RSS

33. Blue Velvet (1986)

05 Feb


Roger’s Rating :

Should be :

I can understand someone not liking this movie. It is crazy and bizarre but it is still a movie that demands to be seen. Roger, in his 1 star review, said “And yet those very scenes of stark sexual despair are the tipoff to what’s wrong with the movie. They’re so strong that they deserve to be in a movie that is sincere, honest and true. But Blue Velvet surrounds them with a story that’s marred by sophomoric satire and cheap shots. The director is either denying the strength of his material or trying to defuse it by pretending it’s all part of a campy in-joke.”
I think he is saying that some of the scenes are so powerful that they deserve to be surrounded by a more serious overall plot, instead of what he feels is camp.
I understand where he is coming from but this is a movie that should be seen. It is not for all tastes but is a fascinating movie nonetheless.
On IMDB it has a 7.9 rating and on Rotten Tomatoes it has a 90% rating.

At The Movies Review

Advertisements
 
1 Comment

Posted by on February 5, 2010 in Ebert's worst

 

Tags:

One response to “33. Blue Velvet (1986)

  1. Gabble Blotchits

    November 5, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    I like the Siskel & Ebert review (linked above). Ebert refers to the movie as, “…cruelly unfair to its actors,” a charge that Isabella Rossellini denied in her defense of the film and of Lynch. Siskel defends the film, too, and they end up with a split decision.

     
 
%d bloggers like this: