Blue Velvet (1986) - Drama, Mystery, Thriller

Hohum Score



The discovery of a severed human ear found in a field leads a young man on an investigation related to a beautiful, mysterious nightclub singer and a group of psychopathic criminals who have kidnapped her child.

IMDB: 7.8
Director: David Lynch
Stars: Isabella Rossellini, Kyle MacLachlan
Length: 120 Minutes
PG Rating: R
Reviews: 88 out of 730 found boring (12.05%)

One-line Reviews (500)

This film is extremely intense and dark, and I would not recommend it to anyone who doesn't have the stomach for such films.

It was seen as a break from dreary 80s cinema.

This film starts off full of mystery and gripping intrigue; the viewer is immediately dropped into an exclusive zone of pure crime, very quickly and heavily tinged with Lynch eccentricity stains.

It is a captivating movie, a triumph, a stunning achievement.

Over all, it's a very compelling story told it a way that is, at times, quite bizarre, but even so, very enjoyable… Recommended.

"The music, from Angelo Badalamenti, as always, is stunning and haunting.

Maybe because that's the most thrilling part of life.

Curiously, I find Frank both pungently reminiscent of repellent thugs that I have known and yet also strangely compelling.

Her Dorothy is powerfully emotional, intense and extremely disturbing, and very sensitively and carefully performed.

With a Hitchcockian theme and Lynch's unabashed mastery of the weird and perverse, this is a wholly unique and quite entertaining flick from the bizarro world.

I thought of it as a good film back then, and every pretentious yuppie adored it.

The juxtaposition is jarring and bewildering, compelling us to identify with the protagonist.

It was a totally unexpected surprise from the director of "Elephant Man" and the collossal bomb, "Dune"(maybe it shouldn't have been so unexpected for anybody who had seen the equally bizarre "Eraserhead").

A waste of time.

Probably one of the most incredible, engrossing films in years.

Jeffrey goes on a thrilling and life-changing ride (both literally and figuratively) in order to solve the case.

In conclusion a relatively dull mystery film that doesn't really carry with it any real thrills to keep the viewer invested.

A major waste of talent, time and critical support this is.

The script is also intriguing, and the film is visually gorgeous.

Compelling and poetic, like a surreal waking dream.

The film is a stunning exploration into the dark and fierce that lies beneath all of us, no matter who deep down it is actual hidden.

Perhaps the most stunning and atmospheric sequence in all 80's cinema.

Stretched, boring, without charm at all...

And then there is the unforgettable characters, Frank Booth, one of cinema's evilest villains, and Dennis Hopper's performance is so stunning and real it is almost frightening.

An intriguing and flat-out startling film-noir.

"Blue Velvet" is one of the most intense flicks from our generation.

It's an engaging detective mystery.

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.

This is what a gripping movie should be; intelligent, well written, and when it's over you think to yourself, "wait, it's over already, DAMNIT, GIMME MORE!

Dark, haunting, beautiful, compelling: David Lynch's masterpiece .

With the help of sweetly innocent high school girl (Laura Dern), he turns junior detective and uncovers a frightening yet darkly compelling world of voyeurism and sex.

The only thing was that the story did work, but it still had an empty feeling at the end for me.

David Lynch; the writer-director, once again proves his excellence and passion towards the art of the cinema through his brilliant execution skills which holds the audience on the edge of the seat, rooting for more even after the curtain drops.

Intense and gripping .

There is a clear line between the good and evil, and the story unfolds into a fabale that becomes an intense battle of the good and evil, and the characters caught in between.

Interesting story, told interestingly - but the motives for so many important events in the tale remain mysteries, making it really difficult to claim I enjoyed it.

To sum it all up, this is a rather weak movie considering the other works of David Lynch and a little bit too general and mainstream orientated but it is nevertheless an entertaining psycho thriller with some stunning acting.

This movie was made to be 'odd' just for the sake of being odd, and there's no message in this movie.

The saturated lush reds and the velvet blues were breathtaking.

It's quite the turn on a reluctant voyeur gets more than he expected in more ways than one and the first act is pretty tense and intriguing in this respect.

Something is empty and alienating from the get-go and so the myths that Lynch supposedly wallows in before puncturing them with Hopper's psychosis are never really there.

(All very entertaining).

But not only in America now, because the American way of life - the good, the bad, and the ugly (just had to use that cliché, didn't I?

it's embarrassing to watch isabella rossellini, an underappreciated beauty, meandering naked while blabbering contrived nonsense -- and hers may be the best acting in this film.

I am no prude and am not repulsed by a 4 letter word for intercourse, but the dialogue was pretty damn banal.

Remarkably inept and tedious .

As the plot thickens Jeffery is sucked into the dark world of Dorothy's life, he seems confused as to what life he should focus on, his newly found love with Sandy, or his intriguing visceral obsession with the troubled Dorothy.

I can barely think on what was going on in Lynch's head to do this awful, plot less, boring piece of crappy cinema.

If you were to ask me what kind of movie Blue Velvet is, I'd say, beautiful, disturbing, uniquely funny, suspenseful.

Blue Velvet is a stunning and explosive film that is often misunderstood by its viewers as a simple crime drama.

It's not merely a "film", or a "movie", but a true psychic experience, a stunning visual and auditory phenomenon, which is what "movies" have been vainly, crassly, inaccurately claiming to be from their beginning.

The look and feel of Blue Velvet is stunning, and seeing it on DVD for the first time captures it perfectly.

Meaningless emptiness portrayed in a meaningless, empty way.

On the surface, this is just an appallingly bad film with disjointed imagery and great actors reduced to uttering sparse, wooden lines.

It was just a jumble of deviant sex scenes, boring dialogue, & meaningless scenes involving foolish acting people.

Mystical haunting imagery and fascinating characters.

I saw Blue Velvet when I was 17, and I really enjoyed it.

Overall, it's an amazing film to see (full of amazing images and a bravo opening shot that is enough to wrap anyone around its finger) but one that left me feeling a bit empty.

And although the imagery is disturbing, the movie is gripping.

Although, it is an unforgettably fascinating and foreboding film with a well constructed plot.

The film is full of edge-of-your seat thrills, twist and turns, shadowy noir cinematography… and depth as well as an artistic stroke while still managing to be entertaining.

If the answer is some corny pretentious symbolism, spare me.

So viewers could leave the theater content that at least evildoers were punished in the end.

But it was also so weirdly compelling, that I did not.

The film crystallizes many of Lynch's chief preoccupations: the evil that lurks under a seemingly pristine surface of banal American suburbia.

On the other hand, the film has a slow feel to it, and by the end, it seems to be dragging slightly.

Blue Velvet is one of the most suspenseful movies I've ever seen, It has the David Lynch dark sense of humor, It has the visionary genius of David Lynch, and It has a great element of observation of what lies behind the normal suburban town.

To watch Blue Velvet for the first time 31 years after its original release is a treat of unexpected proportions.

That's what makes Blue Velvet so shocking, so intriguing, so nightmarish and so masterful.

Instead, he provided an intriguing story line, a frightening and unpredictable villain, and a protagonist whose fate you actually cared about.

Still one of the most original and exciting movies of the 1980s.

Strange & bizarre but utterly compelling...

" In the '80s, Lynch wrote and directed Blue Velvet; he was at the prime of his career, after crafting the unexpected, Oscar-winning The Elephant Man and the big-budget flop, Dune.

The first half is genuinely engrossing, almost playing like a good old-time mystery caper (Lynch once referred to Blue Velvet as "The Hardy Boys gone to hell") before descending violently and unmercilessly into a twisted, nightmarish world populated by the demented Frankie (played by a maniacal Dennis Hopper) and his freakish cohorts.

And all to pretentious.

One of the scariest, most intense scenes (and there are many) comes half way through when Jeffery is led into a woman's apartment while investigating the case of the missing ear.

The main character in 'Blue Velvet' is Frank, a thoroughly repulsive yet fascinating psychopath.

Then there are the amazing performances from every member of the stunning and extremely diverse cast.

Or--we know nothing, and no answers are possible, so all there is for us to do is ask the most exciting, enchanting, impossibly impertinent questions we can dream up.

Blue Velvet is an incredibly made film: it's well crafted in every aspect, from the performances, the stunning, eye-popping cinematography (oh!

Anyway, Lynch seems to have locked on to a similar mentality about how to create a strange and gloomy, confusing world by using odd film techniques.


This was the first Lycnh film I ever saw-saw it in the theaters and walked out not knowing what to think.

Blue Velvet has to be one of the most disturbing yet intriguing movies ever made.

It's a much lighter and more entertaining read than that capsule summary sounds.

This is David Lynch's America, and for two hours, it's a surreal and hugley exciting privilege to return there...

It somehow manages to be both inaccessible and uninteresting.

So, except the musical moments, this movie was such a bore that I fast forwarded with pleasure !

The film starts with a slow plot and pacing.

I love it not only for the initial feeling it gives and the many genres it cleverly overlaps (art-house, comedy, B-Film, snoop detective thriller) but because of its perseverance – none of the visuals, themes or characters and situations feel fake or wooden and out of date but are deep, gripping and current as ever.

Overall, its merits outweigh its flaws, and it is well worth watching.

but Blue Velvet though equally as strange and fascinating as those films mentioned, is actually easy to follow and understand.

David Lynch is easily among the most uniquely talented and fascinating of directors working today.

Even still, after all the cheap Lynchian imitations, "Blue Velvet" remains one of the most unique, sick, imperfect, sexy, boring, fascinating, romantic, hilarious and horrifying of all movies.

I dare to call it compelling and evocative.

It's just a big waste of time.

There are better out there, however it's worth watching if nothing more that watching the late Dennis Hopper go over the top as Frank.

What is most intriguing about this film is the contrast between the reaction of the average moviegoer (so mind-numbingly boring that they were barely able to sit through it) and the local intelligentsia ("brilliant", "innovative", one comment compares Lynch to "Bergman, Fellini, and Bunuel" – insert the sound of gagging here).

We are given some of the most refreshing and awe inspiring techniques, symbolism, metaphors, and visuals in Blue Velvet; Lynch is one of the most revolutionary and original directors and stylists in the history of cinema.

Lynch's depiction of the cruelty, depravity and sickness lying just beneath the surface of a nice, friendly white picket-fenced America is not exactly subtle, but is remoursley gripping, compelling and stylish.

"Blue Velvet" definitely might bore, confuse or offend a lot of people, like most of Lynch's work.

Very boring and out of date.. .

Sadistic or kinky, warped or really creative, boring as hell or mesmerizing.

Also to note is the stunning score composed by Angelo Badalamenti, who went on to compose every other Lynch film.

I found it the later, Blue Velvet is a visually stunning film, it has beautiful, haunting and unforgettable images cleverly combined with dark nightmarish scenes some of which may never leave my mind.

I really feel I must convey this by putting a short review here, as there is so much talk of this film being borderline unwatchable.

In the overall view, the film brings a compelling story brought even more compelling with awesome performances and style to burn.

Striking, Entertaining, Engrossing .

Now he uses her, a great singer and once a good housewife, as a sexual object for sado-masochism and the weirdest sex fantasies you can imagine, using intense violence.

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 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.

This is a waste of time and not a credit to those involved in producing it.

It was strange, it was thoughtful, it was boring.

This has always been a unique crime movie, like no story I have seen before or since.

It again, takes the form of an intense satire.

Every time they reveal an unexpected depth, we are kept off balance by the lighter side of the film--some really absurd and humorous dialogue or some shallow message of hope by the perky blonde Sandy (Laura Dern).

Millions of miles from being a cinematic masterpiece, and just as far from being unredeemable trash, Blue Velvet is a maddening--yet never dull--exercise in Hollywood futility, tastelessly hollow controversy-mongering pretentious violence and sexuality.

This is an incredible film, totally unique, completely compelling and refreshing and intelligent, not the spoon-fed dribble you get from Hollywood.

An engrossing plot, which much of Lynch's work lacks (or maybe I just don't get 'em.

Those exciting and friendly people who greet us, the sweepers, the children getting ready for school, and the old man walking his dog.

only long yawns.

Also worth watching is a younger Laura Dern (pre-"Jurassic Park") playing Jeffrey's love interest as well as an assistance into the mystery revolving around Dorothy Vallens.

He's formulaic and didn't leave even the slightest impact on me.

In 2019, its badly dated and Lynch's ingenious directorial style comes of as pretentious nonsense.

Boring and didn't go anywhere.

After a film like Mulholland Drive, the viewer is left with a fascinating puzzle to unlock.

It is visually striking (beautiful images abound now and then), but otherwise it's hollow and pretentious.

The stunning direction of the film combines bald faced directness in presenting repelling scenes of sex and violence with subtle examinations of the mundane and bizarre side of Americana.

Although it tends to be dull and pretentious in some points; its a wonderful, startling piece of entertainment and will undoubtedly burn itself into your memory; regardless if you enjoyed it or not.

Surreal and unpredictable .

This is a extremely well done movie is not aimed at everyone but if you could handle the strangeness of this original picture, this is a fascinating film that should be not missed.

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's entertaining, thought-provoking and has inspired countless imitations, none of them ever equaling the shock factor that Blue Velvet produces.

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.

And almost 22 years on, it's as riveting, exciting and immersive as the day it was released - a genuine masterpiece.

This is the only movie I ever went to see that I almost walked out of - several times in the first half hour.

The first hour of Blue Velvet is slow but fascinating.

Featuring an engaging Kyle MacLachlan and Laura Dern in roles they seem very fitting too play, caught up in a feverish, horrific murder mystery brought to the surface after the discovery of a human ear in a grass field.

A horribly pretentious movie, which has somehow received very positive responses.

Blue Velvet is a stunning work of art and something so influential it has basically redefined the entire meaning of cinema.

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.

The basic plot might look surprisingly simple, but Lynch tells it to the viewer in a very slow and fascinating way.

A stunning movie moment that I have rarely felt since.

However, if you are interested in movies that forego standard storytelling and instead toy around with ideas or are an expression of individual artistic (or self-indulgent and pretentious, take your pick) impulses, I think it's worth a look.

It's overrated, but it's bizarre, sexy, and strangely engaging.

The fact is, "Blue Velvet" is one incredible film, the cinematic equivalent of a nightmare so fascinating you refuse to interrupt it by waking.

Kyle MacLachlan and Laura Dern make an engaging pair of would-be detectives and believably naïve counterpoints to all the darker elements of the film.

it's certainly a very wrenching film, not something i can see people being saddened by, but is certainly very emotionally compelling.

The film doesn't follow many conventional routes and Booth is another example of this, a violent maniac who is truly unpredictable.

It's straightforward and not as twisted as later movies by Lynch and I believe the director would agree, that it is supposed to be positive, enjoyable movie.

but utterly fascinating, even after a handful of viewings.

Suspenseful Wackiness.

The film not only pivots between extremes of setting and behavior, but successfully mixes intense human drama and offbeat humor.

Stunning, haunting piece of cinema.

All the scenes he's in are priceless, and he's totally unpredictable.

The use of classic and powerfully evocative Roy Orbison music in both films mines deeply the root of the American psyche.

A great cast wasted in this self indulgent, rambling, waste of time.

The plot centres around the gardener's son, Jeffrey Beaumont, who is brought home from school after his father's collapse, finds a severed human ear and his youthful curiosity gets him involved in the intriguing mystery of singer Dorothy Vallens which ultimately leads into the violent world of local sociopath Frank Booth.

But I on the other hand, can tell you why I enjoyed it.

She felt from a dark universe to an idyllic one, where Jeffrey and Sandy live the empty life of a shallow TV sitcom.

Blue Velvet is a very, very simple crime film, with pretentious to be "weird" or "I'm a special filmmaker".

The first half-hour sort of lulls one into a trance; then Booth arrives on the scene and the movie explodes into one of the most jaw-dropping works of art ever made in the US of A.

The pacing is unique in that he interchange between small town charm and menacing underbelly, for the most part, is totally unexpected.

In the TV showing I caught recently the colour was very dull and drained - I'm not sure if this was from the original photography or simply the ravages of time on this particular print.

Very odd, but intriguing .

Both films offer equally compelling experiences.

The visual aspect of the film was stunning.

Actually, the film is very boring, there is no tension, usual Lynch's mood of mystique is wasted simply because there is no mystique like in his other films.

The story was great, so simple yet so intriguing, the filming was pure genius and the originality was almost breathtaking.

but even the symbols have multiple interpretations which make this film intriguing.

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect about "Blue Velvet" is how it literally becomes a journey into darkness - and how as Kyle MacLachlan becomes drawn into the web.

It really does keep you on the edge of your seat, in a kind of 'Hitchock' way.

This film, while very profane and off-the-wall, was also very smart, witty, original, and gripping!

I have to admit, it's pretty good… very strange in places, but still, very watchable and very compelling.

Today, the movie seems a bit full of itself, somewhat pretentious (recurring shots of a symbolic flame), and the plot seems less satisfying and all too simple.

Even when the most gruesome and horrifying things are depicted (the splatter of head matter, bugs crawling) everything remains breathtaking - Blue Velvet is filmed beautifully.

Overall, Blue Velvet adds up (in the most contrived way possible)...

"Blue Velvet" is one of the most original, beautiful and fascinating movies I've ever seen.

The situations are WEIRD and intriguing.

This movie is so boring, I literally almost fell asleep on three different occasions.

So his attempted rebellions against "the ordinary" become, instead, financially successful, critically acclaimed icons of our empty lives.

It has a sense of dread and mystery throughout that keeps viewers on the edge of their seats.

Blue Velvet has a simpler plot that can generally be understood at a basic level upon first viewing, but there is plenty of symbolism and deeper meaning to make it "enjoyable" for further viewings.

I was a kid when the TV series aired and there was so much publicity that I started to watch it, I wanted to know who killed Laura Palmer and I really expected a banal detective mystery.

"Returning home to visit his father who is in intensive care at the hospital, Jeffrey Beaumont (Kyle MacLachlan), stumbles upon a human ear he finds in a field.

Blue Velvet is a stunningly fascinating glimpse it a voyeuristic and dark underworld that lurks under every surface, human or object, place, whether be a small town or a endless metropolis.

After an intriguing premise is established, the plot seems to become a secondary concern, with the primary focus being quirkiness.

In addition, hairstyles, clothes, and daily commodities like phones and cars, are a mish-mash of various eras from the 50s to the 80s, producing senses of timeless and confusion; this would also become Lynch's distinctive signature in the future.

Lynch uses literal image - quite starkly and almost ham-handedly to represent what many writer directors accomplish through spoken word - or failing that, the trite use of music.

Blue Velvet is a unique, hugely entertaining murder mystery.

But BLUE VELVET, at first sight only a suspense from the mid eighties, is also one of the most intriguing, haunting, brilliant and disturbing films of the last twenty years.

Everything is predictable and not a scene stood out.

An eerie, dreamlike and compelling masterpiece .

While parts of the film were incredibly strange and self-indulgent, the last half of the film is terrific.

people who likes that movie are pretentious, I suggest Kar-Wai Wong instead of Lynch if you like meaning behind a scene, the movie is not that bad, it's just not worth the investment

He is unpredictable, coarse and violent.

Of note are his use of music and of silence; the magic quality he somehow imparts to the most banal of dialogue ("What beer is this?

Even the story is relatively straightforward and easy to follow, the imagery, symbolism and characters are mind blowing.

Though much of the film revolves around a compelling, lurid mystery -- executed in a tense, economical manner that might have made Alfred Hitchcock proud -- Blue Velvet is more interested in the mysteries of desire and the horrors of unchecked deviance.

It's a highly entertaining movie to watch.

The score by Angelo Badalamenti is excellent and at times beautiful,suspenseful and mysterious.

Fueled by a vibrant and always-surprising surrealism, Blue Velvet reminds us that the dreams and fantasies of our subconscious are dangerous and thrilling; it's surface reality that is mundane.

In my opinion, very few movies say so much of themselves and reveal what will happen right from the start in a very captivating and fascinating way, another masterpiece from David Lynch.

As for the rest of the film, it's a typical Lynch outing; better than a lot I've watched, but still a bit too slow, arty, and self-conscious for my liking.

However, the entirely happy ending left me feeling a little empty.

Perhaps Laura Dern is a bit annoying, but that was probably intentional, part of the film's theme of contrasting the banal with the horrific.

Some will say that an amazing movie has to be entertaining.

All in all, this is an unpredictable and dark film, one that is very easy to admire and get lost within.

People love to talk about how they would like to have their lives a little more exciting or a little stranger.

But his boredom turns to fascinated curiosity one afternoon when, wandering through a grassy field, he discovers something unexpected on the ground - a human ear.

Stunning .

Beneath the normal, friendship-oriented world of small town Americana, Lynch delivers a haunting and terrible (but inexplicably fascinating) world of sexual perversion, evil and corruption.

Intriguing, suspensful and mysterious.

However Laura Dern was predictable, boring and formulaic - really unengaging.

There's something wonderfully engrossing when Jeffrey discovers Dorothy's apartment, hides in her closet observing (ogling?

Stunning and unforgettable .

Let's begin with its thrilling start.

Fueled by a vibrant and always-surprising dream like surrealism, Blue Velvet reminds us that the dreams and fantasies of our subconscious are dangerous and thrilling; it's surface reality that is superficial and mundane.

However, in the hands of our God (David Lynch) he has created a thoroughly absorbing and seductive piece of work which can proudly sit with his other insane masterpieces.

Blue Velvet is that film and while my first viewing provided shock, awe, and plenty of confusion, I can't wait to watch it again.

Don't waste your time watching this.

It has stunning performances, an unforgettably nostalgic soundtrack and features some of Lynch's finest direction.

This film is dreadfully boring and over-the-top.

Rossellini's stunning performance as the tortured, suicidal sex slave Dorothy is truly remarkable, and almost matches the flawless ability of her late mother, Ingrid Bergam.

It's sexy, and exciting, and spooky in both very subtle and jarringly blunt ways.

With the help of sweetly innocent high school girl (Laura Dern), he turns junior detective and uncovers a frightening yet darkly compelling world of voyeurism and sex.

Blue Velvet is a strange film, just like the films of David Lynch used to be, the script is confusing, smarter, it's a movie that you have to have your interpretation, the cast is very good, Isabella Rossellini, Kyle Machlan, Dennis Hopper , Luara Dern and etc, Lynch's direction is as competent as ever, the photography is great, the soundtrack is very good, the pace is good, the film is not tiring, even with some unnecessary dialogues and scenes, and even Blue Velvet is a good movie, has a good cast and a direction, if you like confusing movies, That can leave your head confused, and give up a knot, Blue Velvet is a great request.

I found the film on the whole to be pretty dull.

Never have I seen a film so visually arresting and beautiful, the intense colours almost speak to you.

It is a work of fascinating scope and power that rivals any of the most subversive films to reach the screens during the 1980s.

When it came to being any sort of "enjoyable" movie-entertainment, all in all, I found Blue Velvet to be too terminally weird for that.

David Lynch has masterfully directed a film that is both compelling and repulsive at times.

This has to be the worst movie EVER!

Soon into the movie, an odd conflict between the protagonist and antagonist ensues; all the while, the movie becomes more and more compelling.

Like I said before, the film evokes an indescribable feeling, it is stylistically and visually compelling.

It's coherent, plot-driven and engrossing.

Clever use of innocunous pop ballads-most hauntingly the title song, laced through regular Lynch collaborator Angelo Badalamenti's creepy score heightens the atmosphere, as does the lush, compelling use of color.

In the brothel scene the song "In Dreams" is heard by the viewer at the same time the confusing images of lust (the hookers dancing) and brutality (Jeffrey getting beaten)and are on the screen.

It started off well, but after about a half an hour I LITERALLY fell asleep, and it was no where near bedtime.

Another overrated flick from David Lynch, a director whose work has mostly been pretentious.

While they may seem reckless or pointless, there is purpose to his madness.

But if you throw out all the "influential" garbage talk (a film is primarily "influential" when there's nothing else interesting to say about it), what remains is a uniquely charming, idiosyncratic, and enjoyable film.

Although Blue Velvet is ridden with beautiful, saturated colours and flawless imagery, its thin and underwhelming in its human story and is occasionally pretentious film-making.

Kyle MacLachlan on the other hand was extremely bland.

completly boring, silly and rubbish, and as with most Lynch films its definatly a select taste which thankfully I dont have!

It is still deeply and uniquely disturbing, at times incredibly surreal and utterly compelling viewing.

he has his own visual style, which I really like, the real problem are his scripts, the story is not that good, it doesn't gel, the interactions between the characters feel empty...

The rich reds of Dorothy's lipstick and the soft pinks of her apartment, the blue velvet, the red roses and white picket fenced suburban homes even the dark as night moments, everything looks stunning.

The scene in which Frank ritualistically rapes Dorothy is intense and shows how game lynch is.

I don't think it's worth to see this movie nowadays (2011), probably it was shocking or exciting at its time.. but now it's just boring and lame.

Pretentious and shallow and not even slightly self aware, this is a film for only the most terminally brain dead.

Its pretentious nonsense that film school wannabees rave about, because they think there is something deep.

Its strongest points insurmountably being held in the Cinematography which I feel is stunning and leads us directly into his 'Twin Peaks' – Is this the same town?

Knowing very little about the movie I was quite unprepared for what a twisted and fascinating experience I was in for!

The film is uneventful, dull, vile, pointlessly exploitive and unbelievably cheesy.

I guess that's what so fascinating about Blue Velvet.

Beneath the normal, kin- and friendship-oriented world of small town America, Lynch delivers a haunting and terrible (but inexplicably fascinating) world of evil, polarized characters and corruption.

Dennis Hopper is intense, and he snarls and can swear up a storm, and I know, or assume, he's meant to be a comic book kind of "fake" bad guy, a man with his badness painted on brightly.

The Worst Movie Of All Time.

In addition, Kyle MacLachlan is a remarkably wooden actor; the plot frequently falls apart; and Lynch's bursts of (sometimes pretentious) surrealism are occasionally miscalculated and actually tend to get in the way of any coherent statement.

This movie is disturbing as well as entertaining.

It just has too many dragged out moments, sections of driving or dancing or waiting where it slows.

Blue Velvet is an engaging movie, one that really leaves you uncomfortable in some sequences, and one that holds you in others.

Even less controversial suburban portrayals like "The Graduate" and "American Beauty" feature what would be considered extreme behavior, as the average suburbanite is more mundane and far less adventurous than the protagonists of those films.

However, after a while it seemed like all this weird aspects really tended to distract from the central story and made the movie very long and a bit pretentious.

The film is probably good if your bored, otherwise its your average thriller filled with violence and sex that seems to be there for shock value and nothing else.

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.

Both films are filled with contrived plot twists, misdirection, and insanely over-the-top characters.

Don't waste your time.

I also give praise to the stunning cast who have clearly managed to play off such complex, lost characters.

"Into the magic night I softly say A silent prayer, like dreamers do Then I fall asleep to dream of you""You're like me" means that if Frank is Jeffrey's dream, Jeffrey's also Frank's dream, and that their all existence is an illusion.

" and Sandy's ridiculously but purposely trite interpretation of her robin dream.

Granted, for forty minutes or so, "Blue Velvet" is compelling.

Well whatever be the storyline but the matter is presented in a very stunning manner which is quite appreciable.


Compelling plot told with the absurdity and oddity of Lynch that is so fascinating to his work.

Absolutely stunning .

Apart from all the great performances featured, Dennis Hopper's interpretation of Frank is by far, the most fascinating.

Some aspects I feel were just fillers and had no consequences whatsoever, basically pointless.

BLUE VELVET hints at the supernatural and the demonic the way TWIN PEAKS tackled the subject full bore.

The cast is superb, the lush visuals are stunning, the score is exhilarating, and Dennis Hopper alone is brilliant (perhaps a little too brilliant...

We see a fire truck with a fireman standing on the edge of it, waving, smiling as if he doesn't have a care in the world.

It's a slow slide into hell with no redeeming absolution.

I wanted to like this film, but there's only so many stars I can give for an unexpected grass scene.

It loses some of it's compelling strangeness and/or power when it's relegated to DVD/video.

This is definitely a film worth watching multiple times.

Instead of exploring the MacLachlan character, Lynch turns him into an uninteresting do-gooder.

As you may have gathered, this is an immensely intense film.

Lynch, Hopper, Orbison, all of them, and more blend into an exciting stew that chills me each time I see it.

With an amazing economy of images, the tensions build, the dream twists and the terrible threatening nature of our mundane surroundings breaks through.

The contrast between the violence and seaminess of Frank's world and the laughable banality of Jeffery's world comes across perfectly.

It builds to some great moments of intense suspense, as well as some very steamy sex scenes.

And it is fascinating how he manages to concur it in the end.

Of course there are brilliant touches in "Blue Velvet", however it also seems strangely empty.

The cinematography is beautiful and compelling.

I found the whole plot was quite disjointed.

The narrative drives the film but these characters are what makes this world so intriguing for the audience and for Jeffrey.

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.

I would have to say this is one of the worst movies of all time.

The writing is witty, exhilarating and gripping throughout the course of it where if plotted a graph there barely would be a dip somewhere in its second act which is feasible.

With the help of sweetly innocent high school girl (Laura Dern), he turns junior detective and uncovers a frightening yet darkly compelling world of voyeurism and sex.

the poor acting and slow-moving plot only make the predictable ending even more unbearable.

Intriguing and extremely intense.

Although the strength of the movie seems to rest in Isabella Rosallini, whose performance is simply awe inspiring.

This movie is so incredibly intense that it can be hard to watch.

I think Lynch identifies the passive viewer looking at what's on the surface there in front of them but also identifies the active viewer looking at what's beneath the surface; he shoots the initial incident which acts as the catalyst of the whole film in a mundane manner consisting of mid-shot, close up and then the guy picks the item up.

Fans should rejoice Blue Velvet as one of the most stunning films ever made.

Vallens is being repeatedly sexually abused by her husband and young child's ransomer, Frank Booth, a nitrus oxide addict with a penchant for sudden and unpredictable violence.

The stunning visuals make even the dark and gritty look stunning and heavenly, the musical counterpart is nightmarish and ties in with the films overall mystery perfectly, the metaphors and symbolism are expertly used.

Other oldies-but-goodies songs also are enjoyable to listen to.

For those with the temerity to follow Blue Velvet anywhere, the film is as fascinating as it is freakish and is easily going to garn an argument or debate long after viewing.

Lynch mixes all these ingredients together, and the film turns out to be one unusual, often disturbing, but enjoyable experience.

But some of the stuff in this movie is pretty intriguing indeed, especially the sadomasochistic part.

This makes it all the more interesting when the mystery becomes so intense that it starts showing a darker side to Geoffrey's character.

Compelling ....

is still a fascinating place to visit, whether you are returning after many years or looking for a place to start exploring the twisted universe of David Lynch.

Like many of Lynch's other films, I would expect a more enjoyable second viewing, knowing now that the events of the film are secondary to how they're supposed to make you feel.


Some of these are really weird, funny and visually exciting and are way too many to discuss here.

Compelling and beautiful .

'Blue Velvet' to me ties with 'Lost Highway' as David Lynch's most impressive and satisfying achievement, and is still one of the most original and exciting movies of the 1980s.

By the time the credits arrived I was bored out of my skull, and I consider it a waste of 2 hours I will never get back.

Bizarre but thoroughly engrossing study of psychology and what's 'beneath the surface'.

Even though you remain in your seat the entire viewing, you sweat to the bone at the pure adrenaline rush it feeds you.

A severed ear is found one day by Kyle MacLachlan and he decides to start his own investigation with the police chief's daughter (the equally dull Laura Dern) when they come to the conclusion that the cops will never find out the real truth.

Its cinematography is amazing, and watching it in widescreen DVD format is stunning.

It's art, it's life, and in a funky way, it's entertaining.

"Blue Velvet" may not be Lynch's best film, but it's an intriguing and flat-out startling film-noir.

Beautiful and compelling, but a bit empty .

"Blue Velvet" is a take on film noir with typical Lynch weirdness, unique atmosphere and breathtaking cinematic work.

It interested me but it also had a gripping energy that is rare in many films.

It would seem that this well made film shows us a slice of the underworld teetering on the edge of insanity.

Isabella Rossellini is a stunning woman who really uses everything within her to create a woman of believable desperation.

Overrated, messy and extremely pretentious film that only really has a few highlights .

Blue Velvet" is a take on film noir with typical Lynch weirdness, unique atmosphere and breathtaking cinematic work.

It proves to be one of the most terrifying, beautifully compelling films I have ever seen, and I have seen many films.

It's a matter of contrast--the bland suburban world with the dark criminal underbelly.

The character 'Ben' played by Dean Stockwell is the most amusing and utterly entertaining out of all the rest.

It commences with some riveting setups that would have made Alfred Hitchcock nod in approval, and then, as he might have done so with this material, warps it into something rather beautiful and unique.

Which was that much more enjoyable knowing that she went on to do much more intense and at times crazy characters.

And in discovering this dark side to his all-American community, he also discovers an unexpected darkness in himself.

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.

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.

From the opening shots Lynch turns the Technicolor masterpiece picture postcard images of middle class homes and tree, lamp-lined lanes into a dreamy vision on the edge of nightmare in a town were innocence is constantly assumed and predicted.

He presents an absorbing take on the theme of voyeurism, as Jeffrey hides in closets and behind the wheel of his car, spending as much time spying on the characters as he does interacting with them.

However the film picks up pace from the middle and becomes very much compelling in the end.

Wonderfully twisted, beautifully done, dream like and compelling .

It doesn't take many repeated viewings to discover it's a complex, absorbing piece of American surrealism.

The most fascinating character, Dorothy Vallens, played by Isabella Rossellini, doesn't quite get developed and relationally portrayed with the biting impact that would have clearly lasted the test of time and even the ending of this movie was so retro-50s and it seemed to lose its retro-effect and become instead of retro, more in line of a 50s movie instead of something new and refreshing, almost as if the director betrayed the intent of the movie's initial premise.

Having made a startling discovery (to be more exact, a human ear lying in the grass), out of sheer boredom and driven by passion for adventure Jeffrey decides to proceed with this mystery and gets involved with a night-club singer Dorothy Vallens (Isabella Rossellini) living in a shabby apartment building, which is somewhat incongruous to the sleepy suburban paradise of Lumberton.

How can such a talented director like Lynch make such an empty and boring movie without any sense.

As colorful as some of the locations are, Lynch manages to make them seem drab and menacing.

It is very slow, it is very weird, and it is very deep.

It is a work of fascinating scope and power that rivals any of the most subversive films to reach the screens during the '80s.

At its release in 1987, Blue Velvet and its creator were unexpected surpises from a Hollywood where the scripts seem to be generated by a computer that watches a lot of television.

That, in itself, may be mind boggling.

It's a leading example of the thriller genre, a re-birth of the neo-noir genre, a suspenseful drama, a satire on small life, and an examination of small town life in the worst form.

But its engrossing, and its thrilling, and it lives up to its status.

One of the worst movies of all-time .

This is definitely a film worth watching multiple times.

All in all a pretty good movie and worth watching several times for all the nuances and sinister suggestions.

The imagery is superb, and cleverly combines beauty and darkness, the direction is some of Lynch's best, the score is compelling and adds the films suspense, and the performances are first rate.

Don't waste your time on this movie.

Pointless garbage.

Some scenes are very raw and intense, which tended to polarize most critics, either loving it or hating it.

"Blue Velvet" is a movie so rich and visionary that it can easily fool you at a first viewing, it even fooled Ebert who got the raw realism of the darker scenes right but took the other ones with "corny" dialogues as artistic licenses meant to distract from the gripping realism.

Fueled by a vibrant and always-surprising surrealism, Blue Velvet reminds us that the dreams and fantasies of our subconscious are dangerous and thrilling; it's surface reality that is mundane.

He's bland, lacks suitable expressiveness, and is annoyingly nerdy.

The film presents several jarring and somewhat confusing breaks of flow over its 124-minute duration.

Lynch's engrossing and shocking masterpiece still holds up after all these years...

I mean, it really is at times all those things, including mesmerizing (briefly) and boring (often).

Lynch's theme, of a darkness that lies behind a surface of suburban tranquility, has since been regularly regurgitated, not least by Lynch himself who returned to the same territory, at greater length but to considerably less effect, in his self-indulgent television series "Twin Peaks".

As I've already said, this is a very compelling film with lots of quite strange and bizarre touches.

Take Blue Velvet, some bizarre characters a very simple (boring) story, so why have all these drawn out scene's that don't say anything or add anything.

The cinematography, plots, and acting proved to be less than mediocre in all three films, and was the least enjoyable in Blue Velvet.

Pretentious Garbage .

Worth watching.

A Bizarre and Thrilling Film .

This is definitely a film worth watching multiple times.

Unforgettable movie well worth watching a few times to catch some of the nuances and subtle peripheral visual noises.

"Blue Velvet" is a take on film noir with typical Lynch weirdness, unique atmosphere and breathtaking cinematic work.

Everything melds together perfectly -- Angelo Badalamenti's haunting, evocative score, the lush visual photography, the masterful symbolism, the performances...

A pretentious film .

It embodies everything a film should embody to be great: art, moving images, bravo photography, direction, acting, humor, suspense, and an overall stunning and unforgettably tour-de-force experience.

From the opening shots Lynch turns the Technicolor picture postcard images of middle class suburban homes and tree-lined, picturesque lanes into a dreamy vision on the edge of dark, unsettling nightmare.

Jeffrey is a good protagonist, probing into the mystery of Lumberton in a compelling and exciting manner.

Dennis Hopper's entrance into Blue Velvet is intense and his character is among the most terrifying in film history.

The film has many memorable bits and pieces, but the overall vibe is about half as intense as watching an accident involving two vehicles with the highest safety rating and everyone has on their seatbelts.

I find it a rich and fascinating enigma which is also darkly comic.

I put enjoyable in quotation marks because to many watching it is not an enjoyable experience.

Blue Velvets protagonist, Jeffrey Beaumont, has left school a while ago and works for his dads shop in some bucolic, dull town called Lumberton.

We follow this with his son and the film's protagonist, Jeffery (played by Kyle McLachlan), investigating an intriguing mystery which draws him into an unpleasant world lurking just below the surface of his apparently-pleasant neighbourhood.

Look at the opening sequence to BLUE VELVET - A montage of shots of suburban America followed by a slow pan into the grass where insects crawl from the ground .

And while an entertaining film with subtle subversive messages can have mass appeal, Blue Velvet is not a particularly entertaining film.

pretty, but predictable .

David Lynch's "Blue Velvet" is a symbolically rich, masterfully crafted work, depicting the coexistence of two seemingly diametrical worlds with icy and compelling juxtaposition.

The film remains just as unpredictable as a film can get just because you wonder where Lynch is taking you.

Fascinating in its evil.

The opening shots of red fire engines, yellow tulips and blue skies are trite, and present an impossibly clean, innocent world.

This is a difficult film to watch, with some of the most intense imagery imaginable.

MacLachlan who plays Beaumont, is stunning as the innocent young man in search of mystery, and Isabella Rossellini (another snub at the 1987 Oscars) is extremely affective as the distraught mother.

Somehow, you know what it wants to say, but it is so complex and intense that you don't know how to write it.

And the circumstances are truly riveting, terrifying, unpredictable and gloriously cinematic.

A silly/dull plot and a bad cast do not a great movie make.

Bizarre yet intriguing .

Exciting setting of the light in the film that creates mysterious environments and situations.

I thought 'Blue Velvet' was rather tedious in illustrating these points.

I thought Rossellini played a great part as an abused singer, the acting is very good in this film, it's just that the script is so bland and cheap.

I found it very compelling and also quite bizarre in places.

The world of horrors that's revealed in the first part of the film is resolved rather stupidly at the end, but its a cinematic milestone that is a worth watching by any film buff.

I put enjoyable in quotation marks because to many watching it is not an enjoyable experience.

I made the mistake of trying to watch it when tired and I fell asleep, my mom woke up.

Sandy's boyfriend whose only somewhat relevant appearence is in the end as well, when he tails Jeff and Sandy because he is jealous, but then that scene becomes irrelevant and nothing happens to Jess because they find the singer injured in that particular location for no reason.

Serious candidate for the 100 worst movies ever.

What I love about those three movies is that the plots are so bizarre and confusing that they require the viewer to come up with their own conclusions and meanings.

"Blue Velvet" is a stunning 1986 film by director David Lynch that focuses on Jeffrey (Kyle McLachlan), a small-town college student who stumbles across a severed human ear in a field.

but utterly fascinating, even after a handful of viewings.

Speaking of Frank, Dennis Hopper's performance as him is incredibly over the top and occasionally hilarious, but that only makes it all the more terrifying when the characters are in legitimate danger since we know how unexpected and wild he can be when he inhales some unexplained drug.

" That expression is too dull for my ears.

If you require computer graphics and explosions with your murder, these are probably a little too bland for your taste.

Because it is an endlessly fascinating film and becomes a different viewing experience each time.

Blue Velvet has a simpler plot that can generally be understood at a basic level upon first viewing, but there is plenty of symbolism and deeper meaning to make it "enjoyable" for further viewings.

Its dark-side-of-suburbia theme seemed trite and old-hat, and its surrealism paled in comparison to Mulholland Drive's ethereal atmosphere, which you could sink into and lose yourself.

Intriguing and superbly crafted film .

Erotic and disgusting, scary and funny, boring and colorful are all appropriate descriptions for different scenes in this movie.

This movie gives us already a glimpse at what we could later on expect from David Lynch as the movie is settled in a small town where many strange people live beneath the surface of peaceful boredom just like in "Twin Peaks".

And while this is no different, it is certainly one of his more accessible films to audiences turned off by really confusing and bizarre films.

Pretentious and overrated.

This is a stunning, explosive and extremely powerful movie, many scenes still replaying in my mind, namely the infamous "closet" scene in which the lead character Jeffrey investigates a womans apartment who may or may not be the suspect of a murder case that has rocked a small town to its foundations.

It seemed full of contrived plot twists and insanely over-the-top characters meant only for shock value and nothing else (e.

It is a compelling journey into the darkest depths of the human soul.

To me most of Lynch's films are like fascinating oil on canvasses.

A Disturbing, compelling and without a doubt Excellent film.

I am quite sick of everyone bashing Kyle MacLachlan for a so-called "bland" performance, for his character is suppose to be wooden and geeky - it isn't because of MacLachlan's poor acting ability, this also goes for Laura Dern's performance as Sandy.

I was looking for a truly complex, intruiging and engaging story - and was extremely disappionted.

For some people, this can be a major turnoff and make the film boring.

Ultimately the film suggests that the payoff is rarely what we think, though we do end up learning something, about the world beneath the world of appearances, and about ourselves, and for that, as well as its thrilling plot, great acting, and singular strangeness, which caused a stir when it premiered, "Blue Velvet" is worth seeing, and more than once.

At the beginning of the second hour… is a little tedious at times.

Strange and intriguing, this movie was deep as it is disturbing.

The visuals are an absolute standout, every color and detail is breathtaking, from the gory, splattered head matter of Frank Booth to Rossellini's blue velvet gown.

But what I found most compelling about "Blue Velvet," still days later after seeing it for the first time and holding it in my mind for so long, is the network of relationships between the characters.

Absorbing what Jeffrey has told him, Williams now expresses concern.

It's these fascinating and frightening revelations that director David Lynch portraits in his masterpiece Blue Velvet.

Blue Velvet is a unique, hugely entertaining murder mystery.

The film is completely empty.

"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.

Fast forward to the release of Mulholland Dr. My interest peaks, and is more than saturated with an overabundance of intense metaphorical symbols and brilliant casting.

What is so stunning about Blue Velvet is that its so refreshing and creates a completely new touch on thrillers.

My point is that if you really want to unsettle the audience, you keep the ordinary, ordinary, as boring as that may seem.

Intriguing .

And the latter part is when it gets really interesting and suspenseful.

The story, while conventional on the outside has so many dark subtexts to it that are fascinating to read into.

After I viewed the film, I enjoyed it so much I went on a David Lynch rampage, going to the Blockbuster near my house and renting practically everything he did.

To describe it,seems rather difficult because surrounding a simple looking storyline is quite stunning cinematography,powerful camera work & deep music in which you just want to lost a while...

There is a dark obsessiveness to "Blue Velvet" - one that lingers long after the details of the film's mundane drug and kidnapping plot fade away.

The first time round, I ended up thinking that this was simply a self-indulgent, pretentious 'noir-ish' attempt at vulgar violence and gratuitous sexuality.

Blue Velvet is basically a strange tale of good versus evil, but its surreal atmosphere, its rich symbolism, and the thrilling, often amusing chemistry between its characters layer the film, giving it nuance and cinematic ingenuity.

The manner in which he played FRANK BOOTH is so intense.

Bizarre, intriguing, complete .

The contrast between the violence and seaminess of Frank's world and the laughable banality of Jeffery's world comes across perfectly.

david lynch's highly stylized vision & masterful camera work cannot rescue the predictable plot and b-movie acting of this mediocre film.

"Blue Velvet", David Lynch's 1986 cult favorite, is a symbolically rich, horrifyingly beautiful, icy and compelling.

You see an empty film.

Incredible acting, especially by Dennis Hopper, along with with great cinematography and an intriguing and approachable protagonist, make this film unforgettable.

If you like artistic and intriguing films, especially ones with memorable characters, then don't miss this one.

Grafting on to this story his own idiosyncratic preoccupations, Lynch creates a visually stunning, convincingly coherent portrait of a nightmarish sub-stratum to conventional, respectable society.

However, if you are watching this movie to be entertained or to be on the edge of your seat, or especially to feel good, you are in the wrong place.

At times brilliant and at other times incredibly self-indulgent .

Not gripping, more intriguing, surreal.

As other reviewer say, it is a very low budget crap with a predictable story line using over the top porno/psycho scenes to get some kind of viewer interest - I totally agree with that, It's just nonsense, predictable and boring.

That's why his work is so evocative.

But BLUE VELVET isn`t a bad film ( Though it`s not as good as its high IMDB rating says it is ) , Lynch doesn`t go overboard with his often pretentious style of directing and it`s a film that would deserve the oft used tag of " Hitchcock style thriller " for the most part , though Dennis Hopper`s show stopping performance as the villain is something better suited to a Scorsese picture .

The plot, which revolves around the mystery of a young man discovering a human ear in his seemingly perfect home-town, is as thrilling as some of Hitchocks greatest thrillers, is very finely crafted.

The thing about this film that makes it divisive, I think, is its length and self-indulgence.

" As we left the theater I said to my girlfriend "I guess some people are impressed.

The characters are well written, with Hopper's performance as Frank the maniac and Isabella Rossellini's turn as Dorothy, the woman on the edge, standing out most.

For every scene of mundane, predictable small town life – parties, dating, football training, campus life – we are given the excesses of the Hopper character with his Amyl-Nitrate sniffing, violence and fetish-driven sex.

Like Bunuel slicing the eyeball with a straight razor (1929) this is gripping, artsy stuff and not for sensitive types.

It degrades women, and violence seems to be presented in a rather pretentious matter.

David Lynch's films have always been visually fascinating, Blue Velvet is no exception.

The film could be read as an allegory for the conscious and unconscious spectator; Jeffrey is exactly that, engaging in fetishism and grappling with his conscious and unconscious desires.

His inspiration for this art house freak show (in retrospect the first in a decade-long rut of repetitive grotesquery) is the image of a severed human ear, discovered in a field by young Kyle MacLaghlin and, not unlike Pandora's Box, revealing a netherworld of vice and corruption lurking (as always) just beneath the wholesome façade of Main Street, USA.

I find this entertaining, though not in the usual sense.

Stylish but empty .

Like I said, if you are sleepy, don't watch this movie because you will definately fall asleep.

It is a surrealistic tour-de-force like no other, and captures some of them most breathtaking images and sounds in cinematic history.

Lynch came up with the mind blowing Mulholland Dr in 2001, so the contrast is clear.

The acting is at times banal and at best bearable (not just during the light moments as some would have you believe).

David Lynch is a very self-indulgent director, and one who obviously very closely and literally adheres to the basic precepts of the film maker's art.

It is a low budget flick with a predictable story line using over the top porno/psycho scenes to get some kind of viewer interest.

Dennis Hopper gives a far more gritty performance in the film "Speed" This film was literally boring as heck, and it went nowhere for me Avoid at all costs

David Lynch, who CAN BE a brilliant director cant forge his mastery on this pathetic film,and in my view Lynchs worst film to date, along with the pretentious dribble Eraserhead and Mulholland Drive.

Jeffrey is entertaining and well cast, Isabella does wonderfully asDorothy, and look out for Ben - the scene at his pad is extremelymemorable.

What is so stunning about Blue Velvet is its visual appeal.

it is quite the ironic story and somewhat unbelievable but very entertaining nonetheless.

I truly felt that had Hopper's character been toned down just a bit (mostly in the first scenes--he was better later), many more of the audience wouldn't have walked out on the film (and that did apparently happen a lot when it debuted).

"Blue Velvet" is a classic and it's a highly enjoyable one.

Except, well, the GLARING fact that this movie is the worst movie ever!

Intriguing, strange, mysterious thriller about the loss of innocence.

In Blue Velvet, Lynch makes us look beyond the immaculate green lawns, tidy, cosy homes and apple-cheeked smiling neighbors, and question what all that bland niceness might be hiding - perverted evil.