Blue Velvet

David Lynch is a very love-him-hate-him director, with people fascinated by his style and imagery and others who find his films not easy to follow and too weird for their tastes. As somebody who loves Lynch and a lot of his films(the only one I've disliked is Dune), Blue Velvet is up there at the top. The Elephant Man(never has there been a film that moved me more) may be my personal favourite but Blue Velvet is quite possibly Lynch's masterpiece. Loved Mulholland Drive as well, but it is not as accessible as Elephant Man or Blue Velvet- films that even those who aren't fans of Lynch are likely to love- and is his most polarising most likely. Blue Velvet is an incredible-looking film. All of Lynch's films are beautifully shot and that is true of Blue Velvet as well, and the imagery is both hauntingly surreal and beautiful, all the different colours really popping out at you. The music is hypnotic with a very haunting undercurrent and really adds to the story's strangeness and mystery elements. The script is thoughtful and cohesive with a dose of weird but subtle humour as well as some deliberately not so subtle parts(especially with villain Frank Booth). The atmosphere created is the very meaning of scintillating and suspense levels are to the maximum. The story- one of the most coherent and accessible of any Lynch film- is always interesting and entertaining, the detective story elements are genuinely suspenseful and at times scary, Lynch has never directed a tenser scene than the climax here. Lynch's direction is superb; along with Mulholland Drive it contains some of his best. The characters all serve a point to the story and they are very interestingly written, in the case of Frank Booth, one of the most evil and fascinating villains on films, iconic. The acting is superb as well, especially with Dennis Hopper who's terrifyingly sadistic and sometimes hilarious, he is very over the top but in a gleefully enjoyable way. Kyle MacLachlan has never been in a better film or given a better performance than here, he's certainly not had a character as interesting either, Laura Dern is great and sensual Isabella Rossellini has a challenging role that she plays to truly devastating effect. Look out for an oddball but memorable appearance from Dean Stockwell as well. Overall, a strange but utterly mesmerising masterpiece. 10/10 Bethany Cox

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 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.

This is very much a mysterious film - it has a sinister and somewhat seedy feel to it. There is a lot of muffled dialogue, which I found frustrating. There's a very narcissistic character and the end scene is pretty messed up. I found myself wondering what the hell had truly gone on, much as I imagine Jeffrey (played by Kyle MacLachlan) wondered. I'm not entirely sure what to make of this - its probably one that relies on multiple watches to really get into but I don't feel particularly keen to do so, so I'm opting for a lower rate.

I came into this film knowing the symbolism and social commentary it looked to make, but I was still left disturbed by the ending. Maybe that's a good thing? I for sure need to watch this again with fresh eyes.

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 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.