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)

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

A Disturbing, compelling and without a doubt Excellent film.

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

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

Pretentious and overrated.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Stunning and unforgettable .

One of the worst movies of all-time .

The Worst Movie Of All Time.

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

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.

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

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

"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.

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

Remarkably inept and tedious .

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

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

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

The visual aspect of the film was stunning.

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

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

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

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

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

" 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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

The film starts with a slow plot and pacing.

pretty, but predictable .

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.

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

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

It's coherent, plot-driven and engrossing.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

Let's begin with its thrilling start.

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

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

Striking, Entertaining, Engrossing .

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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...

"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.

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

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 .

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

A Bizarre and Thrilling Film .

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

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.

Pointless garbage.

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

Stunning, haunting piece of cinema.


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

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.

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

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

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

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.

He is unpredictable, coarse and violent.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

Absolutely stunning .

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

You see an empty film.

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.

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

This has to be the worst movie EVER!

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

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

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

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

Intriguing and superbly crafted film .

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.

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.

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

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

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

The first hour of Blue Velvet is slow but fascinating.

Boring and didn't go anywhere.

Kyle MacLachlan on the other hand was extremely bland.

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.

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

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

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

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

but utterly fascinating, even after a handful of viewings.

The situations are WEIRD and intriguing.

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

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

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

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

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 .

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

Bizarre yet intriguing .

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

This is definitely a film worth watching multiple times.

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.

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

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

An eerie, dreamlike and compelling masterpiece .

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

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

It's an engaging detective mystery.

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

Beautiful and compelling, but a bit empty .

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

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.

Blue Velvet is a unique, hugely entertaining murder mystery.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

'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.

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

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.

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

Both films offer equally compelling experiences.

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

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.

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

A pretentious film .

That, in itself, may be mind boggling.

It somehow manages to be both inaccessible and uninteresting.

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

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

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

Intriguing, suspensful and mysterious.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

And all to pretentious.

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.

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

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

A stunning movie moment that I have rarely felt since.

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.

Don't waste your 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.

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

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

Stretched, boring, without charm at all...

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.

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

but utterly fascinating, even after a handful of viewings.

"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.

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

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

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.

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

Blue Velvet is a unique, hugely entertaining murder mystery.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

only long yawns.

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.

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 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.

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.

I dare to call it compelling and evocative.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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".

The cinematography is beautiful and compelling.

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?

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.

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

Serious candidate for the 100 worst movies ever.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

Fascinating in its evil.

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

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

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

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

Very boring and out of date.. .

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.

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

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

Intriguing and extremely intense.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

This is definitely a film worth watching multiple times.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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 found the film on the whole to be pretty dull.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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).

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.

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

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.

Compelling and beautiful .

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

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

The saturated lush reds and the velvet blues were breathtaking.

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.

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

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

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.

This movie is disturbing as well as entertaining.


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

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.

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

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.

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

It's just a big waste of time.

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

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

Suspenseful Wackiness.

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.

An intriguing and flat-out startling film-noir.

Bizarre, intriguing, complete .

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Very odd, but intriguing .

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.

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

Compelling ....

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

A waste of time.

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

Don't waste your time on this movie.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

Pretentious Garbage .

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


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".

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

Intriguing .

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Stunning .

That's why his work is so evocative.

This is definitely a film worth watching multiple times.

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

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

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

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

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

It's a highly entertaining movie to watch.

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.

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

Don't waste your time watching this.

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

It again, takes the form of an intense satire.

Surreal and unpredictable .

"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.

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.

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

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.

" That expression is too dull for my ears.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found the whole plot was quite disjointed.

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").

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Meaningless emptiness portrayed in a meaningless, empty way.

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.

(All very entertaining).

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).

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Strange & bizarre but utterly compelling...

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

Compelling and poetic, like a surreal waking dream.

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.

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

"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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

The film is completely empty.

Wonderfully twisted, beautifully done, dream like and compelling .

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.

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

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

Stylish but empty .

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

Intense and gripping .

Not gripping, more intriguing, surreal.

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

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.

Worth watching.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Mystical haunting imagery and fascinating characters.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

Everything is predictable and not a scene stood out.