I think I get it, and there's some very interesting concepts that could make for a great movie, but the execution ruined most of it for me. It's quite shocking to me this is genuinely considered by many to be one of the best films of all time. Don't get me wrong, there's aspects that deserve praise but most of the movie isn't even that well made in my opinion. The entire movie feels so stilted and clunky, from the performances, dialogue, editing, etc. You know you've failed when you make a literal rape scene unintentionally funny. None of the acting is good, honestly feeling like a student film. It's baffling to me this would get an Oscar nomination for it's directing. Are there good elements to the directing? Yes, it's pretty decently shot, it has some good symbolism, but mostly everything else fails. Some scenes feel like the actors weren't even directed. Sometimes it's hammy, and other times it's under-acted. Also I really dislike the pauses and whispering in some scenes. Can you really call a movie that makes a rape scene unintentionally funny well directed? The characters are all very thin and basic, they could've used so much more development to further strengthen the themes. It's like they only got the most basic elements to make these characters, but forgot to actually delve into them. It feels bare bones, and while the bones are strong It forgot the meat to truly support it. Not that all need much development, but most of the characters feel unrealistic, and unbelievable without much development. The plot is basic, bland, and even contrived at times. There's nothing that special or original about it, so the execution is what would set it apart, and it does by being mostly stilted and silly in all the wrong places. I honestly found most of the movie to be unenjoyable. I also believe it could've been shorter and had a tighter edit to at least be more enjoyable. Though at the same time it could've also been longer to further flesh out certain aspects of the film. The script feels like an early draft for a potentially great movie. Ironically Lynch's direction feels wrong for this type of movie. Yes, there are great elements in this movie, but the execution is middling at best. This movie is like the opposite of the opening scene, with the disgusting cockroaches at the top covering the rich grass brimming with potential that never quite got out. I would argue some of this movie is badly made, but I still gave it a 5.5/10 because I recognize it does have some great stuff deep in it. Maybe I really didn't get it, and Lynch's style isn't for me, but again, to me for the subject matter in this movie to be this badly executed is not a stylistic choice but an obvious flaw with the direction and movie. This is something I'll probably revisit when I watch more Lynch films, I hope I'm wrong about it, but this isn't a good start from his filmography for me.

(5.5/10)

Note: This is an old review I wrote last year that I always meant to expand especially after watching more Lynch and if I rewatch this film, but for now I thought I might as well post this.

What surprised me was how very different this was from the two other great David Lynch films I'd seen: "Lost Highway" and "The Straight Story", which are in turn very different from one another. I'd been told by a disappointed David Lynch fan, back in 1997, that the only reason I was so deeply impressed with "Lost Highway" was that I hadn't seen "Bue Velvet", in which he does much the same kind of thing better. "Blue Velvet" may indeed be better (I wouldn't want to say),but in no respect is it the same kind of thing. (The only instance I've encountered so far of Lynch making the same film twice is "Lost Highway" being remade as "Mulholland Drive", which partly accounts for the latter film being so stale and uninvolving.)

"Blue Velvet" is a simple amateur sleuthing story, but the genius is in the telling of it. It's hard to avoid the feeling that something supernatural is somehow involved, although it isn't, and we know that it isn't. It looks and feels as though we're watching the world through a special enchanted (or cursed) prism: the image has been pulled apart, ALMOST into two distinct images, with the elements of pure evil and pure wholesomeness now distinct from one another, sitting just millimetres apart.

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.

Well, now that I've seen BLUE VELVET, I am left feeling perplexed. While parts of the film were incredibly strange and self-indulgent, the last half of the film is terrific. It's like director David Lynch has a lot of great ability but he's also hampered by a need to too often go "over the top"--which is odd, as one of his first films, ELEPHANT MAN, was rather restrained and very approachable. However, this is the same director who brought us ERASERHEAD and DUNE--two films, like BLUE VELVET, that have tons and tons of divergent views towards the films. Some have hailed these films as genius while others have reviled them for being too weird, too gross and too stylized to be taken seriously. Overall, this is one of his films that I hate and really, really like at the same time.

What's to hate? Well, where to begin?! First, the basic plot of Kyle MacLachlan finding an ear isn't a bad start, but it defied all common sense when the cop investigating told him to "forget about the case"--yet Kyle, who is NOT to be mistaken for a macho action-hero, decides to investigate the case for himself!! Is he a private detective or does he even carry a gun? No--he's just a guy who works in a hardware store!!!! Does this make any sense at all? Nope. Second, when he does get caught up in the mess behind the ear, the film is so filled with repellent people and bizarreness that you really lose track of the plot. This is especially true to the character played by Dennis Hopper--as he played the most unsubtle character in the history of American film!! A huffing, psychotic, super-pervert whose every third word end in "uck" sure catches your attention--but is this believable AND does this performance overshadow the entire film--abso-freakin'-lutely. 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).

However, I can't just write this film off as a freak show (though it is, to a degree). There's actually a very, very good second half of the film. Provided you can ignore the plot holes and the similarity between this film and FREAKS, you are left with a film that is, believe it or not, very similar to NORTH BY NORTHWEST. While Kyle certainly isn't to be mistaken for Cary Grant and the violent sex isn't to be confused with the sexual innuendo with Eva Marie Saint in the Hitchcock film, you can see how both characters are ordinary guys who are tossed into the middle of something big and crazy. I loved the last portion of the film because the tension was so extreme and the final confrontation between good and evil was great.

I see this film as an interesting but very flawed film that should never be seen by anyone who isn't an adult. However, I realize that the film has 'cult' written all over it--many, many people adore it while many more just don't understand it and don't want to! Place me square in the middle--it's not trash nor is it genius.