Not Logical Out of the Contro L David Lynch Blue Velvet
A masterpiece
A very strange movie but incredible. A young man (Kyle MacLaclan) comes home to help care for his sick father. Soon he's in love with a detective's daughter (Laura Dern) and mixed up in a mystery involving Dorothy Valdes (Isabella Rossellinni) and psycho Frank Booth (Dennis Hopper).
Probably David Lynch's best film. The story has gaps in logic, but it's secondary to some incredible wide screen imagery (this has to be seen letter-boxed...no two ways about it). Lynch has said in interviews that he thinks of the image first then works it into the movie. You can tell...things that make no sense at first gradually make sense later on. This movie also demands multiple viewings...I was so shocked the first time I saw it, I couldn't concentrate on it...it took THREE viewings to finally get it.
As to what the movie is about...it depends who you ask. Some people said it's the Hardy Boys on drugs...others say it's about a boy's sexual awakening...others see it as good vs. evil...each one is a valid statement! To me, that's a true art film...one that means multiple things all at once.
The performances are top-notch. This film made MacLachlan...him and Laura Dern work well together and give nice low-key performances. Dern is just great...but she does look pretty silly when she tries to cry. Rossellinni is nowhere near as good as her mother (Ingrid Bergman) was, but she deserves credit for taking such a risky role. She's pretty good. Hopper is WAYYYYYYY over the top as Booth...he's both horrifying and hilarious...a great performance. And let's not forget Dean Stockwell as "suave Ben". His "performance" of "In Dreams" is a definite highlight.
Be warned--the film is very extreme. There's explicit violence, plenty of nudity, sex and tons of profanity. Not for the squeamish. Still, I loved it from beginning to end. One of my favorite films of all time.
315 out of 404 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Strange, Beautiful American Classic
Warning: Spoilers
In the early moments of "Blue Velvet" we see idealized small town images - blooming red roses and immaculate white picket fences - accompanied by the sounds of the gentle Bobby Vinton pop tune that gives the film its title. If you sense something unsettling about this perfection, that's only appropriate. "Blue Velvet" is a David Lynch film, you see, and it won't be long at all before a clean-cut college student comes across a rotting ear in an open field.
Jeffrey Beaumont (Kyle MacLachlan) is the boy who finds the ear, and Sandy Williams (Laura Dern) is the blonde policeman's daughter who assists Jeffrey when he decides to investigate the truth about his disturbing discovery. Sandy and Jeffrey link the ear to night club singer Dorothy Vallens (Isabella Rossellini) and later, a deranged man named Frank Booth (Dennis Hopper).
"I don't know if you're a detective or a pervert," Sandy tells Jeffrey when he decides to sneak into Dorothy's apartment. As Jeffrey becomes sexually entangled with Dorothy, we can only cast similar doubt.
It's true that "Blue Velvet"'s dark mysteries have the power to repulse. Voyeurism, rape, torture, and murder are all key to the plot. Yet the film is also spellbinding in its beauty. Vibrant colors and ominous shadows offer gorgeous contrast - call it Technicolor noir - and the film is rife with unforgettable imagery. Moments big and small, from MacLachlan playing with a child's birthday hat to Dean Stockwell's show-stopping lip-synch of Roy Orbison's "In Dreams", are as haunting as anything you will see at the movies anywhere.
The acting is top-notch. MacLachlan is just right as the lost innocent Jeffrey, and Hopper shreds the screen as his depraved counterpoint Frank. Rossellini's performance as Dorothy is devastating and extremely courageous: this is her defining moment as an actress.
"Blue Velvet" is perhaps the quintesstential David Lynch film. His strange humor and painterly gift for creating stunning images are prominently on display, and the film illustrates Lynch's contradictory impulses toward unbridled nastiness and aw-shucks sweetness like no other has. After all these years, "Blue Velvet" is still a shocker, and deciding how one feels about it is still a challenge. It is a film to be considered and then reconsidered, visited and revisited, the kind of film that will never fade away. For serious cinephiles, then, "Blue Velvet" is a film to be cherished.
265 out of 304 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lynch's Most Famous Movie? I Think So
This has always been a unique crime movie, like no story I have seen before or since. In numerous ways, it's a sick film...but utterly fascinating, even after a handful of viewings. It's a certainly a trademark of director David Lynch with its bizarre story and twists and strange characters.
This movie has one of the most evil characters ever put on screen: "Frank Booth," played by Dennis Hopper. The latter is known for playing psychotic killers and this role tops them all. Hopper was never sicker. Almost as bizarre as him is the female victim in here, "Dorothy Vallens," played a mysterious Isabella Rossellini.
Kyle MacLaclan is good as the nosy late-teen who just has to find out what is going on in Dorothy's apartment while girlfriend Laura Dern gets caught up in his curiosity.
In a movie that features strange characters, the strangest scene of them - and there are a number - is in Booth's apartment with Dean Stockwell and his friends. Stockwell's lip-synching to an old Roy Orbison song is really freaky. Make no mistake, though: as bizarre as this film can get, it's mostly a very suspenseful crime story that can get very uncomfortable to watch at times. The language in this film was surprisingly tame.....until Hopper enters the scene. He's about the only character who uses profanity but he makes up for the others by using the f-word in about every sentence. He is so over-the-top, though, that after the initial shock seeing this movie once or twice, I know almost laugh out loud at him and way he acts.
Visually and audibly, this is another interesting Lynch movie with superb colors, creepy camera angles and a diverse soundtrack. You hear everything from lush classical music to old rock 'n roll songs, and a bunch of bizarre noises (sound effects).
From discussions I've had, this seems to be a film people love or hate. There is not much room for middle ground. Lynch has done much "nicer" films such as "The Straight Story," crazier films ("Wild At Heart," "Eraserhead") and classier movies ("The Elephant Man") but this will be his trademark film: the one above others he will be remembered for, good or bad.
119 out of 151 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
One of Lynch's most accessible and optimistic films
Jeffrey Beaumont returns to his small town home when his father has an accident and ends up in hospital. A quiet walk home changes his perceptions forever when he discovers a human ear in the long grass. He reports it to the police but decides to make some enquires himself with the help of the officer's daughter Sandy. The trail begins with the mysterious Dorothy Vallens and drags Jeffrey into the unseen underworld of Frank Booth.
For the majority of people, you either like Lynch or you dislike him. Personally I like the majority of his work, I love the sense of normalcy that he can create and slowly change to reveal a darkness that is worryingly close to the surface. That is the case here, beginning with a blue sky, white picket fence vision of small town America the camera drops into the grass to see a torrent of bugs scrambling just under the surface. In the same way the film follows Jeffrey's journey into the underbelly of his home town.
In some ways this is one of the easiest Lynch films to get into – here the darkness is not a wide world of demons as in Fire Walk With Me, but is one man and his associates who can be overcome. The darkness is therefore accessible to all but is laced with just enough weirdness to disturb – my favourite scene is where Frank takes Jeffrey to see Ben, it is just a little unsettling. In hand with this is the fact that it is easily one of his most optimistic films, the good angel in Jeffrey's life is a strong character and the ending is one of certainty rather than open to interpretation – that robin has about a clear a meaning as it can.
MacLachlan is well used as Jeffrey. He is wide eyed and innocent even when being sucked into the underworld. Dern plays `all-American' well but doesn't have the complexity of MacLachlan in the script. Rossellini has a challenging role and carries it off quite well – I didn't fully understand her character but I don't know if that was my fault or hers. Of course the film belongs to Hopper who is terrifyingly unstable. Without a doubt he is a monster and you never are left in any doubt as to his state of mind. For an example of his work here watch the scene where Stockwell (in a wonderfully weird cameo) sings and Hopper clearly falls to pieces.
Although I prefer Fire Walk With Me, I do think that this is Lynch's best film. It is weird without going totally overboard and it allows us to sink into the underworld gradually without sudden falls. Hopper controls every scene he is in, but the meeting of wholesome and weird is perfectly delivered and is trademark Lynch.
115 out of 149 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quickie: Great potential and depth, but simply badly executed. My first Lynch.
I think I get it, and there's some very interesting concepts that could make for a great movie, but the execution ruined most of it for me. It's quite shocking to me this is genuinely considered by many to be one of the best films of all time. Don't get me wrong, there's aspects that deserve praise but most of the movie isn't even that well made in my opinion. The entire movie feels so stilted and clunky, from the performances, dialogue, editing, etc. You know you've failed when you make a literal rape scene unintentionally funny. None of the acting is good, honestly feeling like a student film. It's baffling to me this would get an Oscar nomination for it's directing. Are there good elements to the directing? Yes, it's pretty decently shot, it has some good symbolism, but mostly everything else fails. Some scenes feel like the actors weren't even directed. Sometimes it's hammy, and other times it's under-acted. Also I really dislike the pauses and whispering in some scenes. Can you really call a movie that makes a rape scene unintentionally funny well directed? The characters are all very thin and basic, they could've used so much more development to further strengthen the themes. It's like they only got the most basic elements to make these characters, but forgot to actually delve into them. It feels bare bones, and while the bones are strong It forgot the meat to truly support it. Not that all need much development, but most of the characters feel unrealistic, and unbelievable without much development. The plot is basic, bland, and even contrived at times. There's nothing that special or original about it, so the execution is what would set it apart, and it does by being mostly stilted and silly in all the wrong places. I honestly found most of the movie to be unenjoyable. I also believe it could've been shorter and had a tighter edit to at least be more enjoyable. Though at the same time it could've also been longer to further flesh out certain aspects of the film. The script feels like an early draft for a potentially great movie. Ironically Lynch's direction feels wrong for this type of movie. Yes, there are great elements in this movie, but the execution is middling at best. This movie is like the opposite of the opening scene, with the disgusting cockroaches at the top covering the rich grass brimming with potential that never quite got out. I would argue some of this movie is badly made, but I still gave it a 5.5/10 because I recognize it does have some great stuff deep in it. Maybe I really didn't get it, and Lynch's style isn't for me, but again, to me for the subject matter in this movie to be this badly executed is not a stylistic choice but an obvious flaw with the direction and movie. This is something I'll probably revisit when I watch more Lynch films, I hope I'm wrong about it, but this isn't a good start from his filmography for me.
(5.5/10)
Note: This is an old review I wrote last year that I always meant to expand especially after watching more Lynch and if I rewatch this film, but for now I thought I might as well post this.
9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Strange but utterly mesmerising, quite possibly Lynch's masterpiece
David Lynch is a very love-him-hate-him director, with people fascinated by his style and imagery and others who find his films not easy to follow and too weird for their tastes. As somebody who loves Lynch and a lot of his films(the only one I've disliked is Dune), Blue Velvet is up there at the top. The Elephant Man(never has there been a film that moved me more) may be my personal favourite but Blue Velvet is quite possibly Lynch's masterpiece. Loved Mulholland Drive as well, but it is not as accessible as Elephant Man or Blue Velvet- films that even those who aren't fans of Lynch are likely to love- and is his most polarising most likely.
Blue Velvet is an incredible-looking film. All of Lynch's films are beautifully shot and that is true of Blue Velvet as well, and the imagery is both hauntingly surreal and beautiful, all the different colours really popping out at you. The music is hypnotic with a very haunting undercurrent and really adds to the story's strangeness and mystery elements. The script is thoughtful and cohesive with a dose of weird but subtle humour as well as some deliberately not so subtle parts(especially with villain Frank Booth). The atmosphere created is the very meaning of scintillating and suspense levels are to the maximum. The story- one of the most coherent and accessible of any Lynch film- is always interesting and entertaining, the detective story elements are genuinely suspenseful and at times scary, Lynch has never directed a tenser scene than the climax here.
Lynch's direction is superb; along with Mulholland Drive it contains some of his best. The characters all serve a point to the story and they are very interestingly written, in the case of Frank Booth, one of the most evil and fascinating villains on films, iconic. The acting is superb as well, especially with Dennis Hopper who's terrifyingly sadistic and sometimes hilarious, he is very over the top but in a gleefully enjoyable way. Kyle MacLachlan has never been in a better film or given a better performance than here, he's certainly not had a character as interesting either, Laura Dern is great and sensual Isabella Rossellini has a challenging role that she plays to truly devastating effect. Look out for an oddball but memorable appearance from Dean Stockwell as well. Overall, a strange but utterly mesmerising masterpiece. 10/10 Bethany Cox
43 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I've never seen anything quite like this before...
What surprised me was how very different this was from the two other great David Lynch films I'd seen: "Lost Highway" and "The Straight Story", which are in turn very different from one another. I'd been told by a disappointed David Lynch fan, back in 1997, that the only reason I was so deeply impressed with "Lost Highway" was that I hadn't seen "Bue Velvet", in which he does much the same kind of thing better. "Blue Velvet" may indeed be better (I wouldn't want to say), but in no respect is it the same kind of thing. (The only instance I've encountered so far of Lynch making the same film twice is "Lost Highway" being remade as "Mulholland Drive", which partly accounts for the latter film being so stale and uninvolving.)
"Blue Velvet" is a simple amateur sleuthing story, but the genius is in the telling of it. It's hard to avoid the feeling that something supernatural is somehow involved, although it isn't, and we know that it isn't. It looks and feels as though we're watching the world through a special enchanted (or cursed) prism: the image has been pulled apart, ALMOST into two distinct images, with the elements of pure evil and pure wholesomeness now distinct from one another, sitting just millimetres apart.
Unrelated to this, but still contributing to the intense suspense and the overall creepiness, is Lynch's ability to make us familiar with a few ordinary locations, which grow more sinister - or at least more meaningful - every time we see them, until the sight of a simple concrete stairwell in the dark is enough to make us start to panic.
154 out of 218 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A beautiful, strange ,dark film
Title: Blue Velvet (1986)
Director: David Lynch
Cast: Isabella Rosellini, Kyle Mac Lachlan, Dennis Hopper, Laura Dern
Review: David Lynch films are paintings come to life, this has very much to do with the fact that Lynch himself is a painter and he brings that artistic point of view to his film making. Like a good painting, his movies tell a story, which much like an abstract painting, is not always easy to figure out. But what a treat it is to try.
Blue Velvet is a story about a young man returning to his hometown to visit his father who is sick in the hospital. Upon his return he stumbles upon a frightening discovery: a human ear lying on the grass as he walks through the forest behind his parents home. He then takes it upon himself to discover where this ear came from and discovers that that ear will be the reason why he discovers that this is in fact a very strange and dangerous world in which we live in.
Lynch is synonymous with the strange and unusual and Blue Velvet is a good example of this. For those who have ventured into Lynchian territory with films like Mullholland Dr. or Lost Highway get ready for some more crazy imagery and messed up situations. But Ill be honest this time around, even though the situations and images are very very surreal and strange the story itself is pretty easy to understand. Lost Highway remains a total mystery to me to this day, Mullholland Dr. I had to watch about 6 times to figure out....but Blue Velvet though equally as strange and fascinating as those films mentioned, is actually easy to follow and understand.
I loved Kyle MacLachlans character and it was very interesting to see him go through the changes he goes through after he makes his discoveries. He isn't quite the same anymore after he sees the things he sees and does the things he does. Loved that scene in which Laura Dern tries to let him see that even though there's some crazy things in this world there's some good bound to show up sooner or later. Laura Derns character was beautiful and innocent, the one thing that could bring balance to MacLachlans character. By far the most interesting and memorable thing in this film is Dennis Hoppers character, yes my friends, I'm talking about that crazy, demented, sex-crazed freak known as Frank Booth.
Frank Booth is one of those characters that just oozes with evil. You don't feel like its this actor playing some villain, when that happens you totally stop believing that said villain is dangerous. Not so here. Hopper looks, breaths and speaks pure evil! Your kind of scared that there might actually be people like him out in the real world. His scenes and dialog is truly disturbing stuff....."Ill f##C@ anything that moooves!"
I loved the visual aspect of the film which was -as is usual in a Lynch film- extremely beautiful. We may be looking at sliced human ears and demented sex freaks...but everything is photographed within the context of beautiful haunting colors, exotic plays of shadows and lights. Great visuals. The music is incredible as well. Lynch seems to be fond of lounge singers cause very much like he did in Mullholland Drive in Club Silencio, we get another sequence much like that one, with Isabella Rosellini singing us "Blue Velvet" the title song. And there's also a sequence which is very very humorous yet strange and alluring....Dean Stockwell singing Roy Orbinsons "In Dreams". Awesome sequence, one of the most memorable sequences on this film or any other Lynch film. When that scene comes on, you'll be transported to another time and place. What time and place it is Ill leave it up to you.
All in all a great Lynch film not to be missed. A masterpiece that lets me know why Lynch is one of the greatest American directors ever to be in the business of making bizarro, beautiful cinema.
Rating: 5 out of 5 (and very very much so!)
129 out of 178 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What's it all about, David?.
One has to watch a David Lynch movie just to say you have seen one. This was actually nominated for an Academy Award and won many others, so it is probably as good as any to see. I tried Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me, but couldn't get more than a couple of scenes before I gave up. I was able to hang in there for this.
There has to be something there, but I just don't get it. The man has four Academy Award nominations for his films. He must be doing something that I just don't see.
Closeups of bugs in the grass or the inside of an ear is not stirring cinematography to me.
An example of the dialog you have to endure in this film:
Jeffrey Beaumont (Kyle MacLachlan): You're a neat girl. Sandy Williams (Laura Dern): So are you... I mean, you're a neat guy.
This wasn't random, but typical. And, what's with the "chicken walk"?
Maybe some think it is worth enduring to see Isabella Rossellini nude walking like a zombie.
I was worth enduring just to know what a David Lynch film is like, and to avoid them in the future.
59 out of 90 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bizarre And Familiar
To watch Blue Velvet for the first time 31 years after its original release is a treat of unexpected proportions. I'm not going to tell about the story because, I'm sure, each one of us could tell it in very different ways. The blandness of Kyle MacLachland here is a major plus. It's not him that rivet us but his circumstances. And the circumstances are truly riveting, terrifying, unpredictable and gloriously cinematic. Dennis Hopper is superb, disgustingly so and Isabella Rossellini creates a character that was totally new to me. Related to many others but new, disturbingly so. Dean Stockwell has a moment that I know already will stay in my mind for ever. I'm so glad I finally saw it.
66 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wicked take on small-town America
Back in the days when David Lynch's movies used to be coherent, this film proves to be one of the most powerful in a long line of odd and strange films. I felt all of the actors were exceptional in this film, reflecting the power and evil in Dennis Hopper's character. I can't see anyone else in this role, and Hopper proved once again he is the go-to guy when it comes to portraying a lunatic. Lynch's cinematography and artistic endeavors fit in so perfectly with each other, the film reeks of noir and suspense. An excellent film to watch for any first time Lynch watchers.
77 out of 117 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Strange, disturbing, brilliant
When college student Jeffrey Beaumont's father is hospitalised he returns home to what at first appears to be the Perfect American Town... he soon discovers that it is anything but. On a piece of wasteland he finds a severed human ear which he takes to Detective John Williams, a friend of his fathers. Williams' daughter Sandy approaches Jeffrey and tells him she overheard her father talking about a possible connection to singer Dorothy Vallens; Jeffrey decides to investigate. This leads to him getting caught in a very dangerous place with some incredibly disturbing characters; most notably Frank Booth.
This is very much a David Lynch film; the situation has a not-quite-real feel without being quite as weird as 'Twin Peaks'... it is far more disturbing though. Kyle MacLachlan is impressive as the ordinary Jeffrey caught in an extraordinary situation but it is Dennis Hopper who steals every scene he is in as the Frank... one of cinema's more disturbing creations. The way the story unfolds creates a real sense of danger and its ending is far from clear till almost the end. The rest of the cast are solid; most notably Isabella Rossellini as femme fatale Dorothy and Laura Dern as the innocent Sandy. Due to the disturbing nature of many scenes, which include sexual violence, this certainly won't be for everybody but if you like disturbing neo-noir then this is definitely a must see.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
More than meets the eye...
There is far more to 'Blue Velvet' than meets the eye. You can't label this as drama, satire, or black comedy. It just doesn't work.
'Blue Velvet' is an example of our world's disarray. This film is VERY genius in its portrayal. We see a hokey, innocent town that yields a dark secret.
The symbolism is great. White picket fences, waving fireman, hokey acting, and a sunny day show the apparent innocence. But a stroke, black insects, a candle getting blown out, etc. show us something else.
I love how when we see the innocence, everything is hokey. The music, acting, dialogue... everything. But when the darkness appears, everything becomes serious. The script improves, the acting is better... everything. That's something that was missed by most viewers.
David Lynch is brilliant, but he also has a great sense of humor. Jokes aren't funny... absurdity is funny.
Lightness and darkness seemingly coexist in this lumber town... each in their own place. When a curious fellow returns home, he disrupts the balance and the two forces go to war. Yet, we don't really even know which side he's on. I love how Jeffrey always wears black and white. I love all the symbology of this film.
If you haven't seen this yet, break away from the Hollywood cookie cutter movies and prepare to have your mind challenged and entertained.
Makes a fun party movie, too. ;o)
10/10
253 out of 352 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A mesmerizing piece of cinema with element of masterpiece...
The sexual revolution in film came some ten years after the label's coinage in the late Sixties. It probably began with Last Tango in Paris. Directed by the acclaimed Bernardo Bertolucci, Last Tango is notorious for a sex scene involving Marlon and roughly a third of a stick of butter. Theretofore sex in film could potentially be used as a means of revealing the lightest or the darkest character's traits: primarily, vulnerability, instinct, sadism and impulse. Blue Velvet is a good example of a movie using such a dynamic. Blue Velvet is not a film that is easily appreciated. Likewise, it is not a film that is easily forgotten. It is a timeless controversy, and it is a vision demanding attention if not praise.
Set in a small American town, Blue Velvet is a dark, sensuous mystery involving the intertwining lives of four very different individuals. The film's painful realism reminds us that we are not immune to the disturbing events which transpire in Blue Velvet's sleepy community. There is a darker side of life waiting for us all. And as a critic said 'you either think it's dementedly wild at heart or a lost highway to nowhere'. Even some eighteen years after the release of Blue Velvet its vision remains wildly adamant relative to the stride of other works of contemporary noir. There have been many films about suburban crime, but none as dangerously imposing as this. Why is that so?
If Blue Velvet might not be labeled as a masterpiece one has to acknowledge that there are in this movie a lot of so called 'masterpiece element' and if Blue Velvet will never be considered as Mr. Lynch best feature, I personally can see a lot of David Lynch's genius flowing in that movie.
First of all, the way David Lynch makes Blue Velvet increasingly disturbing is a perfect example of how pristine the dynamics of weirdness and tension are built (remember Eraserhead and Elephant Man). Through this process Mr. Lynch indeed deconstructs the audience expectations. The film setting and mood are introduced in an exposition lifted directly from older films (there are numerous references to It's A Wonderful Life). In result the film is initially expected to follow a particular path. The way Mr. Lynch associate elements of classic narrative methodology and 'his dynamics of noir' (previously explained) appears to be original at worst 'avant gardiste' at best.
Second of all, the opposition between the creepiness of the plot and the setting of it is definitely for me a masterpiece element. The film is set in Lumberton. This does not represent a quaint, small town by similarity; it is one. Lumberton is filled with characters that are completely typical. I can almost see the cops eating doughnuts in the coffee shop and the local football star dating the head cheerleader. This typicality is definitely not out of coincidence but of intention. In fact these characters function to punctuate the story, not to distinguish it. The 'infamous' individuality of Lynch's vision is established in the darker side of Lumberton. Our perspective throughout the film is fixed on Jeffery, and is deliberately biased by his good nature. Jeffery is portrayed with great subtlety by Kyle MacLachlan (FBI agent from "Twin Peaks"). He is paired with Sandy (Laura Dern), the daughter of a neighborhood investigator who epitomizes to perfection the 'girl-next-door'; in Blue Velvet it is her literal function. Completing this diverse list of roles is a haunting and brief performance by Dean Stockwell as well as Dennis Hopper who creates a flabbergasting portrait of unrepentant and irredeemable evil. The confrontation or those characters or the collision among themselves makes for a mesmerizing experience.
Once again Mr. Lynch succeeds in the masterful exercise of controlling the audience's attention. Most of us will not quite know what to make of it and we can disagree on the value of such a cinematic experience. However audacious, erotic, disturbing, haunting are adjectives that will always be linked with Blue Velvet. The 'Thriller' has just been re-invented by Mr. Lynch right in front of our eyes.
153 out of 230 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Seductive, haunting, jarring, MASTERPIECE!
I think that this is the movie that took me through five layers of enlightenment.
If you've known me for more than 0.2 seconds, you'll probably know that David Lynch is my favourite director ever. His works never cease to astound me, and of all of his already-perfect films, I would have to say that Blue Velvet really is not only the best film that he's made, but the best film of the 20th century, if not of all time.
There's something so stylistically beautiful and genre-defying about Blue Velvet. Something so sleek and so enchanting, combined with Lynch's classic horror, captivates you just like the eponymous song.
What's interesting about Blue Velvet is that even though it's one of Lynch's most confusing works, and the storyline isn't as strange as one of his later films (say, Lost Highway or Mulholland Drive), it still manages to be so incredibly disturbing and mind-bendingly horrific, to the point that sometimes you feel obliged to have to watch through your fingers.
Blue Velvet peels back the layers of the American dream to reveal a dark underworld that will haunt your mind for days. That signature opening with the unnaturally blood-red roses against a white picket fence and an artificially bright sky sets the theme of the slightly too-perfect image of suburbia that continues through the film, and contrasts jarringly with the things we later see and find. And that gorgeous song. Blue Velvet echoes throughout the film, and whenever you hear it you cannot help but be entranced.
There was not a single bad performance in this movie. Isabella Rossellini as the beautiful and troubled Dorothy Vallens, Laura Dern as "the girl next door", Dennis Hopper as the psychotic Frank Booth, and, of course, Kyle MacLachlan as our innocent young protagonist. How did none of these incredibly talented people get any sort of Oscar recognition? How did this movie generally not get any sort of Oscar recognition besides just a nomination for Best Director? Come on! Best Picture nom, at least!
This movie is certainly not for everyone, what with how horrifically graphic and disturbing it gets, every now and then, but let me tell you: when all is said and done, it really is a cinematic masterpiece and is my favourite movie of all time, and I don't see that changing any time soon.
-Sasha.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Weird crime mystery, and Dennis Hopper is nuts
Oh boy, what a weird movie. How can I even comment it.
David Lynch films are not easy to get into (at least for me). Usually I don't like them upon first viewing, but at least Mulholland Drive has slowly become my super favorite. I don't expect Blue Velvet to climb as high, but there is some grower potential.
I liked the beginning the best, when it's like a murder mystery. But then it goes crazy in all directions and I don't really know what to think. But some things are certain: the cinematography is beautiful and atmosperic, and there is a lot of great acting. Dennis Hopper is totally crazy in this film, but others aren't bad either.
If you like strange movies, see this one. But only if you can stomach some violence and sexual weirdness as well. I will probably get an urge to want to see it again at some point because it has such a distinct atmosphere and style.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Blue Vomit
After hearing all the hype of how this is an artistic, intellectual & enigmatic film, I figured I would love it to death. Instead, I found myself *wishing* for death.
Roger Ebert got it right when he called it "a story that's marred by sophomoric satire and cheap shots. The director is either denying the strength of his material or trying to defuse it by pretending it's all part of a campy in-joke."
It begins impressively with excellent cinematic technique and symbolism, but as soon as the first words are spoken, the film begins to sag with ridiculous, predictable and juvenile dialogue. The plot itself is tediously linear and simple, like an average Hardy Boys episode: high school kids take on the criminal underworld!
But, oh, this is no Hardy Boys episode. Director David Lynch made sure of that, by injecting plenty of profanity, gore, and nudity. (And just as an aside to all you drooling fans of Isabella Rosselini... TRUST me, she & her beer-belly look awful in this movie! Save yourselves the shattered fantasies.)
The scenes are extremely clumsy and overt, as if Lynch doesn't give us enough credit for figuring it out ourselves. I'll give you one example: In one scene, Laura Dern and Dune Boy (forgot his name) are sitting in a car in front of a church. Laura starts talking about her dream of God. The music switches to a church pipe organ. Then they drive off, and the camera zooms in on the church and holds the frame for 3 full seconds. (...hmmm, d'ya git the feelin he's a-trying to tell us sumthin? I dunno, Vern. Lez rewind it and watch it again.)
True, compared to the Hollywood tripe that was the standard in 1986, _Blue Velvet_ is unique. But that doesn't mean it's good. I would advise you to watch Lynch's 1990 film _Wild at Heart_ in which he achieved a greater degree poetry, having refined his style somewhat. Well, you have been warned!
113 out of 206 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Only in dreams
With Blue Velvet, David Lynch made a film that was so pure to his original vision that it would become the archetype of his work for the next fifteen years. Here, Lynch cast his ever probing, surrealist gaze upon small town middle America, and for the first time in a US film, showed the audience the darker side to what was often depicted as nothing more than the birth place of apple pie. We are drawn into the story almost immediately, with what would seem like a simple depiction of small town life, but the use of slow-motion hints that there is something not quite right with what we are looking at. So by the time Lynch has pushed his camera through the soft green grass of a regular front lawn, only to show us the slithering insects that hide in the darkness, we know that we are about to enter a very dark world.
Blue Velvet is a world filled with not only darkness, but also ambiguity. The characters of this world are constantly hiding behind some kind of façade, be it the wardrobe doors that practicing teenage voyeur Jeffrey peers from behind as he watches Dorothy and Frank interact, or something as simple as the make-up worn by Ben. Everything suggests to us that these characters inhabit a world at night, a world away from the life they live in the day. As the film moves closer and closer to the climax Jeffrey begins to feel more of a connection with Frank, having to go to some very dark places within his psyche. However Lynch's message, that underneath the normal persona of a regular human being is a repressed pervert laying in wait, or whatever point he is making doesn't really translate well. Not least to today's audience.
Blue Velvet is very much a film of its time, that time being the mid-eighties, with aids paranoia everywhere, it's easy to see this metaphor for the dangers of sex and love within the films turgid dreamscapes. But beneath this message hides a strong detective story, a modern day neo-noir that delivers interesting twists and a controversial pay-off with it's almost fairytale climax. This is the film David Lynch got right, proceeding to make great films that where all personal, but completely different in terms of style and substance from one another. Blue Velvet is a great film, with some fine (albeit bizarre) performances, still challenging to this day, If only Lynch hadn't gone on to spend the rest of his career re-making it.
85 out of 136 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Choice
In some ways, this reminds me of Stanley Kubrick's reaction to directing Spartacus, a movie he had no creative control on and found deadening, by directing Lolita as his follow up. For Lynch, Dune was a draining experience of constant compromise that led to the end result of a less than stellar film, so he followed it up with an intensely personal film at a much smaller scale where he had full control in Blue Velvet.
Blue Velvet tells the story of Kyle MacLachlan's Jeffrey who investigates a weird crime and potential murder in a small town with a logging industrial footprint, finding that the thin veneer of Americana hides a seedy underbelly of corruption, sex, and murder. Sound familiar? Yeah, it's a prototype of Twin Peaks.
Anyway, Jeffrey Beaumont has come home from college to the small town of Lumbertron, North Carolina after his father had a heart attack. Walking back from the hospital one day, he discovers a human ear in a field. Taking it to his neighbor, a police detective, and learning some key pieces of information from the detective's daughter, Sandy, Jeffrey enters into a dangerous world that he might not survive. His entry point is a lounge singer, Dorothy Vallens, who was under surveillance by the police on an unrelated matter that got brought up to Detective Williams. Jeffrey sneaks in, hides in her closet, and watches a horrid display of sadism and masochism when Frank Booth shows up to extract what he wants from Dorothy.
These two characters, Dorothy and Frank, represent an extreme of choice open to Jeffrey, the young man still figuring out who he wants to be. On the other end are his father in the hospital and Sandy. Sandy is the good girl, the daughter of a good policeman, who wants to love and be loved. Dorothy and Frank represent a more dangerous, exciting, and degrading life of abuse, and what Jeffrey discovers is that for all he was brought up to believe in one code of behavior, he has it within himself to fall into Frank's lifestyle. That comes to the fore for him when he makes love to Dorothy and he hits her at her insistence.
That leads me to this very obvious observation: Blue Velvet looks at a very ugly side of life, and it looks at it unflinchingly. However, what makes it most interesting is Lynch's ability to balance vastly different tones within the same scene. This was obvious in Eraserhead, but he had never really managed to deal in the same kind of tonal shifts with The Elephant Man and Dune, at least at the same level. Blue Velvet represents an extreme example of this, and quite possibly my single favorite scene in all of David Lynch's filmography does it in this film.
Jeffrey has gotten in too deep, and Frank has discovered him. Frank has every intention of intimidating and threatening Jeffrey, maybe even killing him. Frank Booth, you see, is a marvelous cinematic creation from both David Lynch and Dennis Hopper. He's a deranged freak killer who inhales amyl nitrite to enhance his sexual experiences (changed from helium in the script, which would have been hilarious but perhaps distractingly so) and has turned Dorothy into his sex slave by kidnapping her husband and child. Her husband is the proper owner of that ear that Jeffrey found. He is the only one to curse (aside from one single instance where Frank forces another to say it), and his dialogue is laced with profanity. He sticks out from everything around him all the time. He's like a force of nature, an elemental creation that has the motivation of a hurricane approaching a coastline. He is a purely destructive force manifested in a man, and his success as an onscreen villain has everything to do with Dennis Hopper. Fresh off of going sober after years of alcohol and drug abuse, Hopper knew he was on extremely thin ice and that this part was a goldmine. He gave the part his all, imbuing Frank with such interesting malevolence that he's always fascinating to simply watch.
Frank's malevolent best and the movie's deft balance of wildly different tones come together in one particular scene best. Frank takes Jeffery and Dorothy to Ben's whorehouse where he is keeping Dorothy's husband and child. The scene as Dorothy cries in the other room at the sight of her son while Frank demands cold Pabst Blue Ribbon from one of the women and Ben mouths the words to Roy Orbison's "In Dreams" is such an expert combination of menace, terror, and hilarity at the same time.
The movie's one flaw, I think, is Dorothy. Isabella Rosellini threw herself into this role, baring herself literally and figuratively in portraying a woman in and of an abusive relationship, but I think she's a bit underwritten. I would imagine that she's given more time to breathe and exist in the two hours of deleted scenes, an hour of which Criterion managed to release on the Blu-ray, but she has the makings of such a complex character who could center an entire film on her own instead of being a supporting character in Jeffrey's story of becoming his own man. There's more to her, and I think a lot of it ended up on the cutting room floor.
Jeffrey, however, is the main character and everything that happens in this movie is about him discovering the truth of the world around him and about himself. He could be a good, quiet man like his father, watering his lawn by hand, or he could be like Frank, abusing Dorothy at her own insistence. The resolution is all about him making that choice, and it's not about being a pure version of either. He has to do something awful in order to choose the right path.
Blue Velvet is also one of the best combinations of image and narrative Lynch has. Thinking of the final major sequence, where Jeffery shows up at Dorothy's apartment to find the man in yellow standing with an exposed head wound, Dorothy's husband tied up in a chair, and the television playing, Lynch's creates this surrealistic moment that feels extreme and of the reality of the movie at the same time. There's also the look of Dorothy singing on stage, draped in a blue dress with a red curtain behind her that pops in the frame. The movie is really visually fascinating and eye catching all the way through.
Aside from the underwritten nature of Dorothy, this is Lynch reclaiming who he is as a filmmaker in grand fashion. He's telling a distinctly American story born from his own experiences growing up, informed by his own distinct method of storytelling that borders on dream logic.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I have no idea why this film has been touted as a masterpiece
Warning: Spoilers
...and it isn't because I don't get or appreciate surrealism or because I missed the element of satire. I 'got it' alright. I just don't want it.
The story begins when naive college boy finds a human ear in a grown-over abandoned lot near his father's home, puts it in a bag, and takes it to the police station, where his discovery is greeted with a diffident, "Yup, that's a human ear alright." A conversation with the town sheriff's teenage daughter reveals that it might have something to do with a mysterious and glamorous lounge singer. So Jeffrey does what anyone would do- break into her apartment and spy on her, of course. And finding him hiding in her closet, listening to her phone conversations and watch her undress, the lounge singer, Dorothy, does what any woman would do under the circumstances- give him oral sex, of course! It practically goes without saying! The two of them embark on a lopsided affair that never fully blossoms, while Jeffrey woos sweet teenage Sandy on the side. Meanwhile, wrapped up in unstable Dorothy's sexual psychodrama, Jeffrey plays some cross between detective and knight and shining armor to a damsel in distress, and revels in Dorothy's co-dependent clinging, all the while knowing that this affair could get him killed.
Dorothy's lover/stalker/tormentor is a ragingly nuts, repulsively perverted mafia a-hole named Frank, in the most disgustingly creepy role in Dennis Hopper's proud legacy of playing scary, nutbag freaks. Frank's infantile-yet-violent, jack rabbit dry-humping perversion, not to mention his obliviousness to how obnoxious and repugnant it is, is enough to make you never want to have sex again. Yet, Frank and Dorothy are both quite obviously insane- what's Jeffrey's excuse for his bizarre, irrational choices? The fact that he is apparently sane and fairly intelligent makes it all the more annoying. Every single character in the film is so annoying to me that I want to smack 'em upside the head, but the two women in the story are just plain pitiful.
Sandy and Dorothy are sort of a Betty and Veronica/rose white-rose red case. Dorothy is an older, glamorous, beautiful brunette, while Sandy is a younger, pretty, virginal blonde. Sandy is the least stupid and irritating character in the beginning, but I lost patience with her after she immediately forgave Jeffrey for his affair with Dorothy with very little explanation or effort from Jeffrey, then continually pins the blame on herself for "dragging him into this" when the situation is quite the opposite. Sandy puts herself in harm's way for Jeffrey even though he has lied to her, and at the close of the film is in the kitchen happily making him lunch while he lounges around in the back yard. For his part, Jeffrey just seems like a melodramatic sap who's "in love" with whoever's there at the moment. You really can't tell if his feelings for either Dorothy or Sandy have any depth to them.
What really works my nerves, though, is the woefully corny dialog, with absurdly over-earnest lines like, "Why is there so much trouble in the world?!?!" and "You're my special friend!" Not to mention, "I looked for you in the closet last night." Granted, all these lines are kinda funny, but are they supposed to be? And who's the joke on, the characters or the viewer. Either way, if it weren't for my roommate being there to mock it with me, I would have turned this movie off about 15 minutes into it.
How movies like this gain backing, let alone a cult following, I'll never know. But when it comes to satirizing suburbia, though, give me John Waters any day.
99 out of 150 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The spirit of Twin Peaks is strong with this one.
Blue Velvet is extremely upsetting and disturbing, and yet I can't take my eyes away from it. I always feel dirty watching this movie. Like it's something I shouldn't be watching. Like I need a shower after.
The performances are all great, but for me the standouts are Laura Dern and Dennis Hopper.
Hopper in particular is amazing as Frank. If the"f word" was a person, that would be Frank. Just an absoulety despicable human being in every way. He's as repulsive as he is fascinating.
That's the film in a nutshell. Repulsive, yet fascinating. I hate watching it but I love that feeling.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What a Ride...One I Hope I Never Take
I've always contended that David's Lynch writes most of his scripts after he has awakened from bad dreams. This is the story of a nice young guy who has pretty much all he could want. One day, he makes the mistake of his life, getting involved with an older woman (Isabella Rosellini) and all the fallout from that almost destroys him. Soon he is in the hands of some of the most eccentric and dangerous people we could ever meet. Mainly, Dennis Hopper, a psychotic, who has a claim on the woman. Soon the boy's life is not his own and he can't seem to escape. The world he is in is the total opposite of the one he had but a few weeks before. So much has already been written about this film. I will only say that Hopper is one of the most threatening presences I have ever witnessed. As I watched this film the first time, I had all I could do to stay in the theater. There's an overriding sickness here where we want to grab this kid and move him to another continent to get him away; but we feel we still have to watch.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Stylish Cinematic Junk
It has its good points. When Dorothy Vallens (Isabella Rossellini) sings the title song in the club, the film exudes wonderful atmosphere. Other oldies-but-goodies songs also are enjoyable to listen to. And the film's color cinematography, with its vibrant hues, is quite effective. Otherwise, this film is just awful.
Set in small town America in the early 1960s, the film opens with a young man named Jeffrey (Kyle MacLachlan) who finds a human ear, while strolling through the woods one day. Jeffrey's curiosity propels the plot through a convoluted story involving strange characters, sex, drugs, and murder. It's all rather seedy. And the film's excessive violence is annoying.
The story's inciting incident is not remotely plausible. The plot makes no sense. Some of the dialogue is sophomoric. And the characters are dreadful. The Frank Booth character (Dennis Hopper) is so outlandish as to be cartoonish. His use of an oxygen mask is nothing but a gimmick. Hopper makes matters worse by overplaying the role. The Ben character (Dean Stockwell) is bizarre, and not in a good way. And Dorothy is an emotional wreck, whiny and easily manipulated.
The film's casting and acting are wretched. Kyle MacLachlan is as bad in this film as he was in "Dune" (1984). He's bland, lacks suitable expressiveness, and is annoyingly nerdy. If he were any stiffer, he could pass for a mannequin. I don't know who was worse: dull MacLachlan or farcical Dennis Hopper. Rossellini tries to act, but her performance comes across as comically melodramatic which, when combined with Hopper's histrionics, renders scenes that are unintentionally funny.
The film's moody atmosphere makes for suitable cinematic style. But the script, the direction, the casting, and the acting are so bad that the end result is a cartoon for spaced-out adults. And the emphasis on gratuitous violence suggests that Director David Lynch was making an effort to distract viewers from the film's hokey contrivances. I'd say he succeeded rather well.
45 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Outré shocks in an apocalyptic suburban nightmare
Young man visits his family in cozy hometown, but after finding a severed ear in a nearby field he follows a trail of corruption, sadism and murder. David Lynch-directed torment, full of bright and beguiling colors, features many of his now-familiar themes (the city vs. the suburbs, the evil which lurks under our everyday existence), but it was a lot more provocative in 1986 than today. And, since time has not been kind to the presentation, attentions are more focused on the performances, which are variable. Dennis Hopper, as the resident psychopath, really goes out a limb and performs his role with gusto; it's an overscaled, though admittedly singular achievement, yet also a horribly unpleasant one, and you can't shake Hopper away once he's off-screen (and when he returns, so do the bad vibes). The film's surreal, daydreamy mood is well-captured, as is the nightmare-in-the-daytime ambiance, but the picture's atmosphere has to go a long way towards making "Blue Velvet" worth watching again. It just hasn't held up. ** from ****
16 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ear-rie
Dark. Twisted. Fragile. Dangerous. Delinquent characters mingle in downtown hotels and outbuildings - a stones throw away from suburbia. Is this a horror film?
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt00090756/reviews/?ref_=tt_ql_urv
0 Response to "Not Logical Out of the Contro L David Lynch Blue Velvet"
Post a Comment