Wild at Heart (1990)

Out of all the Lynch movies I've seen, this is my second favorite film of his. Right above Blue Velvet and below Mulholland Drive. This director has made some o the most original films I've ever seen. His stories are simplistic, but the way he presents his films are unlike anything I've seen in films. He is able to present his films in a way where is engaging while at the same time very blissful and dream-like. The dream-like elements in his movies gives so much unpredictability in where the story is going. Making his films feel mystical and atmospheric but also very nightmarish. No other filmmaker can encompass this aesthetic more uniquely than David Lynch. Wild at Heart is a film that has all the magic that I love about Lynch in this comedically nightmarish, romantic road movie. It's not his most serious movie if we're judging it solely as a drama. There are elements in the movie that I could understand people not getting into. But for me personally, this is a film that I can get the most enjoyment out of almost all of Lynch's filmography. It doesn't have the same impact that Mulholland Drive had. That movie is where Lynch perfected his craft and made a one of a kind masterpiece. For Wild at Heart, it's a film that embraces the surreal element rather than absorbing within. But upon revisiting and how it resonated with me in a personal sense, this movie is the kind of film that has so much re-watchable value for me. It's nightmarish, it's intense, it's comedic, it's beautiful. The acting is great, Nicolas Cage giving one of his best performance I've ever seen. It's not a film that I would recommend to first time David Lynch viewers. I would recommend them watching either Blue Velvet or Mulholland Drive first, or maybe the Twin Peaks series. Other than that, I truly adore this film. It's almost everything that I can ever ask for from a popular surrealist filmmaker.

Yawn.I had such high expectations for this movie since it's a Lynch and the premise sounds seriously bad ass. But it just isn't. 80% of this movie is just stupid dialogue (from a car), unnecessary sex scenes and Nicholas Cage being an awful actor. I was seriously looking forward to Bobby Peru and even he was a let down.As the title suggests, I did stop watching this movie prematurely. There was about 30 minutes left which came as a major surprise to me since there had been little to no build up at all and the movie was about to end.Creepy characters speaking nonsense (seriously, what the hell are the Cajuns even talking about?) does not make for a compelling movie. A swing and a miss from Lynch.

(Originally reviewed: 23/03/2017) David Lynch's Wild at Heart could have been something, if it weren't so disgusting and purely stupid. The film opens with a confrontation between Cage and an African American man with a knife, during this scene Cage beats him up and smashes his head of the floor until his brains are clearly seen, it's not only violent, but unnecessary, sadistic and not as cool as Lynch thinks, because straight after Cage lights a cigarette and does a sort of 'look at me pose' which came off as extremely annoying and pathetic. Then the picture gets slightly better until it grew tedious, but also vile, with its lack of humanity; some people may find this picture outrageously funny, I find it outrageously awful and distasteful, because there's a lot of ugliness and a nonsensical story that includes character's that look like they should have been in the 1980's The Howling; which is no compliment if you know the film. Another observation I made was the soundtrack, it's just ultimately bland, noisy or forgettable. The acting is fairly bland, Cage play's an over the top, slightly boring, unlikeable character, and his girlfriend played by Laura Dern has all the talent of a pole dancer, she looks good but is really commanding with she opens her mouth. Other bad performances include Diane Ladd, as Lulu's mother, she's overdramatic and fairly awful, as well as William Dafoe who plays a creepy, low life loser who's simply disgusting, and even starts massaging Lulu's breasts while Cage is away; maybe this seemed like a good idea at the time for Lynch, but watching it, I didn't see why this scene had any business being in the picture; it was plain and simple distasteful. There's a lot of sex, a lot of blood and a lot of swearing but without interesting character's and some sort of competent story, the film just falls apart, and if it hadn't have been for Harry Dean Stanton's well-grounded supporting performance as Diane Ladd's character's partner, the picture would have gone down as the worst thing Nicolas Cage has ever been in, and that's saying something, when you have seen some of his modern outings. The dialogue and writing are utter garbage, here's a bit of dialogue that Lynch thinks passes as adequate "can I p**s on your head, I don't mean your head I mean the toilet head", and it gets worse there's randomness all over the place, three ugly fat girls take their clothes off walking around, (I could have hurled), there's a character who speaks with a helium type voice in a bar, I guess for intended humour, it wasn't funny, and there's a terrible sequence where one of these supernatural freaks does some of the worst acting I've ever seen by shouting "F**k me Reggie" a dozen times at the top of her voice while about to shoot someone; it makes little to no sense, just like the story which has these monster undertones and other themes, but never decides what film it actually wants to be, leaving an angel to come down and let Cage know he should be with Lulu after walking away and getting beat up by thugs later on, I mean come on, it's allegedly not a sci-fi film, but do they expect me to believe this trash is what passes for an ending in an alleged 'crime drama', something I could not fathom; which reminds me of some embarrassing moments where Lynch thinks it's a musical and let's Cage sing, and the second time is even more embarrassing because they end the picture with some dumb sing-song, which had me thinking really?. There's even technical problems with some painfully aggravating screeching in the background towards the 1 hour mark and appallingly unbelievable moments where Cage and Dern pull up at a crash, See that two people are dead, and see the third suffering from blood loss, and try and clam her until she start's going berserk over a credit card saying, I can't find my credit card or something like that, not bothered that she could die at any minute, the characters are unlikeable, stupid and idiots. Overall I hated this picture, it's ugly, sadistic and made me feel uneasy, it's narrative is an incoherent jumble and the acting for the most part sucks; Lynch may have thought his picture was funny, but in fact, I didn't, I found it repulsive and a real piece of absolute garbage.

I guess there's probably three types of people when it comes to David Lynch films (1) People who love his work and find it unique, deep and a refreshing change from the Hollywood norm (2) People who find it a pretentious mess, lacking in any real story (3) People who say, "Who's David Lynch?" If you fall into the third category then I guess that jumping into his 1990 film 'Wild at Heart' is as good as any place to start your journey into his twisted mind. For 'Wild at Heart' is quite a 'typical' David Lynch film, in that it's narrative deliberately strays away from being particularly 'linear' and – in many cases – is open to interpretation as to what is actually going on in the story. Much of what you get from a David Lynch film is based on how it makes you feel, rather than the story it tells.The film stars Nicholas Cage, who plays a young man with a – you guessed it – wild streak. He falls in love with a young – and kind of equally wild – seventeen year old (Lynch's favourite leading lady, Laura Dern) and the two of them embark on a road trip across the wastelands of America – much to the disgust of Dern's on screen mother! In fact, rather than just posting a snotty comment on her Facebook status, she goes and hires some weird hit men to 'take care of the situation' (if you know what I mean?). Thus the film takes on a more murderous tone.So, they travel across America meeting one weird person after the next, participating in weird dialogue and perforated by weird s*xual exploits (all of this totally normal for a David Lynch film!). Now, when I talk about Lynch's trademark 'weirdness' I normally refer to not just the dialogue that's spoken, but the WAY it's said. Pauses are drawn out longer than is normal, making conversation deliberately uncomfortable. Then you have the – seemingly random – bursts of dramatic music overlaid across simple actions like a car pulling slowly into a parking space. And that's just the tip of the 'weirdness iceberg' – everything is pretty 'textbook Lynch' and to add an extra bizarre feel to the proceedings, it's loosely based on 'The Wizard of Oz!' (you'll soon pick up the not so subtle symbolism!).Nicholas Cage is allowed to almost run free, which does play well into his 'wild' nature. Dern too goes a little mad sometimes, however I did find her a little annoying from time to time due to her constant screaming that would make 'Willie' from 'Temple of Doom' proud! The rest of the cast pop up here and there, act weird and then go away again – this really is Cage's baby. However, just because we never see Lynch on screen (you'll have to watch 'Twin Peaks' for that – and it's worth it) you can see his fingerprints all over it. His use of fire is nearly as prominent as in 'Twin Peaks.' I guess this is used to denote danger. That's a fairly obvious one, but there are those elements of the film that even a die-hard Lynch fan doesn't understand! So, where do I come down on the three types of people I spoke about in my opening paragraph? Well, as I said, I'm a die-hard fan. I do watch all his stuff and enjoy (most of) it. I like the mood and feel he creates, even if the story does get more than a little confusing. His work is a refreshing change from the 'classic Hollywood narrative' that we're so used to. But, don't get me wrong – his films are hard work! I don't always get what he's trying to say. In 'Wild at Heart' there is at least a main story running through it. This is more than can be said for one of his later films, 'Inland Empire.' That, despite a few moments of 'Lynchian gold' was almost unwatchable when it came to its 'story!' So, if you're a fan of David Lynch's (filmic) work then you should know what you're in for. If you've never seen one of his films before, have a long, hard think about what you've read here before you invest your time into it. And, if you simply hate his work, I doubt there's much here to win you round.Oh, and maybe I should have added a 'fourth' category when it comes to people and their relationship to Lynch's work – (4) People who have seen his cult TV show 'Twin Peaks' and are therefore intrigued as to how his work translates to the big screen. I'll tell you now that 'Wild at Heart' bears little resemblance to the show (besides a fair few of its actors making cameos), so if you're looking for some 'Damn fine cherry pie,' then you won't find it here.