IMDb user comments for
Blue in the Face (1995) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Index

41 comments in total

---

9 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
An understated, but brilliant film, 14 September 2001

Author: maurizio-11 from England

Blue in the face is a follow up to 'Smoke' a film which I saw recently and very much enjoyed. I thought I'd give this one a try as well.

Like the first film (even more so) this is a collection of beautifully acted, largely improvised vignettes, involving the customers and general passers-by of the Brooklyn based cigar shop run by Auggie (Harvey Keitel). There is a lose storyline involving the relationship between Auggie and his girlfriend Violetta (brilliantly played by Mel Gorham) and the troubled marriage of Vinnie the storeowner and his wife. The store has been a part of the local community for years and when Vinnie gets a very good offer to sell up, it's bound to badly affect a lot of people.

The best moments of the film lie in the documentary style rambling of Brooklyn residents (including Lou Reed) as they describe what it means to them being part of the city, and also the brilliant monologues that some of the characters perform. There are moments of genius in this film. It is very funny in a very understated way, the assembled characters are all eccentric in their own way but totally believable. The dialogue is natural and you get to know and feel for the characters very quickly in to the movie.

I loved this film; I thought it was better than 'Smoke' a film I also liked. 'Blue in the Face' might be harder to get in to for some people, it's improvisational style and lack of structured story might put people off or make them think it's hard to follow, but it isn't. Don't try to make too much sense of what's going on you don't need to. Treat it as a series of snapshots in to the lives of a collection of colourful New Yorkers. Just sit back and watch the characters play out their lives, you'll very soon be engrossed by it.

It was an absolute delight to watch. Not for everyone maybe but definitely for me!

---

6 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Disjointed but really funny look at the community of Brooklyn, 18 February 2002
Author: bob the moo from Birmingham, UK

Wang's followup to Smoke is a series of improvised scenes put together to represent the diveristy of Brooklyn's culture. Meanwhile Auggie is struggling with Vinnie's decision to sell the cigar store.

The "plot" to this film doesn't really matter. This was shot in the time that was left over when Smoke wrapped earlier than scheduled. In many ways this is a much better film. It's a huge amount of fun to watch and it all ends in a street party - it all makes you want to live in Brooklyn and meet all these weird and wonderful people that live there. It's sketchy nature can mean that it feels a little piecey but most of it is funny or interesting and you may not notice it's lack of structure. The actual story is actually quite good - Vinnie's decision to shut the store is handled as a threat to the friendships that exist around the story and also the importance of such places in holding the community together. It makes a good point and, mixed with the humour, isn't hard to swallow at all.

The cast are good - many of Smoke's faces are still there and are complimented by famous faces. Stars such as Fon, Roseanne, Madonna, Lou Reed, Jim Jarmusch, Lily Tomlin, Ru Paul etc all make cameos - Madonna isn't great but MJ Fox is really funny. The remainder of the cast are made up of real quality actors such as Victor Argo, Harvey Keitel and Giancarlo Esposito to name a few.

Overall this is a light reward for watching the slighly heavier Smoke. Both films are good in their own way but this is the most fun to watch.

---

6 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Good for them, 11 August 2001

Author: Loff24 from Portugal

I wish I could make a movie this funny and so easily. Five days, improvisations, not a definite storyline and a great and funny movie is born. I loved it, it still makes me laugh and will keep on making me laugh. All the actors are great, but if I had to give an award to one of them it would be Jim Jarmusch, with his "last cigarette" speech. Fantastic also is Lou Reed, and his conclusions about life. The movie really benefits from its addition of well-known stars, including a much-in-the-gutter character Michael J. Fox, which is really funny. The film also includes some curiosities about Brooklyn, and works not only as a set of vignettes but also as an account of what's typical and traditional in that neighbourhood. It has some cool moments and some touching moments, but overall it's a movie to see and not to analyse.

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
great flick for pop culture lovers - five stars, three thumbs up, 4 December 2000
Author: cls-6

This is a light and fun - although intelligent - movie, worth seeing, if not for the whole marvellous opus of pop culture, for his cast alone: Harvey Keitel, Roseanne, Victor Argo and precious appearances of Lou Reed, Jim Jarmusch (as Bob, in my favorite sequence of the movie), John Lurie and Madonna, to name a few. Soundtrack by David Byrne only adds to the mix.

´Blue in the Face´ cynically, cleverly and ironically chronicles the life and the history of Brooklyn, NY. Watch it, it´s independent cinema at its best.

---

4 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Joyful meditation about life, 24 June 2004

Author: Mikew3001 (mikew4001@yahoo.de) from Hamburg, Germany

"Blue in the Face" was a fastly produced follow-up of director Wayne Wang's and writer Paul Auster's 1994 art house hit "Smoke". While "Smoke" was produced in the usual way with script, casts, etc., this movie was a quickly shot within less than a month, just containing vague ideas, interviews and improvisations with the same production unit and main actor Harvey Keitel, but without a script and with lots of popular supporting actors who were improvising their performance straight in front of the camera. And it works.

Focused on Keitel's smoke shop in Brooklyn, his customers and visitors are telling stories about their lives, views, ideas, dream, relationships and carreers, all focused around the topic of smoking. Lou Reed can't remember his first cigarette, but presents his self-constructed glasses, Jim Jarmusch celebrates his last cigarette, Harvey Keitel reminds which war movie made him a cigarette smoker, and there are several more famous guests in the shop. Michael J. Fox plays a weird insurance guy, Madonna appears as a singing telegram girl, and John Lurie, Mia Sorvino, Paul Keith and the whole NYC artist's scene appear on the screen.

Although the pointless composition of independent scenes and interviews might become a bit out of tune or boring sometimes, the movie works really well. There are lots of interesting (real life?) stories told by the actors, a great rare groove soundtrack that could fit into every Tarantino production, and some really good jokes too. "Blue in the Face" become a minor art house classic in Europe in the nineties, and one could wonder if this movie would have been the same ten years later in the times of anti-smoking laws and campaigns. Nice independent movie.

---

6 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Slightly disappointing, 28 June 2004
Author: Mika Pykäläaho (bygis80@hotmail.com) from Järvenpää, Finland

Most disappointing detail about "Blue in the face" is the regretful fact that it's a sequel to "Smoke" - one of the greatest movies of the mid 90's. I would instantly rate terrific "Smoke" 10 out of 10. I've seen it a million times and I never get tired of enjoying it again. I know "Blue in the face" is supposed to be a bunch of spontaneous conversations but most of the stuff (Lou Reed parts, for example) are just plain boring. Scenes with Jim Jarmusch and Michael J. Fox are totally worth watching. I loved Malik Yoba's wristwatch selling rapper too. If you liked "Smoke" you might want to check this out as well but be careful and don't expect anything special.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
Disgraceful, 27 March 1999

Author: Daniel (dbarnes@sfsu.edu) from San Francisco

Possibly the worst film ever made, "Blue in the Face" is the worst incidence of actor over-indulgence and N.Y. self-congratulation ever captured on celluloid. A downright queasily embarrassing exercise in forced, flailing improv, the terribleness of the film is made all the more baffling by a)its pedigreed cast, including Harvey Keitel, Mira Sorvino, Jim Jarmusch, and dozens more; and b)the fact that its source material (for characters and settings, anyway) is the lyrical and engaging 1995 film "Smoke" (my vote for the 2nd best film of that year, after "Crumb"). "Blue in the Face" is one of the few films that could actually be described (with pinpoint accuracy!) as unwatchable.

---

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
A romantic view of Brooklyn, excellent improvisation., 18 November 2000
Author: Gunnar Van Vliet from Canada

Blue in the face might be boring to many because it doesn't follow a standard hollywood paradigm of rising action, climax, resolve. It is more documentary style, although fictitious, and quickly jumps from story to story and character to character. The editing is an interesting component because it successfully brings together disparate themes and characters (who are improvising their lines and stories to some degree). This and some fantastical elements provide a very romanticized view of Brooklyn. Altogether a cohesive piece with some nice performances and some insight into what it is to growup and live in a special loved place.

---

Great movie, almost like a documentary, 16 April 2009

Author: Andre Dahl from Norway

definitely worth a watch this movie is about Brooklyn in New york city and people living there.

The Story is about a small tobacco shop with interviews of various people living in Brooklyn about Brooklyn. so its almost like a documentary in its own way.

It got a good story and lots of tales to tell about people and their lives. Not an action movie more of a calm story type of movie with a lot of talking that gives you a lot of insight into peoples lives in that area and a personal story of the tobacco salesman that works in the shop.

---

Of certainly local interest, 20 September 2008

Author: Cristi_Ciopron from CGSM, Soseaua Nationala 49

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I have founded this semi—documentary about the Brooklynian way of life from an ordinary man's POV rather amusing and compelling—and very sarcastic and mordant; it's studded with vaguely familiar faces (whose identities are mostly unknown to me, as I am not a frequenter of the culture in cause—the Jarmusch/ Madonna brands …). The movie is, as I suggested, ironic—yet _unconclusively so. It is unassuming, sometimes funny, and Mel Gorham is very sexy. On the other hand, it's not too intense or particularly successful at seizing the hidden life of Brooklyn. It has the intelligent, not really intellectual or particularly inspired look of other similar attempts—like some Mamet outings …. It's not insightful or meaningful—but funny, light, enjoyable. It is also cruel and merciless in exposing empty lives—people to whom the Dodgers' leaving was the most important thing in their lives, etc., insipid, lifeless existences, withered humanity, banal destines soaked in ugliness. This world is wholly alien to me. This Auster intellectuality, like some Mamet mean intellectuality, seems not very far from the W. Allen intellectuality.

I guess the film is for the most part ironic; yet if it was meant to convey a certain savor of Brooklyn life, it did not succeed—at least with those ignorant of Brooklyn things. The Dodgers and the Belgian waffles are part of that Americana (what Amis once stated as 'too much trolley-car nostalgia and baseball-mitt Americana, too much ancestor worship, too much piety ') that is particularly unattractive to me. In this sociological sense ,the movie describes an utterly uninteresting world and humanity. These things do not seem to me childish—but, on the contrary, senile and boring. These ingredients are particularly repulsive to me. What strikes is the artificiality and shallowness and inner poverty of these clichés. Some 60 years ago, some Europeans, many French Europeans hinted this might denote a style—and even be a stylish thing. Maybe they meant different realities, or maybe things changed too much.

---

---

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history