Blue Velvet (1986)

A SADISTICALLY EROTIC DREAMSCAPE

This is, in my opinion, Lynch's best film. There are few director's that could play with psycho-dramas on a level with Hitchcock. Lynch is one of them, and BLUE VELVET like no other film, of the time ( 1980's ) clawed with perverse glee through the postcard vision of suburbia.

Isabella Rosellini was spellbinding in the role of Dorothy, a lovely, haunted, masochistic toy for Frank, a menacing sadist ( Dennis Hopper in a ferociously, psychotic performance ). The rest of the actors ( especially Dean Stockwell, as Frank's smoother, though equally evil, buddy ) are excellent.

Rosellini's sensual, vocally sinuous delivery of Bobby Vinton's syrupy, 'classic' BLUE VELVET is quite wonderful.

This film is not for the squeamish. That said, it is beautifully photographed, and if you like your nightmares bizzare, and pretty, and your characters dark this is not to be missed. December 24, 2008

2.5 stars out of 4

The Bottom Line:

A bizarre fever-dream of a movie, Blue Velvet succeeds in its attempts to shock and provides several memorable scenes, but the glossy exterior hides its lack of interesting characters and a soul. December 18, 2008

Blue Villain

I saw "Blue Velvet" listed in "The New York Times list of Best 1000 Movies ever Made". The reviews that I read suggested that this film was rather "blue" itself and I was reluctant to view it. However, I was able to see it on the IFC channel the other night and I was, frankly, amazed that there was so much praise for it. The acting in "Blue Velvet" was so bad that it's almost embarassing. Laura Dern's grimaces late in the film made her look like an unhappy clown. The lead role was played by a Kyle MacLachlin who came across like a kid just out of acting school. Dean Stockwell embarassed himself in a role he should have never taken. The only really good performance was by Dennis Hopper. However, his role was obscenely loud in a movie that was otherwise only offensive in its' ineptness. The plot was probably the reason some viewers watch this movie more than once. I know that I couldn't follow everything that happened. However, I am satisfied in my ignorance and have no intention of watching this disappointment again.

The only thing about the high ratings of "Blue Velvet" that made any sense to me is that it was perceived as a satire of Middle America. However, I get the sense that the people who thought so highly of "Blue Velvet" did so because they took it seriously. "Blue Velvet" is a joke that too many people took seriously. Don' waste your time on this one. November 5, 2008

Very close to velvety smooth...

Let it be known that David Lynch has a very unique style; a style that is a very acquired taste. You either love him or you hate him; there is rarely an in-between. I personally love his work (most of it), which is what saddens me a bit about `Blue Velvet'. This is one of those films that is lauded above all his other work as being the best of the best, but it struck me a little cold. The script is flawless (I love the ambiguities that lie within Lynch's work) and the direction, pace and mood acquired is effortlessly captivating, but the film falls short in a very central area; the acting.

Don't pelt me with stones just yet.

The film revolves around Jeffrey Beaumont, a young man who returns to his hometown after his father falls ill suddenly. Upon his return he finds a severed ear in a field and his journey then begins. With local high school girl Sandy (whose father happens to be the Detective Jeffrey shows the ear to) Jeffrey decides to try and uncover the mystery behind the ear, and this attempt brings him into the lives of quite a few interesting people. First there is Dorothy Vallens, a beautiful woman who is victim to a strange and violent man named Frank Booth; and sliding into their lives, Jeffrey finds himself in desperate need for help as he watches his life slide further and further towards its end.

Lynch, like I mentioned, has a unique style of direction. If you are familiar with `Eraserhead' or `Mulholland Drive' then you already know how this film is going to progress. He allows the scenes to move at their own pace, manipulating them just slightly. This may come off to some as dry or even stale, but this is Lynch's way of using everything at his disposal to create a mood, an air within each scene.

I have no problem with this.

The script is also brilliantly done. The slow progression of junior detective is effective and consuming as we anticipate how things are going to turn out for Jeffrey. We are interested in his relationship with Dorothy, and especially Sandy. We want to know how these two women are going to affect the outcome of his life, and we are terrified at the revelations about to be revealed by the repulsive Frank Booth.

I adore these aspects of the film.

Like I mentioned, the only fault I have with `Blue Velvet' is the acting, and not as a whole but in parts. I'll start with the good. Isabella Rossellini is a stunning woman who really uses everything within her to create a woman of believable desperation. She is conflicted in every scene, and this is scene marvelously. We can see each fragment of her dissention into chaos. Laura Dern is even more splendid. She delivers such a richly honest performance as young Sandy, fascinated by each new discovery, no matter how terrifying it winds up being for her. But as great as these two actresses are, the film starts to crumble when left up to the men. Dennis Hopper (who actually received praise for his performance) is just one gigantic gimmick. He never really transcends his characters stereotypes. He's a crazy psychopath, nothing more. He delivered (the same year) a wonderfully controlled performance in `Hoosiers' that I am disappointed he wasn't able to control this a little more. That said, he is still much more interesting than Kyle MacLachlan who may very well be the most boring actor since Keanu Reeves. I just really wish that someone, anyone else would have landed this role. MacLachlan just killed the high the film as a whole effectively sets.

All this said, I am fond of this film. It has so much going for it, and Lynch is just such a unique and original director who always stays true to himself. There are very few films like this one, and the ones that come close are also directed by Lynch. This is not a film for everyone, but if you are a fan of Lynch then this is a film you are bound to enjoy. October 13, 2008

yummy! =)

this movie is a classic mind bender! if you like david lynch's other stuff, like lost highway or wild at heart, you will like this. oh, mommy! ;) August 16, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...