Brilliant and touching

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

It's interesting that even a story with a straight-forward plot like this one, is full of typical Lynch distractors. While those uncanny events and characters don't quite fit with the movie's atmosphere, they're still individually enjoyable; it's just what Lynch said: it's more like a compilation of random events and moments within the movie's context. Also, you cannot get wrong with Nicolas Cage's over-the-top yet natural acting, energetic and charismatic Laura Dern and the creepily funny Willem Dafoe's character. This is more like a transition between the somehow more accessible previous movies (except "Eraserhead" of course) and the brain madness that's about to come.

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.

I cannot believe this movie has over a 7 rating on IMDb. I am a huge David Lynch fan, I have enjoyed literally everything in the man's catalogue prior to watching Wild at Heart. This is the last film of Lynch's that I watched (Yes, I even watched the David Lynch short film compilation), and now I know why I had never heard of Wild at Heart. To start off, the acting in this movie is absolutely the worst of any Lynch film, and it has to be the worst of all the movies rated 7+. The accents of the main characters are atrocious and unnecessary. It would almost be passable if the movie didn't explicitly state they were in NC/SC at the beginning of the movie. Places where these accents wouldn't show up on their best day. From the very first scene where Nick Cage fights a man.. to the very last where he is singing a song, there isn't a single line of dialogue spoken by any character that seemed convincing or natural. This movie rival's M Night Shyamalans' The Happening in so many ways... minus all the weird sex scenes, which Wild at Heart has in spades. It has so many unnecessary sex scenes that by the middle of the film, I was starting to be surprised if there wasn't some random naked person in a scene. This entire production screams B-Movie. And by all accounts, it is one. It is "B-Movie," presented by David Lynch.Now, let's get into the story elements. First, the story is nonsense, and I don't mean in the "leave you guessing" way of other Lynch films. This story from top to bottom is uneventful, forgettable, and long. There are so many blatant Wizard of Oz references throughout the film, that I started to ask myself "why didn't Lynch just make an Oz remake." It would be different if there were subtle similarities between the movies, close associations, or sparse references. However, this movie constantly hits you over the head, screaming "Hey, remember Wizard of Oz, wasn't that movie awesome, sorry this one isn't so good!" And that is somewhat the overall problem. There was nothing subtle about this film. Every single message it tried to convey was so over the top and obvious, every single scene was either pointless or it was entirely predictable.Lastly, the technical issues. Oh boy.. the sound editing. This movie suffered so much from poor sound editing. There were many times where quiet conversations were going on, and then sudden loud guitar riffs would start. These were so loud it pulled me out of the movie each time it happened. The cinematography was decent, which is why I gave this movie a 3. But, sadly, this is the only positive Wild at Heart has to offer, and it doesn't come close to redeeming it.If it was on record that this movie was intentionally bad, that Lynch wanted to make a B-movie, then I would say this was a success. I would almost say that it is worth a watch, knowing you are going to watch a bad movie. However, this is not the case, and it fully upsets me that this movie is so praised with all of it's glaring flaws. I mean, movies couldn't have been that bad in 1990 to consider this one a triumph at Cannes.