Blue Velvet

De Laurentiis Entertainment Group (DEG) | Release Date: September 19, 1986

7.8	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 262 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

KpkpJan 26, 2019

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.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

DJHobbyJul 6, 2008

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 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

1 of 3 users found this helpful

YoursTrulyNov 9, 2012

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 whichI 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

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

CorbeySep 14, 2016

This movie is the worst I've seen in a very long time. No sense comes from it and the acting is awkward and down right bad. The plot is undeveloped with obvious holes. If the score had a minus value it would be used here. Do not waste youThis movie is the worst I've seen in a very long time. No sense comes from it and the acting is awkward and down right bad. The plot is undeveloped with obvious holes. If the score had a minus value it would be used here. Do not waste you time or life watching this utter drivel.… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

SteveO.Jul 19, 2006

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 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

1 of 5 users found this helpful

GaborA.Mar 3, 2006

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.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

MonistJul 15, 2006

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

0 of 1 users found this helpful

imthenoobMay 17, 2023

Not to say that it is a bad movie but it is so weird that it makes it very difficult to get into.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews