow up. A guy can sense for himself the underbelly of perversion beneath the white-picket facade of middle America. A guy can come to appreciate a wickedly funny and disturbing film about the hypocrisy of genteel exteriors. A film like Blue Velvet, in other words. David Lynch's great skill as a director is his ability to aim right for the hind-brain - the unreasoning, alligator brain where the primal self lives. His work tends to hit there first, and then ricochet to the reasoning self. That's why his work is so evocative. Critics and audiences alike struggled to "explain" Mulholland Drive, and while a sensible explanation for it is possible, it sort of misses the point. These films are waking dreams - or nightmares - that, like paintings or pieces of music, try to touch something deeper than the intellect. You can't read a Beethoven symphony like a novel, you can't play Edvard Munch's "The Scream" on a musical instrument, and you can't understand Blue Velvet in terms of ordinary realism. To do so is to run screaming from it in terror or disgust, as I initially did. But taken for what it is - a kind meditation on the darkness inside - you start to see the outragousness of this film in a different light. You start to see that the characters are not so much two-dimensional freaks as they are embodiments of primal forces we all have inside of us. In Frued's moth-eaten old psychoanylitic terms (really a poor way of approximating, but it's the best I can do), Frank Booth is the hedonistic Id. Sandy Williams (Laura Dern) is the pure and virtuous Superego, and Jeffrey Beaumont (Kyle McLaughlin) is the ego - the waking part of us torn between the two. Of course, this is a Reductionist view, and it really does disservice to the artistic acheivement of Blue Velvet. To really appreciate it, one needs to set aside preconceptions and let the experience of it percolate through that gray matter. The DVD itself is well produced, with some nice extras (rare on Lynch DVDs), and a beautiful film transfer that really showcases Frederick Elmes' cinematography. If you're a David Lynch fan, you don't need convincing. If you're where I was 17 years ago, give it another shot. You might just like it. A lot.
Rating:
Summary: As coherent as it needs to be.
Review: Although I was once inclined to agree with Roger Ebert's dismissal of "Blue Velvet" as a shocking albeit skillful montage of pointless images and effects, I've had to do a 360 turnaround after seeing it on DVD and reconsidering it in relation to some similar texts. The film certainly makes sense in comparison with a quest narrative such as Hawthorne's "Young Goodman Brown" and in light of Freud's ideas about love as well as Nietzsche's thoughts on the Dionysian self. It's also a film that pays constant homage to Hitchcock's best work, notably "Rear Window" and "Psycho," in its preoccupation with spectator psychology. The most important lines occur early in the film when the protagonist, Kyle MacLachlan, tells Laura Dern that he needs to investigate the mysterious circumstances surrounding Isabella Rosselli because "knowledge requires risk" but with the possible reward that "you might learn something." By the end of the narrative, MacLachlan's character should have learned a lot, but here's where Lynch flinches, much like Robert Altman in the conclusion to "The Player." MacLachlan emerges neither a sadder nor wiser man from his rite of passage and his descent into the dark corners of the psyche. Instead, Lynch cynically reprises the film's innocent opening with its hopelessly artificial, Pollyannish, pastoral idyl that is most likely the preferred reality of the American mainstream movie consumer. At the same time, he preserves the tenuousness of such a naive vision with the shot of an insect impaled on a robin's beak and with a soundtrack that subjects the theme song to a disturbing treatment out of some internal, subterranean sound studio. The film's meanings are inexhaustible, though a few important details should not be missed. Jeff confronts, first, mortality (his father stricken by a life-threatening stroke), then a severed, decaying human ear. The ear, the organ of hearing, is also the sense that fully awakens only in the dark, granting access to the Dionysian, deep intuitive wellsprings of the self. But the ear we see on screen has become a diseased, useless instrument in a "sunny" culture whose idea of music is Bobby Vinton's version of "Blue Velvet." Rossellini's alternative version of the song, with all of its sensuous, alluring darkness, will draw MacLachlan in to the same degree that it repells girl friend Dern (contrast this relationship with that of Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly in "Rear Window," where Kelly becomes increasingly drawn to the voyeuristic and "ghoulish" activity initiated by Stewart). Soon MacLaclan will discover the love substitutes embodied by both Rossellini and Hopper--the sadism and masochism, fetishism and scopophilia that, like it or not, are present in every son and daughter who has inherited from birth and learned from upbringing the pleasure/pain principle that underlies even the most well-intentioned, "selfless" love (the absence of any shown feelings between MacLaclan and either parent is another tip-off to the basis of his attraction to the dominitrix/sex slave character played by Rossellini). As for the "villain," the foul-mouthed Dennis Hopper did not seem so frightening or repelling to me on this viewing. If anything, he's less the personification of evil than another version of insecure, overcompensating macho desire, perhaps better seen as a projection of the searching MacLachlan than as anybody's nemesis. Lynch must know the risk, and even believe in the necessity, of coming to terms with the feelings of a darker but far from inauthentic self. MacLaclan tells the naive, shielded and conventional Dern from the beginning that it's extremely dangerous business. But the alternative is a Salem where everybody is "good," a Lumberton where people get sick but never die, a Disney fantasy that can exist only in artificial movies. I still think that "Blue Velvet" (in fact, most any other film since 1980) is eclipsed by his own "Elephant Man," where the camera takes us into the eye-hole and interior world of John Merrick, whose world we discover is also ours. But "Blue Velvet" is a more personal film, revealing not simply the mind of its creator but capturing a distinctively American experience.
Rating: 
Summary: Horrifying Rubbish
Review: This film is a terrible waste of celluloid. The cinematography is extremely overrated and utterly pretentious. It splatters colour and various "unique" images in an effort as to appear creative. Subpar performances all around, except for Dennis Hopper who had some moments. Isabella Rosellini was laughable as a depraved femme fatale, totally laughable. It was a film that relied on its "weirdness" as the selling point, and as the vehicle on which to convince the viewer that this piece of garbage is somehow a good film. The so-called weirdness grew tired and banal, because it was obnoxiously prententious and self-indulgent. Highest Recommendation to avoid.
Rating: 
Summary: BIZARRE & OFTEN SHOCKING, BUT A DARING EXPOSE..
Review: I adore the way in which Lynch leads you into his own microcosm, each screen is more intriguing than the previous and you become involved with the characters. Blue Velvet is no exception: a simple town boy is intrigued by a woman, and following his curiosity gets drawn into her web, only to inadvertently uncover dark mysteries. We take this genuinely and often weirdly funny walk with him, a walk that'll cling to your thoughts long after the credits have rolled. I don't idolize Lynch as many reviewers do (although I admired his work in The Straight Story) and I believe he has too often pursued weirdness for the sake of weirdness. But at his best he has produced marvels of film making. Blue Velvet is one of the latter as it doozily exposes the hidden dark underbelly of small towns, and of people that are seldom what they seem on the surface. More than one viewing of this film is probably necessary if you really want to get it. The first time round, I ended up thinking that this was simply a noir-ish attempt at vulgar violence. The second viewing actually made me see some of the things Lynch wanted us to see without the shock factor. Even so, this one may not be for everyone, but a must for Lynch fans.
Rating:
Summary: Arrogant and Self-Indulgent Direction Ruins Film
Review: David Lynch, self-indulgence is thy name. Regardless of the immense amount of praise for his work, he remains the most overrated director of all time. Blue Velvet reveals the classic Lynch style, which essentially is a postmodern hodgepodge of the unreal and bizzare converging to a whole lot of nothing. Bizzare imagery and absurdity aside, Lynch indulges in the absurd with no real message. A single song is repeatedly sang/played as a "commentary" on the banality of modern romance / music. It reveals nothing groundbreaking, nor does it do it in an entertaining manner. Lynch has a large cult following, which is pivotal to the health of his career. Yes, he rarely has aspired to the mainstream, but those within his following are deeply disturbed. It is through the interpretation of Lynch fanboys that Lynch's "throw it against the wall to see if it sticks" style can possibly be seen as anything but fractured and ill-concieved. Many of these interpretations (i.e., multi-layered structure) try to rationalize and enhance what essentially are hollow films, brimming with style and lacking of substance. David Lynch has a wonderfully bizzare mind, but when that mind tries to paint the celluoid canvas of the cinema, it fails miserably to convey anything of value. Blue Velvet leaves the viewer disoriented, and not in such a manner as to arouse deep thought or contemplation. Its the type of disorientation that drives one to alcohol and/or narcoctics as an attempt to rid themselves of the horror of another Lynch film.
Rating:
Summary: Sex, knives, oxygen and bugs, YUMMY!
Review: Relish this great director's (maybe)best film in which ordinary places turn into nightmares ( seconds into the film the hero's dad gets stung by a bee then choked almost to death by a garden hose) and nightmare turns into dream (the hero, Kyle McLachlan, is confronted by the woman he has been spying on from her closet within her flat (Ms Rosselini). She wields a VERY large knife once used as a prop in PSYCHO, orders him to strip, then kneels in front him and the viewer is uncertain whether she is going to castrate the naughty boy or fellate him. In the event she does not castrate him.) Set design Interiors reflect in every detail the weird and not so weird personalities of the characters - in Dorothy's flat (Ms Rosselini) there is a garish yellow record player next to the mauve sofa with its red velveteen cushions, pink walls, candy carpet, green steam heater and kitsch peuce green flower pots. The characters seem larger than life - has the girl next door ever oozed as much sex as Ms Laura Dern? Has there ever been a cheap nighclub singer more beautiful than Ms Rosselini and has such beauty every been stripped so bare by the end of the film, a performance of incredible courage. What is it all about? It's all about a boy's adventure. The boy (Kyle McLachlan) asks at one point "Why are there people like Frank?" speaking of whom, when Frank (Dennis Hopper) places the fingers and thums of his right hand together and points them at your forehead, be afraid, be VERY afraid. Much to relish for the cinema lover. A diamond amongst the pap.
To be treasured on DVD.
Rating:
Summary: "Yes, that's a human ear, alright."
Review: The brilliance of Blue Velvet is apparent right from the opening montage that begins with the image of blood red roses in front of a stark white picket fence and continues with a fireman waving from his truck, to a crossing guard motioning children across a street. Everything is heightened in colour and slowed down to an almost surreal level which invokes the feeling of being trapped in a "nightmarish image of small-town life in America." Director David Lynch reinforces these romantic images of 1950's Americana with Bobby Vinton's classic version of "Blue Velvet" playing on the soundtrack. By using colours and music to create a dreamy, nostalgic mood, Lynch draws us into his strange world. Frederick Elmes' lush cinematography is one of the crucial elements of the unique look that permeates all of Lynch's films. Elmes' technique harkens back to Classical Hollywood Cinema in the way scenes are lit and staged and yet they effortlessly slip into surrealism with the aid of Lynch's often absurd situations. The perfect example of this blend is the famous "joyride" sequence where Frank takes an unwilling Jeffrey and Dorothy to Ben's place where obese women sit passively while Ben, complete with Kabuki white make-up and "suave" demeanour, lipsynchs to Roy Orbison's "In Dreams." In this scene, Elmes combines film noir lighting with a dark colour scheme that enhances and establishes the eerie, dream-like mood synonymous to all of Lynch's films. Composer Angelo Badalamenti provides a seductively lavish score. To complement Elmes' Classical Hollywood look, Badalamenti's score mimics the melodramatic soundtracks of Douglas Sirk's films with its dramatic swells during intense moments and calm lulls with romantic interludes. Blue Velvet would mark the beginning of a longlasting partnership with Badalamenti who has since composed the music for every subsequent project that Lynch has done. After a weak, bare bones DVD, MGM more than made up for it with this lavish Special Edition that features an absolutely pristine print of the movie -- it has never looked better. There are several extras included on this DVD, with a feature-length retrospective documentary being the highlight. This is not only a great introduction into the world of Lynch and a fascinating look at the making of Blue Velvet, but also anecdote-packed for the fans as well. I've collected many articles and interviews on Lynch and this movie and there were still factoids included that I had not heard about. Of course, the biggest gripe amongst fans is the absence of the film's legendary deleted scenes. Kudos to MGM for doing the next best thing and including an animated still gallery of deleted footage -- that was a nice touch. Also, lookout for numerous easter eggs buried throughout the menus -- they are definitely worth tracking down. This is simply a top notch DVD and a great introduction into the world of David Lynch. Finally, this landmark film has been given the proper DVD treatment it so richly deserves.
Rating:
Summary: Best. Movie. Ever.
Review: David Lynch's seminal 1986 masterpiece Blue Velvet opens and closes with the archetypical symbol of American suburbia, a set of luminous red roses. However, what's in between the film's haunting opening and closing shots shows that every rose has its thorn, as Lynch proceeds to deconstruct Reagan's idealized America by exposing the horrors the lurk beneath the idyllic suburban façade. Centered around a murder mystery, Blue Velvet follows Jeffrey Beaumont, a college student who becomes slowly lured into an hellish underworld of violence and sado-masochism. Lynch juxtaposes scenes of Beaumont's innocent suburban world, where he dates the girl-next-door and has shakes at the local diner, with those of the horrific underworld that Jeffrey is strangely intrigued by, even attracted to. Rich characterization, phenomenal performances, an evocative score, and a dreamy suburban landscape fashioned by cinematopgraher Frederick Elmes all support Lynch's demented, surreal vision of suburbia gone wrong. Blue Velvet is a brilliant, unforgettable film that is without a doubt worth multiple viewings.
Rating:
Summary: Absolutelly fantastic!!!
Review: Yes, David Lynch has definetelly got a great talent in making dark weird movies, that require a lots of thinking to exersise your brains. But was the plot of the movie about a young man who becomes an amateur detective and how he satisfies his curiosity or rather about what lies beneath a quiet town society which cannot be discovered unless a young man gets curious or rather there is a deep message that the police is not capable of solving a murder mystery and a young man can and so on. I'm really confused, I cannot figure out!!!! Maybe I did not understand this film at all. But was there a meaning anyway???
|
