Smartorhypo
Highly Overrated But Still Good
Usamah Harvey
The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.
Paynbob
It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.
leplatypus
i don't remember the movie at at all but i have taped this Madonna scene: In 1995, it's already a couple of years that Madie just do silly things and this guest starring is like this: sexpot, too much make- up, bad manners, sure she couldn't be no more an inspiration for me and in addition, she delivers the message to unpleasant, grumpy Keiteil: it's not funny, not dramatic, it's just nothing... so really, this scene would have been cut from the movie, it would stay the same... Enough of those in between movies!
TxMike
I don't mind improvisation. In fact, good improvisation is better than actors following a written script. Some of the funniest scenes have benefited from good improvisation. Think of almost any Robin Williams movie. Or, the Billy Crystal scene with Meg Ryan where he has her saying things in a funny voice. Or, how about the team that made such movies as Best in Show and Waiting For Guffman? But this movie, Blue in the Face, just does not come off as good improvisation. It is clear what they are doing, but it comes across as unsure and uneven, and not particularly funny. Interlaced throughout the movie are nondescript people reciting facts about Brooklyn -- how many potholes in the streets, for example.There is a thread of a story. The owner of a cigar shop intends to turn it into a health food store. And, the locals don't approve. There are tense moments when we wonder if the cigar shop will persist.Anyway, it is a movie for certain tastes, it just isn't a movie for my tastes.
Mikew3001
"Blue in the Face" was a fastly produced follow-up of director Wayne Wang's and writer Paul Auster's 1994 art house hit "Smoke". While "Smoke" was produced in the usual way with script, casts, etc., this movie was a quickly shot within less than a month, just containing vague ideas, interviews and improvisations with the same production unit and main actor Harvey Keitel, but without a script and with lots of popular supporting actors who were improvising their performance straight in front of the camera. And it works.Focused on Keitel's smoke shop in Brooklyn, his customers and visitors are telling stories about their lives, views, ideas, dream, relationships and carreers, all focused around the topic of smoking. Lou Reed can't remember his first cigarette, but presents his self-constructed glasses, Jim Jarmusch celebrates his last cigarette, Harvey Keitel reminds which war movie made him a cigarette smoker, and there are several more famous guests in the shop. Michael J. Fox plays a weird insurance guy, Madonna appears as a singing telegram girl, and John Lurie, Mia Sorvino, Paul Keith and the whole NYC artist's scene appear on the screen.Although the pointless composition of independent scenes and interviews might become a bit out of tune or boring sometimes, the movie works really well. There are lots of interesting (real life?) stories told by the actors, a great rare groove soundtrack that could fit into every Tarantino production, and some really good jokes too. "Blue in the Face" become a minor art house classic in Europe in the nineties, and one could wonder if this movie would have been the same ten years later in the times of anti-smoking laws and campaigns. Nice independent movie.
Dockelektro
I wish I could make a movie this funny and so easily. Five days, improvisations, not a definite storyline and a great and funny movie is born. I loved it, it still makes me laugh and will keep on making me laugh. All the actors are great, but if I had to give an award to one of them it would be Jim Jarmusch, with his "last cigarette" speech. Fantastic also is Lou Reed, and his conclusions about life. The movie really benefits from its addition of well-known stars, including a much-in-the-gutter character Michael J. Fox, which is really funny. The film also includes some curiosities about Brooklyn, and works not only as a set of vignettes but also as an account of what's typical and traditional in that neighbourhood. It has some cool moments and some touching moments, but overall it's a movie to see and not to analyse.
