Konterr Brilliant and touching

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

teodorodontosaurus 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.

dissident320 I found this to not much more than pieces of movie. I enjoyed most of the scenes but never felt immersed in the story. Lynch always fills his shows and movies with interesting actors and this is no exception. Multiple people steal scenes and are never seen in the movie again. I did enjoy the parallel stories with real-life mother and daughter Diane Ladd and Laura Dern. They both give exceptional performances and Dern is captivating throughout. Nic Cage gives one of his more restrained performances and is fine but didn't impress me like Leaving Las Vegas.It's a decent movie, but it feels as if Lynch didn't want to make it too weird or too conventional. So it sits in the middle and isn't that exciting or interesting. Watch it for the performances and hopefully the story won't disappoint as much.

bowmanblue I guess there's probably three types of people when it comes to David Lynch films (1) People who love his work and find it unique, deep and a refreshing change from the Hollywood norm (2) People who find it a pretentious mess, lacking in any real story (3) People who say, "Who's David Lynch?" If you fall into the third category then I guess that jumping into his 1990 film 'Wild at Heart' is as good as any place to start your journey into his twisted mind. For 'Wild at Heart' is quite a 'typical' David Lynch film, in that it's narrative deliberately strays away from being particularly 'linear' and – in many cases – is open to interpretation as to what is actually going on in the story. Much of what you get from a David Lynch film is based on how it makes you feel, rather than the story it tells.The film stars Nicholas Cage, who plays a young man with a – you guessed it – wild streak. He falls in love with a young – and kind of equally wild – seventeen year old (Lynch's favourite leading lady, Laura Dern) and the two of them embark on a road trip across the wastelands of America – much to the disgust of Dern's on screen mother! In fact, rather than just posting a snotty comment on her Facebook status, she goes and hires some weird hit men to 'take care of the situation' (if you know what I mean?). Thus the film takes on a more murderous tone.So, they travel across America meeting one weird person after the next, participating in weird dialogue and perforated by weird s*xual exploits (all of this totally normal for a David Lynch film!). Now, when I talk about Lynch's trademark 'weirdness' I normally refer to not just the dialogue that's spoken, but the WAY it's said. Pauses are drawn out longer than is normal, making conversation deliberately uncomfortable. Then you have the – seemingly random – bursts of dramatic music overlaid across simple actions like a car pulling slowly into a parking space. And that's just the tip of the 'weirdness iceberg' – everything is pretty 'textbook Lynch' and to add an extra bizarre feel to the proceedings, it's loosely based on 'The Wizard of Oz!' (you'll soon pick up the not so subtle symbolism!).Nicholas Cage is allowed to almost run free, which does play well into his 'wild' nature. Dern too goes a little mad sometimes, however I did find her a little annoying from time to time due to her constant screaming that would make 'Willie' from 'Temple of Doom' proud! The rest of the cast pop up here and there, act weird and then go away again – this really is Cage's baby. However, just because we never see Lynch on screen (you'll have to watch 'Twin Peaks' for that – and it's worth it) you can see his fingerprints all over it. His use of fire is nearly as prominent as in 'Twin Peaks.' I guess this is used to denote danger. That's a fairly obvious one, but there are those elements of the film that even a die-hard Lynch fan doesn't understand! So, where do I come down on the three types of people I spoke about in my opening paragraph? Well, as I said, I'm a die-hard fan. I do watch all his stuff and enjoy (most of) it. I like the mood and feel he creates, even if the story does get more than a little confusing. His work is a refreshing change from the 'classic Hollywood narrative' that we're so used to. But, don't get me wrong – his films are hard work! I don't always get what he's trying to say. In 'Wild at Heart' there is at least a main story running through it. This is more than can be said for one of his later films, 'Inland Empire.' That, despite a few moments of 'Lynchian gold' was almost unwatchable when it came to its 'story!' So, if you're a fan of David Lynch's (filmic) work then you should know what you're in for. If you've never seen one of his films before, have a long, hard think about what you've read here before you invest your time into it. And, if you simply hate his work, I doubt there's much here to win you round.Oh, and maybe I should have added a 'fourth' category when it comes to people and their relationship to Lynch's work – (4) People who have seen his cult TV show 'Twin Peaks' and are therefore intrigued as to how his work translates to the big screen. I'll tell you now that 'Wild at Heart' bears little resemblance to the show (besides a fair few of its actors making cameos), so if you're looking for some 'Damn fine cherry pie,' then you won't find it here.

keywitness "Wild at Heart" is not one of the most famous films by David Lynch, but I think it is as worthy as his best ones. Perhaps its unique genre has been preventing a wider appreciation of the movie. The plot is deliberately simple. There are two sweethearts, Lula Fortune and Sailor Ripley. Sailor goes to prison for killing a gangster who tried to kill him. Lula's mother hates Sailor and wants her daughter to break up with him, but Lula waits for him. As soon as Sailor gets out of prison, he breaks parole and takes his love on a road-trip adventure. Wild at Heart has multiple allusions to the Wizard of Oz, with the wicked witch (Lula's mother) and the adventure and troubles of a little girl (Lula). Some of these references are even direct, like in the scene where Lula is clicking her ruby slippers. Of course, in modern times you don't walk down the yellow brick road – you drive. The lovers encounter numerous dangers on their way.PULP FICTION: Wild at Heart looks to me like a precursor to Pulp Fiction which was made by Quentin Tarantino four years later. Both movies are loaded with pop-culture references, which are a favorite fodder of postmodern directors (Wizard of Oz, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis, gangster novels). Both have a simple comic book-like plot. Even the names Sailor Ripley and Lula Fortune sound like they came from a comic book or a paperback novel. However, this simplicity is intentional - in the postmodern art the plot is usually no more than a loose guidance, a necessity used by the director to express his art. It's the same idea as when a jazz band takes a simple tune and transforms it into a completely new and fascinating art piece. There are many other similarities between the two movies. For example, the mobster's name Marcelo Santos resonates with Pulp Fiction's gangster Marcellus Wallace. Uma Thurman identifies Travolta as an Elvis man as opposed to a Beatles man – well, Lynch clearly casts Sailor as an Elvis man in his movie. But the main similarity between Wild at Heart and Pulp Fiction is the fact that in both cases we are watching an absolutely low-brow material – which normally we would skip - but are enjoying it as true art. We genuinely yearn to be around the characters, in the midst of an action, forgetting the fact that this marvelous artwork is actually built out of pulp. Tarantino will develop the same method even further with Kill Bill, but for David Lynch this is the only movie of such kind. One difference of the way Pulp Fiction is made is that the episodes in it are not sequential, even though you can mentally restore the time-line. Lynch will use the same approach later in Mulholland Drive, which is even harder to reconstruct than Pulp Fiction (although possible). The point is to take the viewer's attention away from the linear plot, from the comfort of knowing what's next, and instead focus on each episode or character alone. LYNCH'S AESTHETICS: There is a plethora of weird episodic characters in the movie, which is typical for Lynch. He always handpicks collections of bizarre and freaky creatures in his films, which are often unnecessary for the plot but create an intense mood. The pigeon- squawking man, the maniacal woman with orthopedic leg, the three fat "porn models", Mr. Reindeer (another typical comic book-like character) – the list can go on and on. This alluring ensemble of freaks and weirdos circles around our lovers on the yellow brick road. Some of them are just confusing, while others are menacing. Very few are amicable, like the old black gas station attendant who is tapping joyfully to Lula's dancing, his legs sticking out of short work overalls trousers as thin as the legs of the chair he is sitting on.ROAD HAZARDS: It feels like Lula and Sailor are the only sane people, devoid of evil tendencies, surrounded by hostile and mad reality - or perhaps they have accidentally landed in a scary fairy tale. Their journey to happiness hits snag after snag along the yellow brick road. The radio in the car keeps talking about horrible crimes and accidents on every frequency, and the atmosphere of distress is trying to put them down. They stop the car, jump out and start kissing. This may be their only way to escape, even if futile. Our heroes are alone in their adventure, and all they can hold onto is their love and the foolish snakeskin jacket, proclaimed to be a "symbol of individuality and personal freedom". But the clouds are darkening over them.ACTING: Willem Dafoe puts up an excellent performance as a remarkably despicable mobster Bobby Peru. He is repellent and attractive at the same time, and even Lula almost surrenders to him (remember her bent outward fingers – her "tell"?).Lula's mother displays a harmonious combination of murderous and humane sides, lying and trusting at the same time. Painting the face red before betraying and dooming her former lover is a fascinating scene reminiscent of the ancient theater. She is evil and vengeful, yet so feminine and vulnerable.GENRE: So is Wild at Heart a road-trip movie? A love story? A fairy tale? A gangster movie? Neither, even though it freely plays with the elements of all these genres. In order to understand it, one should drop the perception constraints of any specific genre and start enjoying the movie as a unique creation. Then the movie will open up, scene by scene, like a good wine which reveals the depth of taste as you sip it. Overall, Wild at Heart is a remarkable postmodern feature, unique in its kind for Lynch yet in the same league as Mulholland Drive and Eraserhead.