Blue Velvet (Special Edition)
|
List Price: Our Price: $9.99 You Save: $4.99 (33%) Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours Buy Used: from $5.53 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Blue Velvet (Special Edition)
Movie Review: It works
Summary: 4 Stars
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.
Grade: B+
Movie Review: I know the suburbs, and this isn't the suburbs
Summary: 2 Stars
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.
Movie Review: Blue Velvet: Still an Anti-Movie Film, 20 Years Later
Summary: 5 Stars
"Blue Velvet" was the first American film to fully explore the uncharted darkest regions of the subconcious mind, in the manner of European directors, like Bunuel and Fellini. No American director has broken open as much creative space as David Lynch, not even Robert Altman.
"Blue Velvet" was the right film at the right time. In 1986, there was a growing backlash against the vacuous Hollywood blockbusters, as evidenced by the popularity of artistically ambitous films like Platoon, Hannah and Her Sisters, Salvador, A Room With A View, the Mission, and Children of A Lesser God. Movie goers hungered for more substantive films, and the pioneers of the art house megaplexes, like Landmark were anxious to corner the market those kinds of film. Bad news for your friendly neighborhood art house, good news for "Blue Velvet."
The fact that Lynch was able to bring his singular artistry to television, a few years later with "Twin Peaks" is a measure of the public demand for Lynch's provactive style of filmaking. The fact that his recent "Muholland Drive" was orginally shopped around as a pilot for a series and had no takers, not even cable stations, is a barometer of how times have changed over the past 4 or 5 years. Decadence undermines the fabic of morality, and wierd movies send the wrong message about America, to people who need to get the "right" message.
"Blue Velvet" stood further left of center than other the films of artistic merit,and went far enough out on the limb attract a devoted cult following. In 1986, if you were in film school, "Blue Velvet" became an artistic model of acheivement. Young directors aspired to make the next "Blue Velvet",not the next "E.T." or "Jaws" as the previous generation had aspired to make.
On the eve of the 20th anniversary of it's release date, critics and movie fans still hold the meaning of "Velvet Blue" as a sacred topic of discussion. It's influence is tremendous but it still retains the uncompromising edge of an anti-movie film.
The film is resistant,nearly immune to all attempts to probe the nature of it's meaning. The film offers no apoligies for it's Baudelairian view of human nature. Debating the allegorical content of "Blue Velvet", seems to miss the entire point of David Lynch's artistic statement. Like Baudelaire, Lynch is at a loss to explain the brutal extremities of human behavior.
Each time I watch "Blue Velvet", I uncover new layers of meaning in, the script, the motivation of the actors, the function of a prop, or even in a the use of an unconventional camera angle. The "Blue Velvet" I watch in 2005 is entirely different from the one I saw in the theater in 1986.
The wooden nature of Kyle McLaughlin's acting only magnifies the volcanic nature and the primal appeal of Dennis Hopper's performance. Do you have the courage to really rip loose like Hopper? ...or do you hide in the closet,like Mr.Goody Two Shoes who peeps with lurid fascination at the performance? The rock star charisma of Hopper's wild man bulldozes Kyle McLaughlin's wholesome sex appeal straight into the closet where it belongs.
The strength of "Blue Velvet is it's own inscrutability. Lynch's steadfast unfliching gaze at the most sinister impulses of humanity, is the metaphorical "gorilla in the living room" that nobody wants to talk about. Your reaction to "Blue Velvet" tells as much about yourself, as it tells you about the morality of the characters on the screen.
As in all of his films, Lynch points out the contratdiction between the our high minded moral aspirations, and the predatory nature of our own behavior. The sunny small town innocence of "Blue Velvet" conceals a dark underworld of depravity that is governed by fear and violence. Our fascination with erotic nature of evil makes all of us willing particpants in the corruption of our own innocence. It's a message that stands at odds with own image of ourselves as decent,god fearing people.
Scrubby clean hands are capable of committing the most horrifying of deeds...just ask Lady Macbeth. It's an unsettling proposition, but ambiguity has it's own reward.
Movie Review: "yup, that's a human ear alright"
Summary: 5 Stars
My teacher told me to see this, after I said I hadn't seen many David Lynch movies, saying I was missing an entire genre. And she was dead right, this is a whole new genre. This movie is usually put into the surrealism genre, but its not really that, its funny but its not a comedy, its disturbing but its not horror, its about a murder but its not a mystery, the only thing I could possibly consider comparing this to is Cronenberg's "Naked Lunch" solely because of the interesting settings, the strange plot, the 50's-esque styling, and most of all the over the top bizarre sex scenes. the whole plot is pretty much this:
a kid finds a human ear in the grass and tells the police, he then hears something about a local singer and believes that she may have something to do with the ear, he quickly decides to stake out her apartment, and thats where it gets hard to describe.
The charactors in the movie are amazing, dennis hopper is out of his ****ing mind and ben[played by the one guy from quantam leap] is "suave as ****" overall the movie is worth checking out if you like things that are just plain wierd, but if youre the average braindead hollywood blockbuster fan [the kind of person who likes movies like star wars 3 or matrix 2], you wont get it.
Also on the special edition special features, push up and select "special" for a neat easter egg of David Lynch rambling about mcdonalds
Movie Review: A Movie You either Love, Or Hate
Summary: 2 Stars
1986 R-rated movie (nudity, violence & profanity). Murder-mystery.
DVD Features: The DVD contains the movie (in English or French with French, Spanish or no subtitles), and the trailer {Note: I'm reviewing the "basic" DVD, not the "Special Edition"} .
Credits: A film written & directed by David Lynch ("Mulholland Drive"; "Twin Peaks") starring Kyle MacLachlan (Jeffrey Beaumont; "Twin Peaks"), Isabella Rosellini (Dorothy Valens; "Wyatt Earp"), Dennis Hopper (Frank Booth; "Hoosiers"), Laura Dern (Sandy Williams; "Jurassic Park"), and Dean Stockwell (Ben; "Quantum Leap").
Plot: A "murder mystery" that includes nightclub singers, kidnappers and a small town, Lumberton. A man returns to his small town from college because his old man is in the hospital. Once he arrives back home he finds a severed ear. This discovery leads him and police detective's high school daughter to investigate the matter.
Review: I was reluctant to watch this movie because I rather dislike one and maybe two of the main actors, but as the film seems to be critically acclaimed, and as it is a murder mystery, I decided to watch it.
The movie starts off with an oldish man collapsing while watering his lawn and who ends up in the hospital. This causes the main character, Jeffrey (Kyle), to come home from school. While wandering around the town, he finds a human ear in some grass, and the murder mystery begins (he brings the human ear to a detective, the father of another main character, Sandy (Laura Dern)). Despite being told by the detective that the police will handle the case, and sorry, can't tell him anything, Jeff and Sandy are too intrigued by the issue to just leave it to the police, and so they investigate the issue themselves (which includes investigating a nightclub singer).
I'm not sure what the age Sandy and Jeff are supposed to be (Jeff's a college student, and Sandy is a high school senior), but both actors seem to be older than the characters they are pretending in the movie (I guess Dern just looked older than her age, as she was 19 when the movie was released; MacLachlan, on the other hand, was a 27 year old college student (which is actually conceivable, but much closer in age to Rossellini than might be perceived by the audience).
The time period of the movie is quite hard to determine. The clothing, hair styles, music and car models appear from many periods (roughly 1950s-1980s). The acting is spotty, with at least one main actor not particularly good. The plot is strange and somewhat illogical. The music is good, but dated (and one of the reasons it is difficult to determine the time period). A long boring, somewhat tedious movie with bad dialogue. Might be one of those movies you either like or hate. Overall, I would give the movie 1 and 1/2 stars.