Purely Joyful Movie!

an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

i don't remember the movie at at all but i have taped this Madonna scene: In 1995, it's already a couple of years that Madie just do silly things and this guest starring is like this: sexpot, too much make- up, bad manners, sure she couldn't be no more an inspiration for me and in addition, she delivers the message to unpleasant, grumpy Keiteil: it's not funny, not dramatic, it's just nothing... so really, this scene would have been cut from the movie, it would stay the same... Enough of those in between movies!

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.

This semi-sequel to "Smoke" continues the adventures of Auggie Wren (Harvey Keitel) and his friends. I thought that the most interesting part was Jim Jarmusch as the man smoking his last cigar. But overall, "Blue in the Face" looks at life in general. Maybe it's not quite as great as the original, but still definitely worth seeing. And I remember when I saw it in the theater that it featured Jerry Garcia's last music video. Really good.All in all, this is another example of how great indie cinema is. Also starring Michael J. Fox, Roseanne, Lily Tomlin, Jared Harris, Giancarlo Esposito, John Lurie and Madonna.

Whenever "Blue in the Face" comes up in conversation, nothing angers me more then hearing it compared to as a sequel to "Smoke." It is clearly not a sequel. When talking about "Goldeneye" you don't refer to it as just another sequel to "Dr. No" in the James Bond series. While "Smoke" was a drama, "Blue in the Face" takes a comical look at those who go in and out of a corner tobacco shop in the heart of Brooklyn. Besides, you can't compare a fully scripted film like "Smoke" to an almost completely improvised approach in "Blue in the Face."Harvey Keitel plays Auggie Wren, the man behind the counter of the Brooklyn Cigar Store, who acts as a homing beacon for some of the most colorful characters in Brooklyn, including a mentally unstable girlfriend, a rapping watch dealer, an owner and his wife having marriage trouble, and so on. The cast also includes Jim Jarmusch, Malik Yoba, Victor Argo, Madonna, Lily Tomlin, Roseanne, Mel Gorham and Mira Sorvino to name a few.The topics covered in this film include Brooklyn, the Dodgers, smoking, eye glasses, lack of communication, relationships, surveys and much more.One of the unique elements of "Blue in the Face" is the use of both the film footage, and interview footage of the actual residents of Brooklyn all tying together. Add on to that little introductions to each section of the film by legendary musician Lou Reed, the film flows through each subject very smoothly.If your in the mood for a great independent film, check out "Blue in the Face" at your local video store. Just be sure not to start comparing it to "Smoke" as you watch it, otherwise you will get less enjoyment out of the film.9/10