De Laurentiis Entertainment Group (DEG) | Release Date: September 19, 1986
8.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 175 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
149
Mixed:
8
Negative:
18
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
4
AndrewMSep 7, 2004
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
KateODec 22, 2007
Bizarre movie...would've been more enjoyable if the sex and violence wasn't as pretentious as it seemed. Dennis Hopper was great, though.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
tomfleet94Jun 26, 2013
Having absolutely loved Mulholland Dr., I was keen to see more of Lynch's films. This predecessor, while exhibiting a lot of the filmmaking chops that in part made the former so enjoyable, is unrewarding and at times grotesque. On paper itHaving absolutely loved Mulholland Dr., I was keen to see more of Lynch's films. This predecessor, while exhibiting a lot of the filmmaking chops that in part made the former so enjoyable, is unrewarding and at times grotesque. On paper it sounds great: an innocent young man gets tangled in the hidden criminal and erotic underworld that you'd never guess was there in his picturesque town. Some of the representations of this latent darkness are great (the shot zooming into the well-trimmed lawn to reveal a sea of gnashing bugs is inspired and very creepy), and indeed these two halves to the film are in themselves believable (Hopper's villain is nightmarish and feral, the ordinary citizens quaint and unassuming; which is unsettling in its own way). But whereas Mulholland Dr. took me through all the emotional reactions I can think of, the scenes here where these contrasting sides met only made me feel nauseous and uncomfortable (a naked and bruised woman lingering awkwardly in a family's front room, for example). Lynch's talents were evident here, and overall I admired it for its hard-hitting and challenging mission statement, but while I really wanted to love this movie I feel that, with its garish and even repulsive confrontations, it did its best to put me off. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews