Blue Velvet | | Cast : | Isabella Rossellini, Kyle MacLachlan, Dennis Hopper | | Director : | David Lynch | | Studio : | MGM/UA Video | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Widescreen, Dolby | | Released Date : | September 19, 1986 | | DVD Released Date : | December 07, 2004 | | Language : | Spanish (Dubbed), French (Subtitled), English (Subtitled), Portuguese (Subtitled), English (Original Language), French (Original Language), Spanish (Subtitled) | | Audience Rating : | R (Restricted) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | August 11, 2005 | | Summary | David Lynch Rules! | Content
 | Simply put, one of the best films to come out of the 80's. Unique, dark and edgy. Even those who don't "get it" have to admit that they've never seen anything quite like it. One of the most original opening sequences in movie history. Thankfully this version of the DVD includes an insightful hour long documentary. The film is so good I bought it 3 times. |
| Rating | | | Date | July 25, 2005 | | Summary | Mommy, it's dark | Content
| David Lynch is a sick-ass lil' troll that happens to be a genius. His films (good and bad) are a map straight into the surrealistic heart of darkness.
"Blue Velvet" is probably his masterpiece. Lynch was and is fascinated with what demons lie beneath normality and conformity. His philosophy is "no matter how you peal an onion...it stinks." Yet, Lynch's direction always has its tongue in cheek. He loves jet-black comedy wrapped in a bright malignant bow.
The whole freaking cast gives legendary performances.
Scene after scene drips with dread and the destruction of innocence.
Here's to your fuck |
| Rating | | | Date | July 25, 2005 | | Summary | A RACE TO NOTHINGNESS | Content
| What a cast! Great Director! Wonderful idea that took on a life of it's own. It's clear the actors, Director, et al, flung into this project with an unsurpassed alactrity. Dennis Hooper's portrayal of socio-path Frank Booth is frightening, believable, and sick. So sick, that his sex hostage (Isabella Rosselini), knows Booth killed her husband, and keeps her son in a closet, that she can visit him for a bit should Frank accede. I geuss it's too strange that Booth's victim lives on Lincoln Street - God-damn funny! Why does Laura Dern's character give weird speechs? Ear? Van Gogh? The ending is unsatisfying as we never learn what this film was about. Banquent of nihilism. |
| Rating | | | Date | July 21, 2005 | | Summary | It works | Content
| This is a good movie, but god, some of these positive reviews are so damn pretentious. Personally, I don't buy that this film is nearly as complex as many are making it out to be. I just think that Lynch thought it would be interesting to make a film that combined an exaggerated, cliched 50's sitcom style setting with a sexually violent, noir-ish type plot. (And he was right.) And, even if the thematic stuff other people are discussing is in there, it earns few points from me. "It's like, sex and violence are combined, man, and there's darkness and death even in the beautiful bourgeoise suburbs man, and it's all crap underneath it all, man, it's like whoa. dude, whoa" I'm not saying these things aren't true to a certain degree: Bad things happen in the suburbs, bad stuff happened in the 50's, and there are sadists and masochists, people have a capacity for violence, even if they don't know it. These things are all obviously true, so you get no credit from me for pointing them out. But, again, I don't think Lynch actually cared much about that sorta thing.
Certainly, this is an extremely weird film, but I can't understand why so many people are confused by it. The plot is extremely simple: Crazy, sadistic Booth has kidnapped a singer's(Dorothy Vallens) husband and child, and uses this leverage to procure sexual favors from her. A young man, Jeffrey, stumbles upon this situation, and wants to help. There are specifics developments, but nothing very complicated. The real interest in the film is in the contrast between the banal sitcom world of Jeffrey and the sadistic, noir underworld of Booth, and how they interact, and the way that they converge and influence one another. So, this is essentially an exercise in style and form, but Lynch has the skill to pull it off. The sitcom stuff is nicely done, with a bright clean town of innocent, shallow characters and pristine lawns. It's an exaggeration, but Lynch wisely resists the temptation of straying too far from the source material. I'd say we see this stuff a bit too much, as their isn't that much to it, but it never gets too tiresome, though it definitely could've been tighter. The darker part of the picture centers on Dennis Hopper, as Booth. His performance is pretty legendary, and not without good reason. He's allowed to play it as over the top as possible with out quite verging into self-parody. Suffice to say, he's a scary dude. And while I've seen plenty of stuff that's worse than anything here, the violent, sadistic stuff in this movie is still pretty out there. The films uses the now cliche tactic of combining graphic violence with an old, non-threatening pop song. This method is used to better effect here than in any other film I can think of, particularly the great, 'In Dreams' part. Quite a few people have raved about Rossellini's performance as Dorothy, but I think she's one of the weaker links. Frankly, she's kind of annoying, and is never really developed as a realistic, full character. (Of course, I don't think she was ever intended to be all that realistic, so I suppose I can't really fault her for that.) Fortunately, Booth is crazy enough that the fact that his main victim is just kinda weird doesn't matter all that much.
Hmm, I guess I don't have too much to say. The film has an interesting visual style and a novel central concept. I don't think it's genius, but it works. |
| Rating | | | Date | July 06, 2005 | | Summary | I know the suburbs, and this isn't the suburbs | Content
| I've lived in the suburbs all of my life, and I wouldn't live anywhere else. As I look back over the years, some neighbors were quirky and most experienced some form of difficulty in their lives, but most were very decent people. Was there a secret "dark underbelly" to the 'burbs? Not really, except for the dads who hid Playboys in their offices, couples who divorced, and parents who aborted their unborn children, deemed "defective" through amniocentisis.
In fact, as often as not, most people that I remember lived lives of quiet heroism, not desperation. Does this film reveal anything besides a diseased mind? None that I can think of. Like most celebrated modern artists, intellectuals, and writers, Lynch's work probably reflects his private vices more than any existing reality.
Sure, David Lynch can present intriguing, dark and mysterious images. But in the end they're just that, a string of intriguing, dark and mysterious images, ultimately leading nowhere. If the idea of walking through a dead-end labyrinth appeals to you, then you'll like this movie. |
|
