Hulkeasexo it is the rare 'crazy' movie that actually has something to say.

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Catangro After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Myron Clemons A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

Cristi_Ciopron 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.

TxMike I don't mind improvisation. In fact, good improvisation is better than actors following a written script. Some of the funniest scenes have benefited from good improvisation. Think of almost any Robin Williams movie. Or, the Billy Crystal scene with Meg Ryan where he has her saying things in a funny voice. Or, how about the team that made such movies as Best in Show and Waiting For Guffman? But this movie, Blue in the Face, just does not come off as good improvisation. It is clear what they are doing, but it comes across as unsure and uneven, and not particularly funny. Interlaced throughout the movie are nondescript people reciting facts about Brooklyn -- how many potholes in the streets, for example.There is a thread of a story. The owner of a cigar shop intends to turn it into a health food store. And, the locals don't approve. There are tense moments when we wonder if the cigar shop will persist.Anyway, it is a movie for certain tastes, it just isn't a movie for my tastes.

paul2001sw-1 'Blue in the Face' is a low key assortment of ad-libbed scenes, unlikely cameos, and interviews with the real-life inhabitants of Brooklyn. There's no real plot, nothing much happens, and the dialogue has all the incoherence of actual conversation. What it does have is bags of charm, a celebratory spirit, and a huge (physical and spiritual) distance from Hollywood. Well worth watching once.

maurizio-11 Blue in the face is a follow up to 'Smoke' a film which I saw recently and very much enjoyed. I thought I'd give this one a try as well. Like the first film (even more so) this is a collection of beautifully acted, largely improvised vignettes, involving the customers and general passers-by of the Brooklyn based cigar shop run by Auggie (Harvey Keitel). There is a lose storyline involving the relationship between Auggie and his girlfriend Violetta (brilliantly played by Mel Gorham) and the troubled marriage of Vinnie the storeowner and his wife. The store has been a part of the local community for years and when Vinnie gets a very good offer to sell up, it's bound to badly affect a lot of people. The best moments of the film lie in the documentary style rambling of Brooklyn residents (including Lou Reed) as they describe what it means to them being part of the city, and also the brilliant monologues that some of the characters perform. There are moments of genius in this film. It is very funny in a very understated way, the assembled characters are all eccentric in their own way but totally believable. The dialogue is natural and you get to know and feel for the characters very quickly in to the movie. I loved this film; I thought it was better than 'Smoke' a film I also liked. 'Blue in the Face' might be harder to get in to for some people, it's improvisational style and lack of structured story might put people off or make them think it's hard to follow, but it isn't. Don't try to make too much sense of what's going on you don't need to. Treat it as a series of snapshots in to the lives of a collection of colourful New Yorkers. Just sit back and watch the characters play out their lives, you'll very soon be engrossed by it.It was an absolute delight to watch. Not for everyone maybe but definitely for me!