User Score
7.9

Generally favorable reviews- based on 143 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 17 out of 143
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. DJHobby
    Jul 6, 2008
    0
    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. 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
  2. SteveO.
    Jul 19, 2006
    2
    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 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
  3. GaborA.
    Mar 3, 2006
    2
    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.
  4. Monist
    Jul 15, 2006
    1
    I'll keep it short: weirdness in film can be fun and challenging. Weirdness without brains is very, very, difficult to sit through.
  5. Nov 9, 2012
    3
    I give Blue Velvet a 3 because it does manage to invest its audience from the other side of the screen. But I really didn't like this. It was weird for the sake of being weird. It seemed to be riddled with lazy attempts at symbolism which were far from translated to the viewer (or at least this viewer). And at times it was unsettling for no reason. Not like the kind of unsettling thatI give Blue Velvet a 3 because it does manage to invest its audience from the other side of the screen. But I really didn't like this. It was weird for the sake of being weird. It seemed to be riddled with lazy attempts at symbolism which were far from translated to the viewer (or at least this viewer). And at times it was unsettling for no reason. Not like the kind of unsettling that invigorates your insides and leaves you amazed. But the type of unsettling that just gives you a very unpleasant experience that you simply want to end. I found it to be a film that tried too hard and was even a bit pretentious. Not for moi. Expand
  6. AndrewM
    Sep 7, 2004
    4
    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 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
Metascore
75

Generally favorable reviews - based on 14 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 14
  2. Negative: 2 out of 14
  1. Reviewed by: John Hartl
    80
    An exhilarating piece of popular entertainment.
  2. You either think it's dementedly wild at heart or a lost highway to nowhere.
  3. As fascinating as it is freakish. It confirms Mr. Lynch's stature as an innovator, a superb technician, and someone best not encountered in a dak alley. [19 September 1986]