Blue Velvet

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.

Jeffrey Beaumont returns to his small town home when his father has an accident and ends up in hospital. A quiet walk home changes his perceptions forever when he discovers a human ear in the long grass. He reports it to the police but decides to make some enquires himself with the help of the officer's daughter Sandy. The trail begins with the mysterious Dorothy Vallens and drags Jeffrey into the unseen underworld of Frank Booth.

For the majority of people, you either like Lynch or you dislike him. Personally I like the majority of his work, I love the sense of normalcy that he can create and slowly change to reveal a darkness that is worryingly close to the surface. That is the case here, beginning with a blue sky, white picket fence vision of small town America the camera drops into the grass to see a torrent of bugs scrambling just under the surface. In the same way the film follows Jeffrey's journey into the underbelly of his home town.

In some ways this is one of the easiest Lynch films to get into – here the darkness is not a wide world of demons as in Fire Walk With Me, but is one man and his associates who can be overcome. The darkness is therefore accessible to all but is laced with just enough weirdness to disturb – my favourite scene is where Frank takes Jeffrey to see Ben, it is just a little unsettling. In hand with this is the fact that it is easily one of his most optimistic films, the good angel in Jeffrey's life is a strong character and the ending is one of certainty rather than open to interpretation – that robin has about a clear a meaning as it can.

MacLachlan is well used as Jeffrey. He is wide eyed and innocent even when being sucked into the underworld. Dern plays `all-American' well but doesn't have the complexity of MacLachlan in the script. Rossellini has a challenging role and carries it off quite well – I didn't fully understand her character but I don't know if that was my fault or hers. Of course the film belongs to Hopper who is terrifyingly unstable. Without a doubt he is a monster and you never are left in any doubt as to his state of mind. For an example of his work here watch the scene where Stockwell (in a wonderfully weird cameo) sings and Hopper clearly falls to pieces.

Although I prefer Fire Walk With Me, I do think that this is Lynch's best film. It is weird without going totally overboard and it allows us to sink into the underworld gradually without sudden falls. Hopper controls every scene he is in, but the meeting of wholesome and weird is perfectly delivered and is trademark Lynch.

This has always been a unique crime movie, like no story I have seen before or since. In numerous ways, it's a sick film...but utterly fascinating, even after a handful of viewings. It's a certainly a trademark of director David Lynch with its bizarre story and twists and strange characters.

This movie has one of the most evil characters ever put on screen: "Frank Booth," played by Dennis Hopper. The latter is known for playing psychotic killers and this role tops them all. Hopper was never sicker. Almost as bizarre as him is the female victim in here, "Dorothy Vallens," played a mysterious Isabella Rossellini.

Kyle MacLaclan is good as the nosy late-teen who just has to find out what is going on in Dorothy's apartment while girlfriend Laura Dern gets caught up in his curiosity.

In a movie that features strange characters, the strangest scene of them - and there are a number - is in Booth's apartment with Dean Stockwell and his friends. Stockwell's lip-synching to an old Roy Orbison song is really freaky. 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 language in this film was surprisingly tame.....until Hopper enters the scene. He's about the only character who uses profanity but he makes up for the others by using the f-word in about every sentence. He is so over-the-top, though, that after the initial shock seeing this movie once or twice, I know almost laugh out loud at him and way he acts.

Visually and audibly, this is another interesting Lynch movie with superb colors, creepy camera angles and a diverse soundtrack. You hear everything from lush classical music to old rock 'n roll songs, and a bunch of bizarre noises (sound effects).

From discussions I've had, this seems to be a film people love or hate. There is not much room for middle ground. Lynch has done much "nicer" films such as "The Straight Story," crazier films ("Wild At Heart," "Eraserhead") and classier movies ("The Elephant Man") but this will be his trademark film: the one above others he will be remembered for, good or bad.

I've been a fan of David Lynch ever since watching Twin Peaks for the first time around five years back. Embarrassingly, it's taken me forever to get to the rest of his filmography. Blue Velvet returns to the weird, the bizarre, the wacky, after Elephant Man played it fairly straight.

When I finished it, I wasn't quite sure what to think. I waited, then the day after I found myself re-watching scenes. The lip-sync sequence in particular was so rich and rewarding. Lynch is the only director I've seen that really nails what a dream feels like. The most unnatural things could happen; characters with juxtaposed emotions are in the same space, and it all feels rhythmic, just supposed to be.

The film doesn't just excel there.

Frank Booth is a force of nature, and I can't stop watching his moments, rare as they are.

The intro itself is among the best I've ever seen. Good and evil, life and death, are intertwined more than we'd hope. Not just in the picket fences, and the dirt, but the characters too.

Blue Velvet was an incredible experience. If anyone was in the same boat as me, being a fan of Twin Peaks, do yourself a favour and give this a go. I'm actually rather annoyed I didn't watch it already. Though, not annoyed enough to start huffing gas.

A very strange movie but incredible. A young man (Kyle MacLaclan) comes home to help care for his sick father. Soon he's in love with a detective's daughter (Laura Dern) and mixed up in a mystery involving Dorothy Valdes (Isabella Rossellinni) and psycho Frank Booth (Dennis Hopper).

Probably David Lynch's best film. The story has gaps in logic, but it's secondary to some incredible wide screen imagery (this has to be seen letter-boxed...no two ways about it). Lynch has said in interviews that he thinks of the image first then works it into the movie. You can tell...things that make no sense at first gradually make sense later on. This movie also demands multiple viewings...I was so shocked the first time I saw it, I couldn't concentrate on it...it took THREE viewings to finally get it.

As to what the movie is about...it depends who you ask. Some people said it's the Hardy Boys on drugs...others say it's about a boy's sexual awakening...others see it as good vs. evil...each one is a valid statement! To me, that's a true art film...one that means multiple things all at once.

The performances are top-notch. This film made MacLachlan...him and Laura Dern work well together and give nice low-key performances. Dern is just great...but she does look pretty silly when she tries to cry. Rossellinni is nowhere near as good as her mother (Ingrid Bergman) was, but she deserves credit for taking such a risky role. She's pretty good. Hopper is WAYYYYYYY over the top as Booth...he's both horrifying and hilarious...a great performance. And let's not forget Dean Stockwell as "suave Ben". His "performance" of "In Dreams" is a definite highlight.

Be warned--the film is very extreme. There's explicit violence, plenty of nudity, sex and tons of profanity. Not for the squeamish. Still, I loved it from beginning to end. One of my favorite films of all time.