It's hard to find the words to describe the experience of watching Blue Velvet. The film is simply a masterpiece.

Excellent, well-constructed movie. People who say this film lacks depth are completely wrong. There is so much symbolism in this film its almost exhausting.

Stone-cold classic. Just as potent after 20 years. I have yet to see a dismissal of this film that didn't entirely miss the point.

Wow... unbelievable! It has a vibe unlike any other film. Classic.

A David Lynch classic, in all of its whacked out glory. We rented this back in high school, a bunch of guys and girls, expecting some weirdness, but this movie was SO FAR over the top, I loved it!! Dennis Hopper's most memorable role.

I dare you to call Hopper a shortarse.

As Fran say in the movie: " Sh.t. Let's drink to something else. Let's drink to f..kin'. Say here's to your f..k Frank."

Blue Velvet pushes the limits of cinema even NOW - 15 years later! It is a remarkably original piece of work. The only thing is that Owen Gleiberman's review quotes that "No one in the last 20 years has made a movie greater than David Lynch's Blue Velvet." - - - so why give his review a 7/10? Beats me. Maybe it is a mistake.

Absolutely perfect from beginning to end. My interpretation of it? It's not only a story about the horrible problems that are a result of one's pursuit of curiosity and suspicion of problems in the world are often masked with an image of a happy middle class American life, but also about how his bravery is eventually rewarded, in spite of the fact that he temprarily lowered himself to the level of the sick and dangerous people causing these. "It's a strange world, huh?"… Expand

This has has to be Lynch's best work. The story, the setting, and editing are brilliant.

I look down the user reviews on this film and I get a strong feeling of lonely solitude. I did not like Blue Velvet. Maybe one day I will appreciate it more, for I have only seen it the one time, and will hold it in higher regard, but my feelings on first viewing are simple: either I just purely did not get it, or it is just way too smart for me. Regardless, I'm not going to unload heavy criticism on it because I don't really know what to say. Other than I did not like it! Mulholland Drive is one of my favourite movies over the past decade. It is an amazing head trip and very rewarding for discriminating viewers. I laugh now that many people find it inaccessible and confounding, for if MD is all that, what do you call Blue Velvet? The credit I do give it is for wholly technical reasons. I find very little redemption in story and entertainment terms. In other words, I got nothing out of it. I can only hope in the future, on repeat viewings (if there are any!), that I will feel differently, for I found this film very disappointing and really wish I felt otherwise.… Expand

From Beginning to the end this movie grabbed my attention and I was drawn into David Lynchs world. Great Movie!

The criticisms of BV almost always miss the point of this film. It is most certainly not meant to be a straight-up thriller, that's just an absurd idea. Also, you can't properly judge it by seeing it only once, I've seen it maybe 5 times now (going to see the new 35mm print tonight at Film Forum! Ohhhhh yeah!), and am only now beginnign to be able to get a handle on its full dimensions. On the issue of its aging well or not, the NY Times and I agree it has held up amazingly well. It's probably the best thing Hoppers' done. Rossellini is astonishing. Also, one must never forget that it contains one of the most talked about, memorable scenes in all of cinema, not just American: Rossellini's totally unexpected nude appearance, which shocks on about 3 or 4 levels. Most people don't see how absolutely hilarious it is. It's really a dark comedy. The idea (if you can call it that) seems to be simplistic (there's good and bad in the world going on simultaneously), but there are layers to it that can be penetrated and yeld much more complex meanings and suggestions. The young characters enter the dark world that's always been there, next to their light one. They emerge, changed forever, but manage not to be seduced into the underworld. This is modern, American mythology. And it's damn well made, stupendously entertaining stuff to boot! Lynch hasn't really matched it, though Wild at Heart came close, and I am amazed at how few people saw and appreciated Fire Walk with Me. Only Kubrick, Allen and Welles surpass Lynch in importance among American filmmakers. Not enough people agree with this, but time will correct that error.… Expand

Lynch's absolute worst(yes, that includes Dune). One of the biggest dissapointments in film history. Overall themes are trumped by a story that has no sense of flow and actors as confused as we are giving their worst performances ever.

One of the best films ever made. In any genre. In any time. Performances- amazing Dialogue- mind-blowing Visuals- dreamily devastating Music- heartbreakinglu beautiful The opening sequence is unsurpassed. Here's to Ben!

Shocking, repulsive yet ultimately is oddly fascinating. Isabella Rossenlini is amazing and courageous in her role. But the best performance is by Dennis Hopper as the sick disgusting "human being" Frank Booth. Kyle Machlachlan AND Laura Dern are nice. But Hopper rules. Lynch's very weird but at least comprehensible movie. Makes you feel as if you are having a nightmare and a very sick one at that.… Expand

Public Service Announcement: David Lynch Sucks I'm watching Blue Velvet right now and I want to know how did this movie garner any accolades. Congress should pass a law declaring that if David Lynch ever tries to make another movie he should be drawn and quartered. I decided to watch this movie after seeing that it was one of the American Film Institutes top 100 movies of all time. AFI even said it was even one of the top 10 mystery films of all times. The big mystery is who supports this crap. I'll give you the play by play of this movie as I watch it. It has the worst sound track of any "serious" movie ever made. Some of the songs are good songs, I love Roy Orbison etc.. But they are all out of place. The acting in this movie is horrible. The dork main character chews up the scenery. And then there is Dennis Hopper. Hopper is the worst actor of all time. He ruins ever movie he has ever made. Think about it. Apocalypse Now was awesome until Hopper shows up. Hoosiers might have been a good movie if he had not been cast. This movie is definitely no exception. It has one of the worst/weirdest scene ever in any movie. Dennis Hopper (have I told you how much I hate this asshole?) starts sniffing something, (oxygen?, glue?, his underwear?) and rapes Isabella Rossellini while he yells for his mommy. Damn, I need a shower. This movie is just full of unnecessary sexual violence. Why does that damn curtain keep flapping? And what is with the 25 times the actors say or drink a Heineken? "Heineken? Fuck that shit! Pabst Blue Ribbon!" That is a line delivered ham fisted, straight from the movie. This ranks right down there with Muhalland Drive, another David Lynch movie, that is the worst movie ever made. Is that guy dancing with a snake? More underwear sniffing, and then Hopper puts on lipstick? Man this movie is bad? Roy Orbison's estate should sue for slander. To quote an Orbison song played during this movie, "I can't help it if I cry," at how bad this movie is. Oh shit, the man in the yellow coat is a cop! I didn't see that coming. Also, what year did this take place? Most of the cars are from the late 50's, and a few from the 60's. The main dork dresses like it's 1982, but everyone else dresses like it's 1962. The dork sure does heal well. First he's stabbed in the face, (and that appears and reappears trough out) and then he is nearly beaten to death and then the next day he is fully healed. WTF? I didn't see that coming. David Lynch convinced Isabella to get naked and beat up one more time. Wouldn't you just take her to the hospital, not to your girlfriends house? What the hell?!? Now the guy with the yellow coat is standing there, and he's dead, standing? What in the world is Dennis Hopper sniffing? Sorry about the long rant but I can't say enough about how bad this movie is. Don't just take my word for it. From wikipedia: Roger Ebert, noted film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times, supports my view, although he praised Isabella Rossellini's performance as being "convincing and courageous". Ebert criticized how she was depicted in the film, even accusing David Lynch of misogyny: "degraded, slapped around, humiliated and undressed in front of the camera. And when you ask an actress to endure those experiences, you should keep your side of the bargain by putting her in an important film" David Lynch you put your disease in me.… Expand

A brilliant, disturbing, movie about the darker side of human nature. It shows that even in supposedly idylic, picketed fence, small town America, Evil lurks, and even the so called nice people, are capable of acts that are vile.

Ebert won the Pulitzer Prize. "Frank B", I suspect, did not. I would advise "Frank" that if he finds himself in disagreement with Ebert, rather than going by simple star ratings, he reads the whole review. 9 out of ten times, you'll agree with him. Except, that is, for now. See, what he implies is that Blue Velvet is a comedy. At least in part. Specifically, the privet-fences-red-roses-small-town schtick. Supposed to find it funny. Now. Either I'm missing the point, or the Pulitzer-winner is, but the facts are the facts: I Like Blue Velvet, Ebert Does Not. If what he says about "comedy" is true (and he does claim to have got the info straight from Dave's mouth), then it was wasted on me. I thought the smalltown aspects were just a backdrop - an artificial, exaggerated Utopia, under which the insects crawl. I certainly didn't think they were supposed to be funny, and they absolutely, positively DIDN'T undermine the horror for me. Quite the opposite; the backdrop of an artificial Utopia simply added to it. So. I thought it was a Great Movie, although of course Not For Everyone (a scenario also referred to as "A David Lynch Film) - just don't confuse it for a comedy.… Expand

David Lynch's best film! Dennis Hopper gives one of the best Oscar-snubbed performances ever. Not only should he have been nominated, he should have won Best Supporting Actor for his performance as Frank Booth. Frank Booth is one of the greatest film characters ever! He is genuinely creepy. In fact, his best scene is the scariest scene ever outside of a horror film. That scene is a karaoke scene. Wow.… Expand

Although a strong movie for David Lynch, and with truly ground-breaking performances by the main actors, it's not a film that has stood the test of time entirely well. Either too edgy for conservative viewers, or not over-the-top enough for those whose tastes have been jaded by modern ultraviolence, it sits in the middle as an homage to early Lynch at his most marketable. As the fictional Lumberton evokes a time and place gone past and best left behind, so too does Blue Velvet remain in a category of films that are to be watched and appreciated, but not emulated, and that should be relegated to the previous millenium, and not brought forth into contemporary cinema. In short, it's the kind of film that would have shocked your parents, but will leave the next generation bored and unimpressed.… Expand

Dull. Unpleasant. Muddled narrative. Ludicrous dialogue. Talented actors giving the worst performances of their careers. I'll never understand how this film became a critical darling. Whatever Lynch was trying to do, the result is a boring, embarrassing mess. I remember reading one review that actually claimed the bad acting was a deliberate "Brechtian distancing device". I guess you could apply that to GLITTER and GIGLI as well. I think this was one of those films which middle-class critics hyped to prove they were too sophisticated to be shocked by its gross-out elements. For some viewers, it seems to be a Rorshach test or an Emperor's New Clothes experience, allowing them to read all sorts of "postmodern irony" into its ineptitude. It's weird, certainly, VERY weird. But for some of us weird isn't enough. A film has to be good, too.… Expand

Dark, menacing, sexual, beautiful, and hauntingly dreamlike. David Lynch, your a genius!

Brilliant movie, and extremely well-done by one of the greatest directors in America. We are lured into this false sense of security, and then eventually presented with dark, depraved and extremely disturbing underworld.

One of the few American films to make a difference in the medium, and one of the greatest. Its an undeniably brilliant movie.

A flat-out masterpiece. Everything about this film is amazing, people who don't like it seem to be prudish morons. I must have watched the opening, like, 100 times.

This is my favorite movie...and I'm still learning things about it. The background sounds swell and ebb with the more eerie dialogue. It's really disturbing in a number of different ways. Hopper is an amazingly scarey villain.

This gross and off-putting movie has an uncanny way of exploring the underbelly of both the suburbia of human society and mind. Unsettling, disturbing, even nauseating but Lynch always descended to that area of thought and emotions where our murky bio-chemicals are bubbling into primordial consciousness which then shapes and coagulates into what we smugly call morality. Facinating but perhaps too obviously grostesque in moments. … Expand

I'll keep it short: weirdness in film can be fun and challenging. Weirdness without brains is very, very, difficult to sit through.

A beautiful film, never seen anything like it in the history of cinema...and I don't think I ever will again. 10/10.

Bizarre movie...would've been more enjoyable if the sex and violence wasn't as pretentious as it seemed. Dennis Hopper was great, though.

Maybe the best film of the Eighties. Then again, Roger Ebert gave it one star. He gave "Ghost Ship" 2 stars and "The Hot Chick" half a star. So Blue Velvet is smoewhere between these two. Is he from this planet?

Forever in my top 2 films ever made. This is the last great American film ever made. Nothing has come close since. It is what happens when brilliant directors get final cut. I hope in the future, when looking back on American cinema, people will regard this brilliant work of art above the dissmal nothingness that mainstream Hollywood churns out under the guise of "art" as they count the money of ticket returns. … Expand

David Lynch's magnum opus, a masterpiece not to be missed!

Man returns home after his father becomes ill. He finds an ear in a field whilst walking home & decides to find out more. Dennis Hopper is brilliant as the brutal Frank Booth & Kyle MacLachlan & Laura Dern are also good. However, Isabella Rossellini is plain awful & looks like Tim Curry in The Rocky Horror Show! Lynch weirdness as expected but not as good as some of his other work Don't you f**king look at me!!!!… Expand

A film that shows, in an American-surrealist context, that life and love are the biggest mysteries of all. It's unfortunate that it wasn't until "Mulholland Dr." that David Lynch hit such a great height again.

Blue Velvet is a tough film to approach. Its surrealism aspects may swiftly guide some away, but the others that stay are truly in for a surprising film. The plot focuses on Jeffrey Beaumont (Kyle McLachlan) a young man that ventures down to his hometown of Lumberton after his father suffers a severe stroke. After visiting him in the hospital he ventures his way home, taking a shortcut through an abandoned field. There he finds the remains of a human ear and takes it to the police. After some investigating, Jeffrey finds his way into the grasp of a strange woman named Dorothy Vallens (Isabella Rossellini) who develops an unusual attraction towards Jeffrey. He then begins to stalk her a little, and the story kicks off from there. Jeffrey comes to a close encounter with the main antagonist of the story, Frank Booth (Dennis Hopper). He is a violent sociopath that snorts amyl nitrite through a gas mask, which triggers him to experience constant amounts of pleasure and rage and inflict mass amounts of sexual anger towards Dorothy. Frank has kidnapped Dorothy's son and husband in exchange for her to be his sexual servant. Jeffrey discovers this and tries to help her get them back. While this plot sounds strange and complex, it's actually supposed to be. That's what makes this film so brilliant. It's emotionally charged atmosphere and characters pulls you in to experience the surrealism that is inflicted upon these characters. Directed by David Lynch, who is a master himself at surrealism, presents the film in such a strange and bizarre film that it's completely hard to imagine what's going on. The film itself is beautiful because of this as I have truly never seen a movie as original and as creative as this. While Blue Velvet is criticized due to the fact of the sexual aspects of Rossellini and how awful she's treated during the span of the film, it actually shows how broken she is and the amount of pain and suffering she would go through in order to maintain her peace and to make her way back to her son and husband. A lot of people tend to spew hate on the film because they tend to think that it's trying to go for a realistic approach. In any means it is NOT. The acting is great from the 3 main leads and the strongest role definitely goes to Hopper. Frank Booth is indeed a creepy, creepy villain. It's one of the late Dennis Hopper's best performances in a film as he is both haunting and hilarious. All in all Blue Velvet is a tough film to swallow, its contents are both graphic and surreal. Its a brilliant film that makes you think of the inevitable, that makes you think of what is real, and what is the surreal.… Expand

Rich symbolism, artistic cinematography and excellent Lynchian surrealism. I don't want to say more, words fall short of describing this film - a masterpiece.