Freaktana A Major Disappointment

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Leofwine_draca BLUE VELVET is perhaps one of David Lynch's best-remembered movies for that, and the reason for that is Dennis Hopper's undeniably electrifying turn as Frank, the villain of the piece. A crazed rapist and altogether nutcase, Hopper is clearly having a ball with the role and becomes one of the best villains of the era alongside the likes of Clarence Boddiker and Hannibal Lector. As for the rest of the film, it's a typical Lynch outing; better than a lot I've watched, but still a bit too slow, arty, and self-conscious for my liking. Kyle MacLachlan is a nice choice for the lead character, his fragility and youth contrasting with the tough characters he meets, and there's some good weirdness and suspense throughout. However, the film is also oddly hollow, and only really picks up in the second half.

classicsoncall There seems to be all kind of misdirection in this story, as things you expect to happen never come to pass. For example, I expected Detective Williams (George Dickerson) to be just as much a corrupt cop in the story as the Yellow Man/Detective Gordon (Fred Pickler) turned out to be. And when Jeffrey Beaumont (Kyle MacLachlan) came up with his theory that Frank Booth (Dennis Hopper) kidnapped Dorothy Vallens' (Isabella Rossellini) husband and son, I thought that was just so unlikely that I dismissed the idea out of hand. Turns out both of those assumptions were pretty much blown to bits as things came to pass.For a weirdly strange film with a lot going on, I thought the story was relatively easy to follow if one isn't distracted by the slick filming and Dorothy's bizarre behavior. No stranger to odd roles, Dennis Hopper excels at being a villain, just check him out in such diverse characterizations as "Mad Dog Morgan" and "Kid Blue" in completely different film genres. One hint offered by the script that Frank Booth actually DID cut off the ear of Dorothy's husband was when he remarked "Do it for van Gogh". At that point I had to reconsider my earlier reservations about just how accurate Jeffrey's assumptions would turn out to be.My favorite scene in the picture - Dean Stockwell lip-synching an old Roy Orbison tune 'In Dreams'. It almost looked like Stockwell was camping it up for real except that the voice was distinctively Orbison. The only real question I'd have about the entire picture was the one that set in motion the entire misadventure. How did Dorothy's husband's ear ever wind up in the open field in the first place?

TheBigSick First, the plot lacks credibility. Jeffrey's father gets a serious stroke and Jeffrey should be more concerned with his father. However, in the movie, Jeffrey acts like a SJW and a pervert. He messes up with a married woman Dorothy, and fights with the bad guys that torture Dorothy. Jeffrey almost ignores his father. Secondly, the storytelling is horrible. Telling a simple story in a complicated way, is the last thing a director should do. The narrative is just unfocused. What is the point of the sex scene between Dorothy and Jeffrey? Third, character development is a total failure. Who does Jeffrey love? Dorothy or Sandy? I'm afraid even himself does not have an answer. Why does Sandy give up on Mike? What is in her mind? The main antagonist, Frank, is just flat and one-dimensional, and nobody knows his motive. He is just a psychopath? Fourth, the music score is strange. It always appears at an improper time with no purpose.Finally, with nothing in stake, there is no thrill at all. It should not be called a thriller. Instead, we can categorize it as a non-thriller. All in all, the rating for this movie is 0/10.

macpet49-1 I saw this film in '86 when it premiered and watched it decades later. I had the same and only reaction--all I recall is a full frontal of Isabella Rossellini doing a mad scene in the streets. Frankly it would have been more interesting if it had been a nude male actor instead! Poor Is--was she so smitten with Lynch that she did anything he told her? Is there dialogue? I don't recall any. I remember images--a mechanical bird, a severed finger, a dumb blond girl and a post pubescent boy who's an idiot. There is a madman in it but there always is in Lynch films so nothing new there. Poor Dennis dragged out of mothballs yet again to play another crazy. The film like most Lynch films resembles more what would happen if you spliced together pieces of film you found on the cutting room floor. All you come out with is a feeling of uncomfortable disgust kind of like you'd get if you shat in your pants by accident.