Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Candida It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

teodorodontosaurus It's interesting that even a story with a straight-forward plot like this one, is full of typical Lynch distractors. While those uncanny events and characters don't quite fit with the movie's atmosphere, they're still individually enjoyable; it's just what Lynch said: it's more like a compilation of random events and moments within the movie's context. Also, you cannot get wrong with Nicolas Cage's over-the-top yet natural acting, energetic and charismatic Laura Dern and the creepily funny Willem Dafoe's character. This is more like a transition between the somehow more accessible previous movies (except "Eraserhead" of course) and the brain madness that's about to come.

ElMaruecan82 "Wild at Heart" is a nonstop nonsensical orgy of sex and violence that can only rely on its stylish inventiveness to build an ersatz if interest.Don't you even dare expecting the luxury of a "plot", Lynch obviously didn't intend to tell a story of the conventional type, its love-on-the-run-going-wild-and-tainted-with- fantasy approach takes it to such unexpected levels of surrealism that you can't even be sure if the film was intended to please an audience, even a minority, or to please Lynch himself... or the actors for that matter.Speaking of the whole sex, drug and Rock and Roll trinity, I don't mind a good adrenaline-shot every once in a while but not a perfusion! It's very telling when even the quieter moments maintain enough level of weirdness you start wondering what the bloody hell is going on? This is a Lynch movie of course, not an Ivory-Merchant production but even in his previous movies, the hearts of weird darkness we were plunged in were neighboring more ordinary realms, thus creating interesting contrasts and highlighting the ubiquity of evil in a 'good' world or good in the evil one."The Elephant Man" depicted a beast of a man who through his emotional journey and encounters with men of different backgrounds and levels of empathy, revealed himself to be the most human of all, and making a 'monster' out of the very society that ostracized him. "Blue Velvet" was all about a juxtaposition of a postcard-like normality and a young "clean" man strangely drawn to a world of sex and violence. The film is a sort of foretaste to the more impetuous "Wild at Heart" but there was a poetry, a romanticism and an edgy attitude that mostly came from the bad guys. In the case of "Wild at Heart", that sense of irony, this total rejection of all the predicaments of good taste and behavior belong to the "good" as well as the bad guys.Nicolas Cage plays an exuberant Elvis-like free-spirited figure as Sailor, and Laura Dern is both sexy and vulnerable as Lula, her lover, Diane Ladd is the mother who rejects this union and makes it a personal matter to prevent that love from happening. Each of these characters is irredeemable in a way or another, Sailor is wrapped up in an envelope self-confidence that challenges our strong desire to root for him. When your main protagonist beats a black man to pulp and then savors his victory by taking a cowboy-like pose and lighting a cigarette, this is pushing the "antiheroic" notion to 11.Lula's obsession with Sailor can be regarded as self-abandonment satisfying a feeling of total completion but even in that sweet moment where she was revealing to Sailor what she loved in him... and "in her" for that matter, there was something fake in Sailor's reaction, not in Cage's acting, but the character of Sailor, you could tell his ego was flattered, he had that 'cigarette' pose again and it seemed like the film built a sort of huge pedestal over which he could dance a crazy jig, while Lula was just a trophy girl, his girl, maybe slightly more valuable than the snake jacket that highlighted his sense of individuality. Well, how about Lula's individuality? How about exploring the waves of dementia in the name of love going through all her body?Lynch even leaves an interesting subplot unexplored by not examining deeper the relationship between Lula and her mother, played by Diane Ladd. Did she hate her mother because she hated Sailor, or loved Sailor even more because her mother was against their union? Instead of developing these two characters, especially played by a mother and her daughter in real life, Lynch can only make them exist through the perspective of men, and the mother has the sleaziest ones. She hires professional gangsters to kill Sailor (Harry Dean Standon, Willem Dafoe) only to make things escalate for the worst, leading to chaos and displays of violence so over the top you can't take them seriously, not that I believe this was the intent."Wild at Heart" has at least one quality, its titles is perfect, the French one: "Sailor and Lula" has a cool musicality, but the film is indeed wild at heart. And like anything wild, it can only build its appeal on chaos, it's all about the stylizing of chaos in love and sex with gory and garish special effects and a turbulent editing that contributes to make the film quite an experience... but for whom? As a viewer, I "experienced" the film but I didn't care much, maybe I'm too conservative but I wish there was a 'context' to allow me to appreciate these moments of insanity. Many similar movies had a point, a reason, "Bonnie and Clyde", "Badlands" and "Natural Born Killers" all have a more or less nihilistic approach to live, yet driven by passion as the only thing worth dying for... but "Wild at Heart" is busier making effects than a point.It's not a bad film, far from it, but it plays like a sort of bloody joke where you realize near the end that it's a private one and you're not part of it. You want to embrace it, to 'feel' it, but every time you try, the film pushes you back and yet asks you to enjoy it. There's something schizophrenic about it, on an intellectual level, it's cool, even fascinating, but it all comes down to one simple thing: is it an 'enjoyable' movie? I don't think so... and I wish I did.For all its weirdness and exuberance, I can't understand its controversial "Wild at Heart", but oddly enough, I also can.

keywitness "Wild at Heart" is not one of the most famous films by David Lynch, but I think it is as worthy as his best ones. Perhaps its unique genre has been preventing a wider appreciation of the movie. The plot is deliberately simple. There are two sweethearts, Lula Fortune and Sailor Ripley. Sailor goes to prison for killing a gangster who tried to kill him. Lula's mother hates Sailor and wants her daughter to break up with him, but Lula waits for him. As soon as Sailor gets out of prison, he breaks parole and takes his love on a road-trip adventure. Wild at Heart has multiple allusions to the Wizard of Oz, with the wicked witch (Lula's mother) and the adventure and troubles of a little girl (Lula). Some of these references are even direct, like in the scene where Lula is clicking her ruby slippers. Of course, in modern times you don't walk down the yellow brick road – you drive. The lovers encounter numerous dangers on their way.PULP FICTION: Wild at Heart looks to me like a precursor to Pulp Fiction which was made by Quentin Tarantino four years later. Both movies are loaded with pop-culture references, which are a favorite fodder of postmodern directors (Wizard of Oz, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis, gangster novels). Both have a simple comic book-like plot. Even the names Sailor Ripley and Lula Fortune sound like they came from a comic book or a paperback novel. However, this simplicity is intentional - in the postmodern art the plot is usually no more than a loose guidance, a necessity used by the director to express his art. It's the same idea as when a jazz band takes a simple tune and transforms it into a completely new and fascinating art piece. There are many other similarities between the two movies. For example, the mobster's name Marcelo Santos resonates with Pulp Fiction's gangster Marcellus Wallace. Uma Thurman identifies Travolta as an Elvis man as opposed to a Beatles man – well, Lynch clearly casts Sailor as an Elvis man in his movie. But the main similarity between Wild at Heart and Pulp Fiction is the fact that in both cases we are watching an absolutely low-brow material – which normally we would skip - but are enjoying it as true art. We genuinely yearn to be around the characters, in the midst of an action, forgetting the fact that this marvelous artwork is actually built out of pulp. Tarantino will develop the same method even further with Kill Bill, but for David Lynch this is the only movie of such kind. One difference of the way Pulp Fiction is made is that the episodes in it are not sequential, even though you can mentally restore the time-line. Lynch will use the same approach later in Mulholland Drive, which is even harder to reconstruct than Pulp Fiction (although possible). The point is to take the viewer's attention away from the linear plot, from the comfort of knowing what's next, and instead focus on each episode or character alone. LYNCH'S AESTHETICS: There is a plethora of weird episodic characters in the movie, which is typical for Lynch. He always handpicks collections of bizarre and freaky creatures in his films, which are often unnecessary for the plot but create an intense mood. The pigeon- squawking man, the maniacal woman with orthopedic leg, the three fat "porn models", Mr. Reindeer (another typical comic book-like character) – the list can go on and on. This alluring ensemble of freaks and weirdos circles around our lovers on the yellow brick road. Some of them are just confusing, while others are menacing. Very few are amicable, like the old black gas station attendant who is tapping joyfully to Lula's dancing, his legs sticking out of short work overalls trousers as thin as the legs of the chair he is sitting on.ROAD HAZARDS: It feels like Lula and Sailor are the only sane people, devoid of evil tendencies, surrounded by hostile and mad reality - or perhaps they have accidentally landed in a scary fairy tale. Their journey to happiness hits snag after snag along the yellow brick road. The radio in the car keeps talking about horrible crimes and accidents on every frequency, and the atmosphere of distress is trying to put them down. They stop the car, jump out and start kissing. This may be their only way to escape, even if futile. Our heroes are alone in their adventure, and all they can hold onto is their love and the foolish snakeskin jacket, proclaimed to be a "symbol of individuality and personal freedom". But the clouds are darkening over them.ACTING: Willem Dafoe puts up an excellent performance as a remarkably despicable mobster Bobby Peru. He is repellent and attractive at the same time, and even Lula almost surrenders to him (remember her bent outward fingers – her "tell"?).Lula's mother displays a harmonious combination of murderous and humane sides, lying and trusting at the same time. Painting the face red before betraying and dooming her former lover is a fascinating scene reminiscent of the ancient theater. She is evil and vengeful, yet so feminine and vulnerable.GENRE: So is Wild at Heart a road-trip movie? A love story? A fairy tale? A gangster movie? Neither, even though it freely plays with the elements of all these genres. In order to understand it, one should drop the perception constraints of any specific genre and start enjoying the movie as a unique creation. Then the movie will open up, scene by scene, like a good wine which reveals the depth of taste as you sip it. Overall, Wild at Heart is a remarkable postmodern feature, unique in its kind for Lynch yet in the same league as Mulholland Drive and Eraserhead.

Predrag Wild at Heart is less a movie and more a psychological journey. It's hard for me to judge it the way I judge other movies; it simply can't be put under the same standards. Most movies are about entertainment and telling a story; this movie (like Blue Velvet before it) is about intense emotions, the darker side of the soul, and the warped mind of director David Lynch. David Lynch is one of the few directors left who still expresses himself through his work; he is one of the last true film artists. He indulges himself here, perhaps to an extreme. I'm not even sure I can say that this movie "entertained" me in the usual sense; but I relished the experience.Personally, I think they do a great job-it is meant to be humorous, and it works as a perfectly good counterpoint to the increasingly sinister obstacles they must overcome. Here is where the movie really shines: Lynch lets his imagination run wild in his depiction of a bizarre and dangerous underworld of criminal activity. Willem Dafoe is pitch-perfect as the sleazy hit-man, and the scene where he tries to seduce Laura Dern in the hotel room is one of the most disturbing moments of sexual tension ever caught on film. As with most David Lynch films, there are so many small details, so much humor and intelligence (as opposed to your average Hollywood hit) that it can be enjoyed over and over again. All in all, I think "Wild at Heart" is an underrated movie that, while far from Lynch's best, is very enjoyable. It is well-filmed and -directed, and there is a feeling of strength and energy that makes the film even more appealing.Overall rating: 7 out of 10.