5 Reviews Roger Ebert Got Horribly Wrong

4. Blue Velvet (1 Star)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uehfL60EA4 Majority Verdict: 92% on Rotten Tomatoes, and regarded by many as David Lynch's definitive masterpiece. David Lynch was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Director. Ebert's Review: Right in the first paragraph of his review, Roger notes that "it's easy to understand why some critics have hailed it as a masterpiece." Ebert intelligently observes that the story is in his eyes "marred by sophomoric satire and cheap shots", and complains that the film seems too afraid to fully submit to its sexually violent themes and instead uses the small-town satire to create a thematic buffer. In this stead, he expresses disappointment that for all of Isabella Rosselini's commitment to the film, she wasn't rewarded with stronger material - "when you ask an actress to endure those experiences, you should keep your side of the bargain by putting her in an important film." In spite of his 1-star review he does note that in some aspects "Hitchcock would have been proud." I have to agree with Gene Siskel on this one.
In this post: 
Roger-Ebert
 
Posted On: 
Contributor
Contributor

Frequently sleep-deprived film addict and video game obsessive who spends more time than is healthy in darkened London screening rooms. Follow his twitter on @ShaunMunroFilm or e-mail him at shaneo632 [at] gmail.com.