Blue (1993)

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

The first must-see film of the year.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Blue. Hmmm. Blue, in case you aren't aware by now is a film with no visuals whatsoever, it is simply a blue screen.It amuses me no end that reviewers are stating that blue was a better colour to choose over others. As if it's really clever to use the colour blue as opposed to red, or green, or anything. What on earth are they talking about? It's a blank screen. And besides, how do they know blue is better? Have they sat for 79 minutes in front of screens all the colours of the rainbow and afterwards thought "you know, watching a yellow screen just isn't as satisfying as watching a blue one, I'm giving this film a 10"I noticed a review on IMDb that has stated this film does not even need visuals. What is a film without visuals I ask you? It's a radio play, surely. The fact that this is released as a film but is nothing but a blue screen is just a joke on the audience. However, as with all 'art' there are always people who will take it really seriously and credit such things as innovative, original, new and refreshing.Film is a visual medium. To stare at a blank screen for 79 minutes while listening to narration is entirely pointless. Your eyes need visuals and if nothing is happening in front of them they naturally look somewhere else. To have to force yourself to stare at a blue screen is insanity. Unfortunately I am unable to comprehend why other reviewers state the blue screen is to be appreciated. I would be willing to bet that had an unknown film maker done such a thing it would not get the respect it is getting. Likewise I do not believe said reviewers would stare at a blue wall and wax lyrical about how stunning it is, but should Derek Jarman (were he still alive) come and frame the wall I can imagine they would never be able to stop talking about it.And that is where this film would appear to get its audience - people who would never normally appreciate such things until a respected artist comes along and tells them how wonderful it is.

Anyone who's been to the Tate in London or MOMA in New York finds themselves facing an interesting dilemma: am I being ignorant or is this some joke I'm not getting? Do I not understand the importance of having a canvas all one color, or is someone getting paid for a much easier job than I have? Should I publicly deride this load of nonsense, or get rid of my briefcase, buy some square black glasses, and get short spiky hair? And so it is with this glorious practical joke of a movie that has Mr Jarman laughing to the bank, Tilda Swinton getting so surreal that at some point her body is going to evaporate from the implausibility of her entire career, and once more goodbye to another ten dollars wasted on a popcorn-less experience at some new weird Village cinema.I'd really be interested to hear if anyone disagrees at me, but first please qualify your comments with a disclaimer guaranteeing that you've not taken Class A drugs recently, and don't have said square glasses and spiky hair. Gentlemen, the floor is yours.

Blue had the prestige to be the first film to be shown on television and broadcast on radio at the same time, something not likely to be challenged for a long time. Naturally this doesn't make it a good movie, and if you think the films blue screen is a gimmick then you'll probably feel the same about this, however, you'd be wrong.Pretentious? Well, i think an hour and a half of blue screen by anyone who wasn't going blind at the time would be pretentious, with Blue he was operating within his capabilities, and at the same time giving the viewer an appreciation of what it is to be blind. You think an hour and a half of this is irritating, well I presume Jarman thought that too. Watching the blue screen isn't meant to be fun, but it certainly helps draw attention to what is being said, which is the most important part of all. There was no blue screen when aired on the radio, so you could even argue its superficiality on that point. Once you get over the fact that Jarman has robbed you of anything visual, then can you truly appreciate a very honest piece of work by a talented man

" Blue . It`s a colour so cruel " sang The Fine Young Cannibals . BLUE by Derek Jarman can`t be described as being cruel in anyway , but that`s probably the kindest thing I can say about this movie , I can find a thousand adjectives none of them complimentary to describe BLUE . The idea of art for arts sake sickens me and the idea of watching a " movie " composed of a blue background with a narrator speaking from everything from Bosnian refugees to death doesn`t appeal to me even if it does contain ambient muzak and sound effects . I do confess that I watched BLUE when it recieved its TV premiere on channel 4 a few years ago but that was only down to the publicity surrounding it and you have to ask if it was made by a mainstream director who was dying from lung cancer would it have been given the same hype ?