DVD Collectors Online

Blue Velvet, a review by Rich

Blue Velvet



Beneath the surface of small-town serenity lies a dark domain where innocents dare not tread and unpredictability is the norm. It is the haunting realm of  Blue Velvet. Spawned from the mind of David Lynch (Mulholland Drive, "Twin Peaks"), Blue Velvet is a "shocking, deeply disturbing...startling mixture of the heartfelt and the horrific" (Newsweek).
Clean-cut Jeffrey Beaumont (Kyle MacLachlan) realizes his Mayberry-like hometown is not so normal when he discovers a human ear in a field. His investigation catapults him into an alluring, erotic murder mystery involving a disturbed nightclub singer (Isabella Rossellini) and a drug-addicted sadist (Dennis Hopper). Soon Jeffrey is led deeper into their depraved existence... to the point of no return.

David Lynch is like the marmite of directors, you either love him or hate him. Unfortunately I fall into the second camp, only ever previously enjoying one of his movies.
My opinion has not changed after viewing Blue Velvet. Certainly there is a shock value to the film, albeit dated after 2 decades, it subtly hits you on the bonce like a sledgehammer, your senses are tickled as if with a taser, and seedier elements of the film will stay with me.
Dennis Hopper as the vicious psycho was superb, but the rest of the cast just didn't work for me in this, Laura Dern was too old for the role, and MacLachlan a feeble lead. Lynch's style is not my cup of tea, very slow and arty, brooding looks, pans to a tree, or to a specific prop, just doesn't work for my simple brain.
I am sure the cardigan and pipe brigade will tell me how wonderful this movie is, exploring the dark side and sexual frustrations of human nature, with the backdrop of suburban America. But I just found it too pretentious, empty, depressing and confused.
 


**Laura Dern mini-marathon


(From Riches Random Reviews on August 27th, 2009)

Romeo and Juliet (1996 vs. 1968), a review by goodguy

Romeo and Juliet (1996 vs. 1968)

Romeo + Juliet (1996) Directed by: Baz Luhrmann Starring: Leonardo DiCapiro, Claire Danes DVD: R1-US Fox (2002, SE) My Rating:

Romeo & Juliet (1968) Directed by: Franco Zeffirelli Starring: Leonard Whiting, Olivia Hussey DVD: R2-DE Paramount (2003) My Rating:

It's been a few years since I had watched the 1996 version. I liked it quite well then, I liked it a little less now, but overall I thought of it as a movie where the good outweights the bad. Then I watched Zeffirelli's version.

Gasp.
It is mind-boggling just how much the older movie invalidates the newer one in every single aspect.

Both versions use Shakespeare's original language, and both downsize the play quite a bit to fit into a 2 hour movie. Both versions use young actors for the two lead characters: DiCaprio and Danes were 21 and 17, Whiting and Hussey were 17 and 16 (if IMDb can be trusted on BYs) when the movies were made.

Luhrmann puts the play in a contemporary Californian coast town called Verona Beach, with cars instead of horses and guns instead of swords. Highly stylized, shrill colors, almost comic-like. Zeffirelli chooses a historical setting and a subtle, but nonetheless vibrant color scheme. The costumes are dazzling and beautiful.

Luhrmann plays up the action, the conflict between the houses is more determined and violent. But besides his superficial stylization, which also turns the supporting characters in mere caricatures, he has no way of dealing with it when the conflict becomes deathly and Mercutio gets killed. Instead of a dramatic moment we get grey clouds and a storm, and as Romeo then kills Tybalt... well it starts raining, of course.

Zeffirelli does the opposite. The duel between Tybalt and Mercurio could end without bloodshed; it is an accident that it turns deadly. Since the fighting house members are characterized more subtle and the actors are more capable, they are able to convey the drama without weather changes. In fact, during the entire movie, moving from comedy to romance to drama, it always remains sunny in Verona. Btw, that doesn't mean that Zeffirelli's fight scenes lack dynamic - on the contrary, the camera even goes handheld during them.

A similar difference shows the depiction of Juliet's parents. Luhrmann, maybe in his attempt to appeal to a teenage crowd, makes the mother just a ridiculous person and the father a vile bastard. Zeffirelli treats them as real persons, who mean well for their daughter when arranging a marriage. The father threatening the daughter plays as a momentary loss of temper, not as the determining character trait.

What else? Oh, Romeo & Juliet. In Luhrmann's version, the moment were Romeo first spots Juliet through an aquarium is promising. Unfortunately, it goes all downhill from there. Neither DiCaprio nor Danes (nor most of the other cast) have any grasp of the language. It isn't just the American accent, it is such a forced and uninspired delivery that the romantic scenes never quite flourish. Danes is a little more convincing than DiCaprio, especially when she doesn't have to say anything and can just look dreamily or smile. Oh, and Luhrmann  moving the balcony scene into the swimming pool doesn't help either. Yes, by MTV video rules, wet equals sexy. And by the same rules, one probably has to painfully avoid any nudity when staging the after-sex scene.

Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey on the other hand are a revelation. There is really no way for me to describe this adequately. They are so perfect in their roles, it is breathtaking. Stunningly beautiful, passionate and sensual, yet innocent at the same time. And they own every line of dialogue and make it sound just like a natural way to speak. And Zeffirelli matches this by choosing equally natural and beautiful settings. It also doesn't come as a surprise that Zeffirelli and his leads don't have a problem with nudity.

Much more could be said. About the score for example, and about many other things. It doesn't matter. If you have never seen Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet, go and get the DVD. It has been around for years and is probably cheap. You can't do anything wrong by buying it. Prepare for an eye-opening experience.



(From Romeo and Juliet (1996 vs. 1968) on June 2nd, 2008)

Tom's TV Pilots marathon, a review by Tom

Seinfeld: Seasons One, Two and Three (1989/United States) IMDb | Wikipedia (United Kingdom) Length: 904 min. Video: Audio: Subtitles:

---

Seinfeld
1.01 The Seinfeld Chronicles (Pilot)
Writer: Larry David (Writer), Jerry Seinfeld (Writer)
Director: Art Wolff
Cast: Jerry Seinfeld (Jerry), Michael Richards (Kramer), Lee Carlington (Claire), Jason Alexander (George), Pamela Brull (Laura)

The pilot episode has some differences to the actual series. For one thing there is no Elaine yet. Another is the different restaurant they eat in. Also Kramer's hair is normal
But still I think this episode is already quite funny. I always enjoyed this series.

Rating:

(From Tom's TV Pilots marathon on July 1st, 2012)