I don't care what kind of symbolism people try to work up about this film, to me, it was a total waste of my time and I think it's a load of crap. I mean, what was the point at the end? Did I miss it, because it all seemed pretty idiotic to me. I'd rather watch City of Lost Children or something.
shareThen do so.
Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.
I don't understand. This movie *was* terrible . . . but now it's just fine?
shareI think even when the movie was released, reviews were either "love it" or "hate it". I think it's an art movie that consisted of a series of inter-related images. If you like the madness of it, you might enjoy some of the movie. I know I did.
shareI agree.. I don't think there's much middle ground with this one.
I watched it with my girlfriend last night on TCM.
We generally tend to like the same sorts of films..
But she absolutely hated this one and stopped watching after about 30 minutes.
I found it intriguing & fascinating..
Each to his or her own..
[deleted]
"I don't understand. This movie *was* terrible...but now it's just fine?"
No it had a relapse!
I wanted to see this movie for years, and I finally saw it last night and was greatly disappointed. This movie is really really bad. I love almost all kinds of art house movies, even the so-so ones, but this pretentious, affectatious crap is completely without any merit or entertainment value whatsoever. Reading some of the glowing reviews of this movie has me convinced that they were high on something when they watched it, and then proclaimed it a "masterpiece" while stubbing out their roaches.
The movie is very dated, even in the year in which it is made, 1975. The concept of the film is very 1960s, and has an experimental feel to it. Gee, they should have added some split screens for the true retro feel.
People! Absurdity doesn't always equal genius.
I must agree...
I was really looking forward to seeing this; I got the Blu-ray from Blockbuster to check it out. And listen, I REALLY like odd, strange, even very, VERY slow films, it's not that, honestly.
Here is my lowly and wretched opinion. Okay, obviously it is an 'art' film that is highly subjective and symbolic. All right. Now, for me personally, since for example David Lynch is my favourite living director, clearly I really like off the wall, weird, symbolic stuff. BUT, and it is a really BIG BUT like Mariah Carreys, in Lynch's case almost no matter WHAT the hell is going on there is absolutely always, Always, ALWAYS mood and atmosphere. Without fail. Period. In other words in some way or another you always feel to some degree that you are in a sort of dream like state. There is uneasiness or perhaps a child like humour, or dread, the stuff of nightmares, whatever...
Now, IF the director here had done almost the exact same film that he did AND had stylistically added some TRULY cinematically surreal touches, THEN I believe it would have indeed been quite involving and engaging. BUT...! Again, all I saw really were extremely long takes of nothing but what I felt was TRULY horridly awful and boring looking countryside. VERY uninteresting in any way and absolutely NOT visually appealing in any way. THAT to me was number one what was wrong with this film. TWO, is that even if you had the exact same events with almost no change in the script what-so-ever, IF, and this is a big point I think and this falls squarely on the director, IF there had been at least SOME bloody effort at some visually stylistic touches and at least SOME damn moody music, ANYTHING! That would have made a tremendous difference I feel.
But, you see, we get almost NONE of that at all. I mean NONE. Now, I understand that many, MANY French films are extremely understated and low key. Okay... However, if the whole bloody point is that HEY you ARE doing a supposedly futuristic fantasiful ART film, especially if you are trying in any way to be SURREAL for God's sake, then for me anyway you HAVE, HAVE, HAVE to have some mood and atmosphere. THAT is truly what I feel strongly was missing here. Now I will say that one scene that was kinda creepy and did sort of grab me just fleetingly was the scene where the girl enters the room and the old woman is having this intense dialog with a rat who appears in quite a convincing and disturbing way to be conversing with her in her own odd language. Now, THAT was a neat touch which I felt was done perfectly.
But, I'm sorry, just having like 10 alarm clocks go off in succession and having the girl throw them out a window is not really very intriguing or interesting to me. And what the hell was that (I'm sorry) but REALLY stupid dialog where the old woman is rubbing her hands over the girls face and the girl suddenly says 'Okay, okay it wasn't a gold watch'... Huh...? I'm sorry, but is that supposed to make us go 'whoa that was really "Surreal";...??? I think not guys, I'm really sorry. But, just a bunch of meaningless scenes strung together (which in and of itself is not necessarily bad at all but it is HOW you do it!) and with absolutely NO mood or atmosphere or ANY bloody attempt what-so-ever at using the camera, lighting, or even an effective soundtrack to create ANY sort of mood at all just left me stone cold, bored, and mostly uninterested. AND, as others have mentioned here, almost insulted in a way because we as an audience are expected to just sit there (I'm assuming without any pharmacological assistance) and somehow 'enjoy' these long drawn out scenes strictly on the basis of the content of whatever images happen to be showing on the screen. Uh, I don't think so...
But, even with all that, there were SOME intriguing elements withing the film and I just feel that in a completely different director's hands and with a completely different approach as to HOW the scenes were presented with effort actually being put into the visual, photographic, lighting and sound design, then, YES, this could have most likely been a very interesting film...
ILOVEtrading films!I've got a HUGE..uh..collection!Please ask!
____L@th3
Hmm...your favorite director of art films is David Lynch. That's original and daring. This film has its weaknesses but it surely does not deserve the hostility on this forum. And to the reviewer that suggests that anyone who did find something redeeming in this must be a stoner, what a daring and unique thing to suggest! I've never heard that before (and who the hell stubs out joints anyway? I don't even smoke pot and I know you don't stub out a joint).
There was some genuinely funny moments in this very weird film and some lovely cinematography. To say that it lacked a visual style is naive and displays limited taste. The camerawork where (blonde) Lily speeding through the dense woods was spectacular. It's a trippy film to be sure and watching it at times feels a bit like listening to someone relating a *beep* up dream---perhaps a bit too personal to be truly successful. However, it was made in a far less cynical decade, don't forget, and context is not to be ignored when considering art. I'm far less offended by its pretenses then by the pretenses of the amateur reviewers on this thread. If you don't like it, don't watch it again and don't recommend it. This is not considered to be one of Louis Malle's best films or lauded as one of the great art films of its day so to be so outraged, as if one were somehow tricked into watching it and cheated out of something other than an 1 1/2 or so of ones time is rather overdoing it. Now, I want the 2 hours back that I spent watching Blue Velvet. There was a monumental waste of my time. Talk about overrated.
Heh...You know, I really enjoyed your comments Ms. Missy, I really did. You know why...? Because you are clearly intelligent and you are NOT rude; and yet, you obviously feel strongly about what you have said.
I agree with you that some of the posters here were rude and maybe even a bit insulting (perhaps unintentionally) in their comments about other people who may have indeed liked this film. In fact, I could have been a little more thoughtful in some of my comments as well, my humble apologies. I, unlike you, allowed my passion for MY particular taste in this 'type' of film to carry me away a bit. Sorry about that; you are quite right.
You know, what I think the deal is here, which it usually is with ANY art form as we know, is that like everything else, paintings, music, poetry, humour, etc., it is all completely subjective. Now, before you feel moved immediately to say 'Oh how daring and original!' (YES, I sensed your sarcasm about Lynch, etc. - But, hey! We gotta cut you some slack too, right...? ) Anyway, YES, I know what I just 'said' is obvious, but it really is the point here. Especially with 'art' films, don't you think? It comes down to the fact that certain things resonate with certain people; and those very SAME things leave others cold. That's all. Thus, the HIGHLY polarized opinions about this film, and uh... David Lynch
So, clearly there were indeed things about this film that moved / entertained you in some way. Those of us for whom it did not must respect that. Just like apparently David Lynch must leave you pretty cold; whereas in a lot of cases I find him profoundly moving at a subconscious level. Different resonances for different people, that's all. So, you are completely right that those who did not like this film should of course not make fun of those who did like it. Actually, that should be a basic, courteous rule anyway. That is NOT why we are here....
BTW, for what it's worth, I do not think 'BLUE VELVET' is necessarily a good example of what I would personally consider Lynch's strength in film. Yes, in it's way it is indeed a Cult film which has a very strong following; and stylistically is has some really quirky / perhaps humourous (very darkly so) and indeed even clever content. HOWEVER.... You could NOT by ANY stretch of the imagination call it SUBTLE No way! It is 'obvious' and quite vulgar, etc. For me personally, I appreciate it from strictly a cinematic viewpoint'. However, it is far from my favourite Lynch film. The ones I like and where I think he is an absolute master, is the uncanny way he has of projecting images and mood almost DIRECTLY from the subconscious (the place of disquiet and dreams) and place them on the screen. As far as in my experience and the films that I have watched, I have NEVER seen another person do that in such an uncanny and effective way. At least in a way that profoundly moves me...
But, you see... This is a perfect example of what I was saying about there simply being different resonances for different people. The film here is completely different in tone and style and yet is has something in it, or things in it that move you. So, as you rightly say, we who do not like this film, do need to respect that...
4000+ films! RARE trades. OOP '3rd MAN' & 'BIRD w/CRYSTAL PL' Blu-rays, etc Please ask!
[deleted]
Very nice thoughts there Mr. Benny! Appreciate the kind comments about Ms. Le Guin. I read 'The Lathe of Heaven' when I was about 12 and totally fell in love with it and I still consider it one of the greatest Science Fiction stories of all time! Both movies are quite good too, but in different ways. It's interesting how you notice the lack of women who write serious Sci Fi (you might include films as well - 'STRANGE DAYS' of course an excellent and notable exception from Ms. 'Hurt Locker' - DAMN, I really wanna put a smiley here, but.... : ) How about that?
Best wishes mate; keep up the good comments! [smiley removed : ( ]
4000+ films! RARE trades. OOP '3rd MAN' & 'BIRD w/CRYSTAL PL' Blu-rays, etc Please ask!
thank you. after reading the previous comments, i wasn't going to watch this movie, but after reading yours, i am. it's on TCM right noe. thanx again!
sharehttp://www.tcm.com/thismonth/article.jsp?cid=180498&mainArticleId= 180486
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&a mp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=saI&sa=X&oi=spell& ;resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=louis+malle+interview+black+moo n&spell=1
Nice link, explains a lot about Malle's intentions for the film.
The way I see it, is that we weren't retreating, we were just attacking in a new direction.
Complete waste of time watching this film, unless you wanted to prove to yourself that not every Louis Malle film is good. This piece of crap is the reason people complain about artsy European films. He should've left this type of stuff to Bunuel and Davi. I know he liked to not pigeonhole himself into one genre or type of film, but he should never have attempted this and made people pay to watch it. I saw it on TCM for free and I want a refund of the 100 minutes of my life that I will never get back.
I have a potentially insane, bizarre, off-the-wall idea for a zombie film that would probably be almost unmarketable and not well received with either critics or mainstream moviegoers. Assuming I could dupe someone into being crazy enough to finance $10million or so for that potential trainwreck of a movie project - even as a first-time director - I STILL think it would turn out better than Black Moon.
The critics praising this movie have their heads firmly up their pretentious ---es.
Yes, I HATED this movie. Malle had made so many really good films that I guess someone indulged him to make this.
----------
If you're watching 'Fullscreen' DVDs, you aren't getting the whole picture.
[deleted]
DAMN!!! You frigg'n STOLE that idea from me you wretched, thieving, mother-hump'n foul piece of sh * t!!!
ILOVEtrading films!I've got a HUGE..uh..collection!Please ask!
____L@th3
Have you ever had a a dream that was so chaotic that when you explained it to people, they had a hard time understanding, although to you it made perfect sense? I think its the same with this art film. It's a "true" creation (no rules or boundaries) expressed through the artist mind and put on film. Some parts will speak to you and some not. To criticize these art films is useless as this type of art is a expression of the soul and its perfect every time and in every way, even if you can't see it.
shareYou honestly do make a very good point here, stepping back and viewing the 'Big Picture' in a way. 'Art' by definition is completely subjective no matter what it's form. Film, poetry, painting, music, etc. I guess this is an example where it truly comes down to whether the director made this film honestly from what he 'saw' in his mind and for himself, well then, you are quite right. We really cannot criticize an artist if he is true to his vision.
BUT... With that in mind then, if you take that thought to it's logical conclusion, then we would not have ANY comments, reviews, or discussion then about any of these films, would we...?
So, yes, COMPLETELY objectively you are right, of course. But, approaching any art from the standpoint as we are here which is specifically for the reason of discussion, opinion, and perceptions, then I think within this context it is good and very interesting to 'hear' the way that the film affected people. And, like you infer, apparently there are quite a number of people that this movie does indeed 'speaks' to. So, perhaps for those ones, the director's approach to this film 'resonates' (I like to say) with them. Sort of like these ones actually 'hear' the song that the director is singing...
ILOVEtrading films!I've got a HUGE..uh..collection!Please ask!
____L@th3
No,you are a terrible person. It is your opinion (as i state here mine) but who told you you should express it? If you are cultivated with TV and pop culture post reviews elsewhere.
shareThis movie made good sense the first time I saw it, made perfect sense the second time and also the third time.
A lot of people totally don't get it, so naturally they project onto the movie their failure to understand something blatantly obvious, and declare it 'crap.
Yes, it was all too cliched. When the unicorn appeared I thought, "How MANY times have I seen THIS happen?" You'd THINK someone would come up with a different take on this. Then later, I was frustrated, thinking: WHY is it always, ALWAYS alarm clocks???
You may very well be right in that many people do not 'get it' as you apparently did and I'm assuming from what you say (and the fact that you watched it 3 times ) that you liked it.
BUT, I don't think the issue is ONLY necessarily that people did not get it as you say, but like in my personal case, I did not enjoy the WAY he was putting it across. For example, and I don't mean to equate this specifically to this film to denigrate it, you could be sitting in a lecture where because of the WAY the teacher speaks you could indeed understand the point of what he or she is saying but you could also hate every moment that you are sitting there because the way it is presented is not enjoyable to you.
So, just with that in mind, it could be that some people here just clearly did not enjoy the experience of sitting through this film whether they 'get it' or not. However, you do make a good point in and of itself that JUST because someone does not understand the film that they should not automatically say that it is crap. I REALLY love David Lynch for example and there are many times where I can honestly say I do not know WHAT the hell is going on, but I frigg'n LOVE every moment of it
So, for me personally, I would have loved to see this exact same film even with the exact same script perhaps directed by someone differently as I mentioned above in another post I would have very much enjoyed a LOT more inclusion of surreal visuals, photography, lighting, and definitely sound design. Rather than just simply being expected to watch and enjoy the images being displayed in an of themselves. But, that is just what I would have enjoyed. AND, to be honest within the context of what you said, IF the APPROACH had been different as suggested here, then even if I didn't have a clue about what the film was really about, I probably still would have loved it!
ILOVEtrading films!I've got a HUGE..uh..collection!Please ask!
____L@th3