Blue Velvet

1986

Action / Crime / Drama / Mystery / Thriller

86
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 95% · 83 reviews
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 88% · 50K ratings
IMDb Rating 7.7/10 10 217201 217.2K

Director

Top cast

Brad Dourif as Raymond
Kyle MacLachlan as Jeffrey Beaumont
Laura Dern as Sandy Williams
Isabella Rossellini as Dorothy Vallens
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU 2160p.BLU.x265
1 GB
1280*548
English 2.0
R
23.976 fps
2 hr 0 min
Seeds 43
1.93 GB
1904*816
English 2.0
R
23.976 fps
2 hr 0 min
Seeds 100+
5.4 GB
3840*1632
English 5.1
R
23.976 fps
2 hr 0 min
Seeds 52

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by SkullScreamerReturns 7 / 10

Weird crime mystery, and Dennis Hopper is nuts

Oh boy, what a weird movie. How can I even comment it.

David Lynch films are not easy to get into (at least for me). Usually I don't like them upon first viewing, but at least Mulholland Drive has slowly become my super favorite. I don't expect Blue Velvet to climb as high, but there is some grower potential.

I liked the beginning the best, when it's like a murder mystery. But then it goes crazy in all directions and I don't really know what to think. But some things are certain: the cinematography is beautiful and atmosperic, and there is a lot of great acting. Dennis Hopper is totally crazy in this film, but others aren't bad either.

If you like strange movies, see this one. But only if you can stomach some violence and sexual weirdness as well. I will probably get an urge to want to see it again at some point because it has such a distinct atmosphere and style.

Reviewed by reelreviewsandrecommendations 9 / 10

Norman Rockwell meets Francis Bacon in Cinematic Form

After his father collapses on the front lawn, college student Jeffrey Beaumont is made return home to the picturesque town of Lumberton; a place as quintessentially American as apple pie and coffee as black as midnight on a moonless night. Everything he once knew, however, appears different: full of mystery, strangeness and darkness. Like Dorothy in 'The Wizard of Oz,' Beaumont peeks behind the curtain, and is confronted with the harsh reality of a situation he had imagined to be perfect. Join Beaumont as he explores the seedy underbelly of the ideal suburban dystopia, in David Lynch's 'Blue Velvet'.

Delightfully dark and disturbing, 'Blue Velvet' is a fascinating portrait of American existence full of abstractions, black-comedy and violence. "If one looks a little closer at this beautiful world, there are always red ants underneath," Lynch has said, and Beaumont is fascinated by the creatures (both literal and figurative) he stumbles across upon his return to Lumberton. Lynch uses his story to examine themes of violence, voyeurism and sexuality, in a way which still feels relevant today. Additionally, in our social media focused society- where people's representations of themselves are often far from reality- the idea of someone discovering the real truth beneath a glossy façade is incredibly percipient.

Which is not to say the film is an overly intellectual affair, or is in any way pretentious, because it isn't. The off-beat humor that would go on to feature so prominently in 'Twin Peaks' and 'What Did Jack Do?' (among other works of Lynch's) is on full display. Like Takeshi Kitano, and to a lesser extent Werner Herzog, comedy is just as important to the narrative as the mystery and darkness at the center of it all. Though violent and often uncomfortable; 'Blue Velvet' is also a strangely funny movie with plenty of opportunities for laughter.

Music is incredibly important in 'Blue Velvet', and Angelo Badalamenti's beautifully sinister score haunts the film. Initially hired as Rossellini's vocal coach, he eventually became the composer and music supervisor, and has served in this capacity on nearly every other Lynch project to date. His unsettling but melodic tunes perfectly match the bizarre, often disquieting images that one associates with Lynch, and throughout this film his formidable presence- in the form of his score- is made known. Alongside Badalamenti's original score, a soundtrack of 50's pop hits- be it the title track, as performed by Bobby Vinton, or Ketty Lester's 'Love Letters'- are utilized to eerie effect, contributing to the atmosphere of sinister banality and hidden danger the film contains.

'Blue Velvet' is a visually arresting movie, with stunning cinematography from Frederick Elmes. His composition under Lynch's direction is inspired, irregular and heavy with symbolism. The opening satirical montage, of suburbia in all its white picket fenced glory, is a strangely grotesque and highly symbolic display- like a bizarre and brilliant mixture of Edward Hopper, Edvard Munch and 'The Andy Griffith Show'. It sets the tone of the rest of the film, and- combined with Badalamenti's score- many of the images from 'Blue Velvet' will almost certainly haunt your dreams.

'Blue Velvet' finds Kyle MacLachlan starring as Beaumont, in his second collaboration with Lynch. A charismatic and charming fellow, MacLachlan plays Beaumont like a young Jimmy Stewart for modern times: a good humored, kind-hearted boy innocently intrigued by the darkness he suddenly finds all around him. MacLachlan is the perfect leading man for this type of story, as he is more than willing to go to complex and morally ambiguous places performance-wise.

Co-starring as the club singer he forms a bond with is Isabella Rossellini, who gives everything to her role. Her performance is heart-breaking and intense, as a woman trapped in a horrific nightmare of machoism and shame; she is electrifying. Years ago, critic Roger Ebert accused Lynch of being crueler to Rossellini than anyone on screen, suggesting that the director constructed the film as some sort of misogynistic torture chamber for the woman who would go on to be his romantic partner for five years. While there is much violence in the film, his accusations were ridiculous. Viewers understand that Rossellini is an actress, that Lynch is a director, and that they are creating fiction. Like with 'Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom', the process may be difficult in places and the finished product may look shockingly authentic, but we still know it's just a movie; and an actress giving a brilliant, tour de force performance.

The late, great Dennis Hopper also stars, as one of cinema's all-time great villains: Frank Booth, a gas-huffing sadist with a penchant for Pabst Blue Ribbon and Roy Orbison. Leading Beaumont down a rabbit hole of indignity and crime, Hopper has arguably never given a stronger performance. He throws himself so fully into the role, it is frightening to think what he must have been like on set. "I am Frank Booth," he allegedly told Lynch before shooting began; and there's no reason to doubt him after watching the film. Cruel and unusual, insane and assured of himself- he is the pinnacle of perversion.

Rounding out the main cast is a young Laura Dern- already showcasing the talent and depth she is acclaimed for these days. She plays Sandy, the daughter of a local detective whom Beaumont meets. She is also intrigued by the darkness of suburbia, though doesn't immerse herself in it; staying apart in a world she understands. Sandy is a ray of hope for Beaumont, and his last link to the goodness he once saw everywhere. There could be no one better for the part than Dern. In fact, every role is perfectly cast, from the likes of Brad Dourif and Jack Nance, to the sadly departed Dean Stockwell in an all too short, scene-stealing turn as the 'In Dreams' miming, ultra-suave Ben.

As many have done before, one could go on discussing 'Blue Velvet' endlessly. It has so much to offer, on so many different levels, that no two viewings are likely to feel the same. Funny, dark and thoroughly entertaining from start to finish, it is a remarkable film, featuring terrific performances, a great score and beautiful imagery. If you haven't seen it before, you've missed something truly unique: the work of an auteur at the top of his game.

Reviewed by EddyTheMartian007 5 / 10

Quickie: Great potential and depth, but simply badly executed. My first Lynch.

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.

Read more IMDb reviews

12 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment