This was a 10/10 to boomers in the 90s

I always felt she was a 2/10
>monica bellucci
4/10
>sharon stone
3/10

its considered a 16/10 now

>10/10
No don't be dumb. I'd be on board if you said 6 or 7 though.

>ugh this biological woman ACKSHULLY looks like a tranny
Join Club 41, troon. You will never be a woman, and your attempts to Mandela women of below average attractiveness to by comparing them to men will not work.

ITT: zoomers for whom Dr. Ellie Sattler wasn't their movie crush
Get the fuck out

>ITT: zoomers for whom Dr. Ellie Sattler wasn't their movie crush
>Get the fuck out

Attached: soymouth.jpg (509x615, 47.6K)

Get you a woman who can outrun a velociraptor that also has a strong motherly instinct

God, I'm trying

how is her chili and sea bass?

>blonde tall bitch that was born as a hollywood royal
now we get mutt bitches

One of these is the Criterion restoration, and the other one is the standard release. Try to guess which one is which.

Attached: 1584579969483.png (1920x2160, 2.83M)

so this is why I could never see shit in the dark apartment shots

It's Chilean Sea Bass you newfag.

Attached: 1626183057237.jpg (974x290, 46.49K)

one of these was supervised by Lynch and the other is not

>>sharon stone
>3/10

Attached: f3a86f88db6480c973fcaf2ee3d26a86.jpg (439x600, 37.66K)

I'm gonna take a shot and say Lynch made the top one. bottom one is the restoration.

The top one is the Criterion restoration (supervised by Lynch).

laura dern a cute but lynch gave her a lot of ugly shots in this movie, especially all the crying
it's ok though because he directed her at her peak (inland empire)

no it isnt lol

>her peak
surely you mean Wild at Heart?

She is very deliberately cast as the hot for her small town girl-next-door

I don't understand this movie

the first half filtered me but the last hour was kino and I feel like I "got it". It's hard to say what there is to even understand about blue velvet

Laura dern in ramblin' rose.
>nymphomaniac
>explicit straight shota scene

I think it's about sex and violence in television & film, and how it infiltrates otherwise wholesome communities.

The other day someone told me I should watch the deleted scenes from this film, so I did, and I was struck by how crucial some of the cut scenes were to the film. The characterization scenes with Jeffrey and the small town contrast scenes in particular felt like they needed to be in the film. It's such a shame. I think the film would have been perfect if those scenes were kept. As it is, it's not my favorite Lynch film, but it's still damn good.

I wonder why Lynch never made a Director's Cut for this one.

What did those scenes contain?

Has Lynch ever done a director's cut before? He usually gets final cut, so I guess he's never needed to. Technically he had final cut for this, he just had to make it 2 hours long or less. There must be some reason he hasn't bothered to re-cut it.
youtube.com/watch?v=juP8lLXu0yY

It establishes Jeffrey as a voyeur/creep (though not necessarily a malicious one), it establishes the state of his life when we meet him, and it gives us a closer look into the small town life he has with his mom and aunt (as well as that of Sandy and her boyfriend/family). To me, the film feels like it begins so abruptly, and it's always bothered me. Jeffrey always felt like a non-character and I felt like it didn't work in the film's favor.

lmao looks like lazar

>>It establishes Jeffrey as a voyeur/creep
This gets established in the film when he acts as a voyeur and as a creep
Also Jeffrey being a bit pale is on purpose, its so any guy can project themselves or at least understand him because it's a story that could be set in every town of America so it needs wide range

>This gets established in the film when he acts as a voyeur and as a creep
He's not established as a voyeur until around 40 minutes into the film, and when he is it's more to do with happenstance than internal voyeuristic perversion. There's no set up to shape your understanding of the character. At that point, for all we know he's just a wannabe/amateur investigator. The psychological element becomes much more apparent if you establish him as a relatively harmless voyeur early on. That's the reason Lynch filmed the scene in the first place. It's the same thing Hitchcock did in Rear Window but amplified.
>its so any guy can project themselves or at least understand him
I understand that but it doesn't work when you know nothing about him at all. Making him a small town everyman is much more effective because you can sympathize with him immediately. Making him a non-character in this case only serves to make him mysterious and less relatable (and thus it's difficult to put yourself in his shoes and participate in his perversions).

That's the point though, you don't know he's a creep with a dark side deep into the movie but there are subtle hints to this earlier in the movie like his insistence on doing it which blurs the line of helping this woman and doing it for the thrill. It reinforces the themes of the movie and seemingly friendly towns having a dark underbelly and the main character is a personification of that.

But then eliminating the characterization scenes defeats the purpose because you can't relate to him at all and you're relegated to the position of passive observer as opposed to participant. Lynch wanted all of those scenes in there, so I imagine he agrees with me. He only cut them because Dino De Laurentiis told him he had to cut the film down to 2 hours.

>Lynch wanted all of those scenes in there, so I imagine he agrees with me. He only cut them because Dino De Laurentiis told him he had to cut the film down to 2 hours.
It doesn't matter what the authorial intent was here. Adding 50 minutes worth of scenes into Blue Velvet would kill the pacing and result in a very different film. most if not all of these scenes do not need to be in the movie and the movie works perfectly as is without them. And the point isn't relatability, that's a poor word its more so just projectability. Able to put yourself in the shoes of Jeffrey or at least be able to understand his mind. It doesn't matter in the end because the movie is clearly focused on conveying emotion and a theme rather than characters and narrative

You can't project onto Jeffrey because you know nothing about him. He's a nothing. The film needed that bit to latch onto. Lynch is perfectly capable of creating characters that you can project onto and relate to in a degree that suits the film, from Eraserhead to Mulholland Drive. No matter how abstract the film. Unfortunately, Hopper and Rosellini carry this otherwise great film because Jeffrey is a nonentity.

But this movie isn't trying to be like Eraserhead and Mulholland Drive. Lynch is very capable at characterization, Blue Velvet wasn't lacking it due to cut scenes it was lacking it because its an exploration on the abstract idea of a trip through the seedy underbelly of town and not how characters react to that. Jeffrey works as an every-man because everyone knows a Jeffrey or is a Jeffrey because Jeffrey is just the average young guy, hes the vessel for the story to follow but now the vessel the story is about

This shot alone is greater than your entire existence.

Disagree. Jeffrey only drags an otherwise good film down and the deleted scenes could have alleviated that.

Jeffrey is the whole driving force of the film. Is he helping out the singer lady out of honest concern or because he wants to spy on her in a seedy way? Does Frank inhale pussy stank from his mouthpiece or pure oxygen? so many questions.

Well yeah, she's blonde, slim, and had minimal bbc. These days a girl like this has fucked a dozen black men by the time she's ready to settle down at 30

Rewatched Basic Instinct in hd and Sharon is even hotter than when I was a kid.

Still is

>eww bros, you don't think blonde blue eyed women are hot do you?
>checkout Zendaya Maree Stoermer Coleman!

Fuck off mutt

I only date older women thanks to that movie

post your 10/10 or you’re a massive faggot

My teen crush was Betsy Russell (1983)

Yeah…im that old kids

She looked way better in JP than anything else.
She always had kind of masculine features but the tomboyish look in JP worked really well with that.

>man jaw
Fags like you are the reason there's so many young men walking around with negative chins

This
Low T zoomer faggot

if you believe that ogre is more attractive than Bellucci you have brain damage

She still is. What do you prefer? Tatted up mystery meat Amerimutts that twerk on TikTok?

She is really attractive in Jurassic Park but I am surprised she was only 25 when filming. She looked early to mid 30s.