It made me feel pity for the actors who worked in it and anger at the director for taking liberties with them.
Aug 6 - 08:53 PM
Is it just me, or is he inventing reasons to hate it? Did Lynch piss in his coffe?
Aug 17 - 04:06 PM
Sep 20 - 06:55 PM
I must have missed something, because I never really found this movie to be funny... not ever!
Sep 23 - 10:01 PM
i pity fat guys who dedicate their lives to tearing other peoples work down and does nothing creative themselves
Oct 5 - 06:01 PM
wow thug4life, have you accomplished anything or done anything creative in you're life. I didn't think so loser. Ebert's a Pulitzer prize winning journalist, #1 critic in America, and has sold countless great books. You're just a little piss ant who will never do anything. Ever. You're pathetic.
Sep 19 - 10:27 AM
You're an idiot.
Feb 17 - 02:01 AM
You're a fucking retard
Jul 29 - 09:25 AM
I don't know what's more pathetic, people who tear down those who have made great and admiring feats or those who use people who have made great and admiring feats as a way to belittle others.
Dec 2 - 02:17 AM
WOW! EVERT WON A PRIZE?!?! who fucking cares buddy. Looks like you have too much red, white, and blue cock up your ass.
Feb 29 - 07:36 AM
WOW! EBERT WON A PRIZE?!?! who fucking cares buddy. Prizes a device put there to tell you what to like. I'd like to make that decision for myself, thanks. Ebert is a cunt.
Feb 29 - 07:38 AM
In Your Dreams
Pulitzer Prizes are for legitimate accomplishments and volumes of tangible work Austin, not like the third place ribbon you got for being a bench-warmer at the Special Olympics.
Sep 10 - 05:41 AM
BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP
Sorry, that's my pissant detector. Nice job, you condescending fuck; now have a taste of your own medicine.
Apr 5 - 02:34 PM
Connor NO COMMENT
thug4life1979 is wrong, but you're an ass.
May 5 - 08:19 AM
Yeah i see how wide-thinker he is ;)
Jun 16 - 06:16 AM
yeah ebert is wrong here. but to suggest that any Lynch film does not possess some sort of diabolical sense of humor is majorly naive. and thug4life, see beyond the valley of the dolls... ebert wrote it and it manages to be crazy, disturbing, hilarious, and totally kick ***. this said, ebert ****s all over lynch's best works enough that i think we can assume he's got some sort of personal grudge towards lynch's work.
Nov 18 - 01:02 PM
Nov 26 - 04:34 AM
In Ebert's mind, "xXx" is a better film than "Blue Velvet". Overpaid wanker.
Dec 1 - 09:03 AM
His star ratings are relative not absolute!
Apr 17 - 03:52 AM
who the hell named this guy the best critic?! i have disagreed with him many times, but this is too much!
Jan 8 - 02:25 PM
Ebert's a great critic, but I've never understood this review.
Jan 12 - 08:14 AM
This being said from the guy who thought that Cop and a Half was a good movie. Sorry Ebert, but sometimes you lose all your touch...
May 25 - 08:08 PM
Damn Ebert, when you miss, you miss BIG. Awful review.
Jul 19 - 03:18 PM
He's trying to view it as a satire and a comedy, so he got confused. He must of thought that this was some kind of comedy act. He doesn't seem to like serious sexual or violent acts being acted out in the way they do. See: Fight Club, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Die Hard. He gave bad reviews for all of those.
Sep 20 - 03:08 PM
On the DVD, Ebert cites the "sexist" (what?) role of Rossellini as being one of the reasons he dislikes it. Are directs not supposed to show woman being abused anymore?
Jan 11 - 02:20 PM
Actually, Ebert loved Mulholland Drive:http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20011012/REVIEWS/110120304/1023I personally think his opinion on Blue Velvet was fairly accurate. The film could have been a whole lot better had Rosellini and Mclaughlin's relationship been explored more. Instead, we didn't get any of that.Eraserhead and Mulholland Drive beat this one by a long yard. I mean, it isn't terrible, but it's far from greatness.
Aug 25 - 07:03 PM
I agree. This film isn't as nearly transcendent as promised at the beginning; in fact, the progression of the film feels conventional at times, especially near the end. Many questions were only half answered, much of the symbolism didn't match up with the rest of the film, and the abrupt jumps from surrealism to stark reality (however technically brilliant) detract from an overall establishing mood for the film. That's not to say it doesn't have its merits though: It has some great performances and directing bravado by Lynch. Ebert got a lot right.
Jun 12 - 11:40 PM
Wrong wrong wrong.
Oct 28 - 01:54 AM
and you think mulholland drive added up?
Jul 5 - 08:03 PM
Ebert's a really great critic. Although I don't agree with him, that doesn't mean he sucks. Everybody has one movie they hate that everybody else likes. Cough Gladiator Cough.
Oct 11 - 09:46 PM
Jan 12 - 09:37 AM
I hated this movie as well so I'll defend Ebert. Lynch has a habit of making movies with extremely myopic plots. I read somewhere when questioned he stated that in certain movies he himself couldn't even explain them, which says about all you need to know.
Apr 22 - 04:14 AM
Agreed completely with this review. I'm laughing my $#% off at all the little pissed off fanboys crying that this movie got a bad review.
Jul 10 - 01:47 AM
blue velvet has fanboys?
Nov 27 - 11:16 AM
Of course not. No fans here. Just...91% of the reviewers on Rotten tomatoes, 88% of the RT community...
Apr 21 - 10:57 PM
Sep 10 - 05:45 AM
David Lynch is my favorite director (or second, after John Woo), Blue Velvet helped me appreciate cinema and I consider it an all-time masterpiece.I still have no problems with Ebert's review.
Jul 12 - 01:59 AM
Dismissing a true masterpiece but celebrating junk like Land of the Lost and Paul Blart. Ebert, I hope you're happy.
Jan 4 - 06:10 PM
mr.Ebert, you are a whiny baby if I ever saw one, any film that involves some kind of abuse towards women, whether it's Blue Velvet, Clockwork Orange or Straw Dogs, you immediately dismiss as violent, senseless pornography. While in fact, these directors just have the balls to shed light on the things people would rather pretend didn't exist. Get off your high horse.
Aug 3 - 07:32 AM
He liked Irreversible. He was able to find a deeper meaning to the abuse in that movie (which if you didn't know is famous for it's brutal and unforgiving scenes of violence)where as he couldn't in this.
I haven't seen either but because a movie brings up a taboo topic and discusses it does not mean it shows any true insight or actual reasoning to it, in fact, I strongly believe some use it as a cheap ploy.
Apr 2 - 05:24 PM
Roger Ebert gives Blue Velvet one star, but he gives Irreversible three. Am I the only one thinking something isn't quite right in that?
Sep 3 - 02:13 AM