SimplyScripts Discussion Board
Blog Home - Produced Movie Script Library - TV Scripts - Unproduced Scripts - Contact - Site Map
ScriptSearch
Welcome, Guest.
It is March 29th, 2024, 1:28am
Please login or register.
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login
Please do read the guidelines that govern behavior on the discussion board. It will make for a much more pleasant experience for everyone. A word about SimplyScripts and Censorship


Produced Script Database (Updated!)
One Week Challenge - Who Wrote What and Writers' Choice.


Scripts studios are posting for award consideration

Short Script of the Day | Featured Script of the Month | Featured Short Scripts Available for Production
Submit Your Script

How do I get my film's link and banner here?
All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Forum Login
Username: Create a new Account
Password:     Forgot Password

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board    Reviews    Movie, Television and DVD Reviews  ›  Blue Velvet Moderators: Nixon
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 5 Guests

 Pages: 1
Recommend Print
  Author    Blue Velvet  (currently 677 views)
Dreamscale
Posted: March 20th, 2011, 3:33pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



I don't see a thread for this "classic", so since I finally got around to seeing it from start to finish, thought I'd start one up.

I must be missing something here.  I mean, I've heard about this flick for over 20 years.  I've seen it listed as people's favorite.  Heard it called a classic.  I just don't get it.

We've got a 2nd grade plot, cardboard, cliche characters, poor, over the top acting, senseless, dull scenes that all run probably twice as long as they should, if not longer, and an ending/finale that left me staring, squinting, and shaking my head.

So, you David Lynch lovers, help me out here.  What is it about this film, or Mr. Lynch himself that is worthy of all the praise and hype?

For me, this movie was bad, bordering on terrible in all regards.
Logged
e-mail
DarrenJamesSeeley
Posted: March 23rd, 2011, 7:16pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Michigan.USA
Posts
1522
Posts Per Day
0.31
Jusy don't get started on 'Wild At Heart'---we will have words  

Seriously, all film, including Lynch's films, are subjective. Personally I think 'Blue Velvet' is outstanding and could not disagree more. Of course, like I said, I also love the stuff out of Heart. Take that where you will.

But I would question you on calling the characters in Blue Velvet cliche. This IS Lynch we are are talking about. The characters could be quirky, wacky and on some lunar cycle for all I know, but I wouldn't have the mind to call them cliche. I always thought the characters- especially Dennis Hopper's Frank Booth and his personal drug supply in the form of a gas.


"I know you want to work for Mo Fuzz. And Mo Fuzz wants you to. But first, I'm going to need to you do something for me... on spec." - Mo Fuzz, Tapeheads, 1988
my scripts on ss : http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?m-1095531482/s-45/#num48
The Art!http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-knowyou/m-1190561532/s-105/#num106
Logged Offline
Site Private Message AIM YIM Reply: 1 - 6
Dreamscale
Posted: March 23rd, 2011, 7:37pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



Haven't gotten all the way through Wild at Heart, but I'll try again soon.

I don't know as to the characters being cliche, cause anyone could say that about most characters.

Guess what i mean is that I've seen them all so many times and nothing stood out for me at all...except, yeah, I don't recall seeing a bad guy sucking on an oxygen mask before, but it didn't come off as all that interesting to me.

I guess I'm referring to the plot and the way that the characters interacted to serve the plot.  Almost cookie cutter, IMO.  And the plot itself?  C'mon now...so simple, so generic, so...so not impressive in any way.

The film's run time was shockingly long for what it entailed and how things went down.  Every single scene had so much unnecessary filler that really didn't do anything other than induce drowsiness.  I was just completely underwhelmed and in shock about what people see here.

And please, riddle me this...WITF was with the bad cop dude at the end, standing there in the apartment, even though he was dead?  Was that supposed to be some kind of joke of something?  Seriously, whatever his situation was (alive, dead, mortally wounded, whatever), he wouldn't be standing there like that, with nothing propping him up, etc.  Just downright ridiculous, IMO.

I realize everything is subjective...BUT...I'm just not feeling it or getting why everyone seems to be idolizing this
Logged
e-mail Reply: 2 - 6
leitskev
Posted: March 23rd, 2011, 7:39pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3113
Posts Per Day
0.64
I remember renting Blue Velvet at the time because of the reviews, and I remember thinking it was a little slow, a little disjointed. But this reflected more of my lack of appreciation of film.

My respect for this and other Lynch films has grown over the years. I would give it this amateur description: he seems to create a very distinct alternative universe in his movies, with little subtle things, like unusual lighting, and by repeatedly focusing on some ordinary thing until it seems somehow extraordinary. You feel like you're experiencing a dream; not just watching a dream, but experiencing one. And then the final kicker is when you realize that somehow this dream is not so different than the real world.

edit: also, this script would never fly today, and it wouldn't have been picked up then either if he didn't write it himself, I don't think.
I think you saw some of that development in Eraserhead. One of the memorable parts of that movie for me was the lady behind the radiator. Something as simple as a noisy radiator, and he creates this little independent world behind it, a stage where a little woman sings. What's cool about it is that he doesn't explain this world; who the lady is, where she comes from. We just get a tiny glimpse. Is it a dream? And what's the difference? And I think he does that in his later movies as well, just in a more developed way.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 3 - 6
James McClung
Posted: March 23rd, 2011, 8:30pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients



Location
Washington, D.C.
Posts
3293
Posts Per Day
0.49
I'm getting pretty sick of this word "subjective." Have an opinion. Let a man have his. I think everyone understands the concept. No need to bring up "subjective" every time someone has a personal thought. Sheesh!

Anyway, I thought Blue Velvet was Lynch's only solid film. I think Eraserhead and Mulholland Dr. had some interesting moments but weren't entirely cohesive films and even if they were, Inland Empire would make them not count. Lynch, you not only cost me three hours of my life watching that stupid thing but also two or three hours worth of breaks I had to take just to work up the mental strength to finish it... I hate you.

I still haven't seen The Elephant Man, the Twin Peaks movie (I've seen some of the series) or Lost Highway so Lynch fans, don't attack me. Lost Highway, I'll be watching in about half an hour. It's been recommended by people who hated Inland Empire as well as Lynch fans so I have high hopes.

Anyway, Blue Velvet...

Well, Dennis Hopper is too cool for school. Want proof?



Booyah! I was drinking a Heineken at a music festival the day he died, heard he was dead from another concert goer and drank PBR tallboys for the rest of the day. I prefer Heineken but I saved a ton of money and got a lot more drunk. Dennis - Thanks, buddy.

I love the gas huffing shtick. Dude is totally creepy. One of my favorite villains ever.

The rest of the characters, I will agree are cliche. No buts. Kyle McLaughen and Laura Dern = boy and girl next door. Simple as that. I don't think Hopper's character, who is NOT cliche, can be used to defend the rest of the characters.

I also agree the story was pretty cliche or at least, familiar. I honestly don't think there was all that much symbolism in the film, despite how much people cite it. The whole bug thing just struck me as an interesting motif which made for some tasty subtext. Hardly anything along the lines of "this guy represents Jesus." At best, I'd call it symbolism lite.

But you know what? That did something. I also think Lynch's direction did something. And, of course, Hopper. The script isn't without some interesting moments either. For me, all those little touches gave what is more or less a familiar story some pizazz. What can I say? I enjoyed it.

Jeff, if you didn't like Blue Velvet, I would strongly suggest not watching another Lynch film. He's easily the most confounding and frustrating director in the biz. Probably not for you.


Logged
Private Message Reply: 4 - 6
Grandma Bear
Posted: March 23rd, 2011, 8:45pm Report to Moderator
Administrator



Location
The Swamp...
Posts
7961
Posts Per Day
1.36
James,

go watch Elephant Man immediately. I had tears rolling down my face watching that movie. You know that is extremely rare for me. It's a GREAT film.


Logged
Private Message Reply: 5 - 6
Dreamscale
Posted: March 23rd, 2011, 8:50pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



And just think...I loved Surveillance, from Lynch's daughter...

Go figure...
Logged
e-mail Reply: 6 - 6
 Pages: 1
Recommend Print

Locked Board Board Index    Movie, Television and DVD Reviews  [ previous | next ] Switch to:
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login

Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post polls
You may not post attachments
HTML is on
Blah Code is on
Smilies are on


Powered by E-Blah Platinum 9.71B © 2001-2006