I wish I could make a movie this funny and so easily. Five days, improvisations, not a definite storyline and a great and funny movie is born. I loved it, it still makes me laugh and will keep on making me laugh. All the actors are great, but if I had to give an award to one of them it would be Jim Jarmusch, with his "last cigarette" speech. Fantastic also is Lou Reed, and his conclusions about life. The movie really benefits from its addition of well-known stars, including a much-in-the-gutter character Michael J. Fox, which is really funny. The film also includes some curiosities about Brooklyn, and works not only as a set of vignettes but also as an account of what's typical and traditional in that neighbourhood. It has some cool moments and some touching moments, but overall it's a movie to see and not to analyse.
Add a Review
-
Dockelektro11 August 2001
-
Mikew300124 June 2004"Blue in the Face" was a fastly produced follow-up of director Wayne Wang's and writer Paul Auster's 1994 art house hit "Smoke". While "Smoke" was produced in the usual way with script, casts, etc., this movie was a quickly shot within less than a month, just containing vague ideas, interviews and improvisations with the same production unit and main actor Harvey Keitel, but without a script and with lots of popular supporting actors who were improvising their performance straight in front of the camera. And it works.
Focused on Keitel's smoke shop in Brooklyn, his customers and visitors are telling stories about their lives, views, ideas, dream, relationships and carreers, all focused around the topic of smoking. Lou Reed can't remember his first cigarette, but presents his self-constructed glasses, Jim Jarmusch celebrates his last cigarette, Harvey Keitel reminds which war movie made him a cigarette smoker, and there are several more famous guests in the shop. Michael J. Fox plays a weird insurance guy, Madonna appears as a singing telegram girl, and John Lurie, Mia Sorvino, Paul Keith and the whole NYC artist's scene appear on the screen.
Although the pointless composition of independent scenes and interviews might become a bit out of tune or boring sometimes, the movie works really well. There are lots of interesting (real life?) stories told by the actors, a great rare groove soundtrack that could fit into every Tarantino production, and some really good jokes too. "Blue in the Face" become a minor art house classic in Europe in the nineties, and one could wonder if this movie would have been the same ten years later in the times of anti-smoking laws and campaigns. Nice independent movie. -
erwan_ticheler15 December 2002And then to wonder that this movie was never meant to be made!!Thank god for Wayne Wang that after shooting Smoke(which does not even come close to this little gem)he had some more footage to show to us.The leading performance by Harvey Keitel is outstanding,this man can really act! I already was convinced though after seeing Mean Streets,Taxi Driver,Reservoir Dogs,Pulp Fiction,Bad Lieutenant etc. The other performances aren't bad either.And then the (guest)actors.Names like Madonna,Roseanne,Michael J. Fox,Mira Sorvino and Lou Reed have small parts in this movie.Especially Madonna and Michael J. Fox are very funny.Another great part of the movie are the statistics of Brooklyn(Belgian Waffles?!).
Although this movie is always seen as an add-on for Smoke I think that Blue in the Face is far superior to it's older brother and that movie should be more in the spotlights. 10/10 -
This is a light and fun - although intelligent - movie, worth seeing, if not for the whole marvellous opus of pop culture, for his cast alone: Harvey Keitel, Roseanne, Victor Argo and precious appearances of Lou Reed, Jim Jarmusch (as Bob, in my favorite sequence of the movie), John Lurie and Madonna, to name a few. Soundtrack by David Byrne only adds to the mix.
´Blue in the Face´ cynically, cleverly and ironically chronicles the life and the history of Brooklyn, NY. Watch it, it´s independent cinema at its best. -
itamarscomix14 January 2012A companion piece to Smoke rather than a sequel, and as such it works well enough, but the fact that it's made mostly of outtakes and improvisations is easily detectable, and it feels far too disjointed, while still trying rather feebly for a coherent storyline, especially in the epilogue. However, the acting is good enough that many scenes shine through, some of the cameos feel forced but most of them are spot-on (brilliant appearances from Madonna, Roseanne and Jim Jarmusch especially) and it's enjoyable for fans of the original Smoke as well as Jarmusch fans, although all too often it feels like a Jarmusch carbon copy that doesn't have Jim's unique spark and vision.
-
rainking_es20 August 2004After filming Smoke, director Wayne Wang and writer Paul Auster (along with most of the crew and cast from that movie) decided to improvise some kind of tribute to the Brooklyn district. So we find the same tobacconist's in the same street-corner, and managed by the same guy (Harvey Keitel). Surrealist reflexions, small talks, and some of the freaks/weirdos that make up the Brooklyn "fauna". Auster and Wang invited to take part in this "hobby" some of their friends, such as Jim Jarmusch, Lou Reed, Roseanne, and Madonna in person.
Take it or leave it. I don't think they made this movie with any pretension in particular but to have fun, and improvise. So don't you think you'll find here sort of a masterpiece, nor the biggest script ever, 'cause you won't.
It has some acid and lucid sequences, and lots of witty dialogues... and for the non-americans Blue In The Face is such a good way to know about Brooklyn's ways of life and history. That's all.
My rate: 7/10 -
paul2001sw-121 October 2003'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.
-
Cristi_Ciopron20 September 2008I have founded this semidocumentary about the Brooklynian way of life from an ordinary man's POV rather amusing and compellingand 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 causethe Jarmusch/ Madonna brands ). The movie is, as I suggested, ironicyet _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 attemptslike some Mamet outings . It's not insightful or meaningfulbut funny, light, enjoyable. It is also cruel and merciless in exposing empty livespeople 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 succeedat 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 childishbut, 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 styleand even be a stylish thing. Maybe they meant different realities, or maybe things changed too much. -
maurizio-1114 September 2001Blue 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! -
fredrikgunerius28 February 2023Paul Auster and Wayne Wang's follow-up to their wonderful slice of life Smoke, shot more or less simultaneously with that film and released a few months later. Blue in the Face is a more loosely scripted film consisting of vignettes and interviews with some real-life locals and some familiar faces from Smoke who go in and out of character and offer their musings on life in general and Brooklyn in particular. Although the source material may have consisted of somewhat random bits and pieces, the film is expertly assembled by the directors and editor Christopher Tellefsen, and the result is a little semi-gem of everyday philosophy about urban life in the 1990s. Free-flowing conversations filled with nostalgia and various mundane topics create a seemingly authentic document from a neighbourhood in change. With marvellous cameos by Lou Reed and Jim Jarmusch.
-
Sleepensheep15 January 2005Actors can improvise when a script is provided to build from, but this movie started only with characters and then allowed bad actors, and horrible writers, to deliver off the cuff lines. This is the movie actors do when they want to "really experience their craft". Unfortunately, one learns, without writers, these actors have no craft. The movie is most unfortunate because it followed a very nice movie, "Smoke", and came from a very good write, "Auster". Someone, Auster and Wang most off all, should have finished the movie but then recognize it for what it is, a behind the scenes ego-trip for everyone involved, and just included it as an interesting bit on the Smoke DVD.
-
The_Vertigo_Edge26 September 2002Whenever "Blue in the Face" comes up in conversation, nothing angers me more then hearing it compared to as a sequel to "Smoke." It is clearly not a sequel. When talking about "Goldeneye" you don't refer to it as just another sequel to "Dr. No" in the James Bond series. While "Smoke" was a drama, "Blue in the Face" takes a comical look at those who go in and out of a corner tobacco shop in the heart of Brooklyn. Besides, you can't compare a fully scripted film like "Smoke" to an almost completely improvised approach in "Blue in the Face."
Harvey Keitel plays Auggie Wren, the man behind the counter of the Brooklyn Cigar Store, who acts as a homing beacon for some of the most colorful characters in Brooklyn, including a mentally unstable girlfriend, a rapping watch dealer, an owner and his wife having marriage trouble, and so on. The cast also includes Jim Jarmusch, Malik Yoba, Victor Argo, Madonna, Lily Tomlin, Roseanne, Mel Gorham and Mira Sorvino to name a few.
The topics covered in this film include Brooklyn, the Dodgers, smoking, eye glasses, lack of communication, relationships, surveys and much more.
One of the unique elements of "Blue in the Face" is the use of both the film footage, and interview footage of the actual residents of Brooklyn all tying together. Add on to that little introductions to each section of the film by legendary musician Lou Reed, the film flows through each subject very smoothly.
If your in the mood for a great independent film, check out "Blue in the Face" at your local video store. Just be sure not to start comparing it to "Smoke" as you watch it, otherwise you will get less enjoyment out of the film.
9/10 -
Sylviastel17 April 2013Brooklyn, New York has changed over the last 18 years since this film first premiered. The location near Prospect Park is now one of the most desirable locales to live and reside in the borough and even in New York City. Brooklyn's transformation from a working class borough has changed in some parts. Brooklyn has become hip for the trend setters. It also gentrified in areas especially near the Prospect Park, Brooklyn's Central Park. Still, the film reminds me of another time when Brooklyn wasn't so hip or trendy but real. The people of Brooklyn and New York City like Harvey Keitel, Lou Reed, and others recall their likes and dislikes as well. They spend their time smoking at the Brooklyn Cigar Shop where Augie played by Keitel is the manager but not the owner. The cast includes top notch performers like Lily Tomlin, Lou Reed, Roseanne, Mira Sorvino, etc. A lot of the film's script seems improvised but it makes the film more authentic to documenting the life in a day.
-
triple-x27 March 1999Possibly the worst film ever made, "Blue in the Face" is the worst incidence of actor over-indulgence and N.Y. self-congratulation ever captured on celluloid. A downright queasily embarrassing exercise in forced, flailing improv, the terribleness of the film is made all the more baffling by a)its pedigreed cast, including Harvey Keitel, Mira Sorvino, Jim Jarmusch, and dozens more; and b)the fact that its source material (for characters and settings, anyway) is the lyrical and engaging 1995 film "Smoke" (my vote for the 2nd best film of that year, after "Crumb"). "Blue in the Face" is one of the few films that could actually be described (with pinpoint accuracy!) as unwatchable.
-
gunnar-318 November 2000Blue in the face might be boring to many because it doesn't follow a standard hollywood paradigm of rising action, climax, resolve. It is more documentary style, although fictitious, and quickly jumps from story to story and character to character. The editing is an interesting component because it successfully brings together disparate themes and characters (who are improvising their lines and stories to some degree). This and some fantastical elements provide a very romanticized view of Brooklyn. Altogether a cohesive piece with some nice performances and some insight into what it is to growup and live in a special loved place.
-
Jerry-13722 April 2000Now I know what John Rocker was talking about. He spoke the truth of course. This was a good entertaining movie with some of everything about Brooklyn and some great cameos. Was it stupid? Of course it was but fun anyway.
-
lee_eisenberg8 August 2006This semi-sequel to "Smoke" continues the adventures of Auggie Wren (Harvey Keitel) and his friends. I thought that the most interesting part was Jim Jarmusch as the man smoking his last cigar. But overall, "Blue in the Face" looks at life in general. Maybe it's not quite as great as the original, but still definitely worth seeing. And I remember when I saw it in the theater that it featured Jerry Garcia's last music video. Really good.
All in all, this is another example of how great indie cinema is. Also starring Michael J. Fox, Roseanne, Lily Tomlin, Jared Harris, Giancarlo Esposito, John Lurie and Madonna. -
aLPiNa9 August 2000A nice movie, seems to have a subtle but interesting influence by many of the persons appearing: Jim Jarmusch, John Lourie, Madonna, etc. It's funny and has still has some realistic goals. Others say it was terrible; I really don't think so. Maybe it's a kind of "post-modern" movie communicating really serious thoughts and not going into comedy, while seeming not serious at all.
-
jorda-manaut21 August 2006I saw this film twice. As a cinema lover, I perfectly know what Paul Auster and, most of all, the actors, wanted to show in this movie. It's just a global view of Brooklyn: what's good or funny or bad up there. The story is alright. But that's not what disappointed me when I saw it. What really bugged me was the way some characters were depicted. The female characters,for example, ( Violeta !!) are really dire. They are a summation of all "female" defaults: yelling, crying, spoiled, selfish, and so on. What a pity...Though there are some funny scenes, I must admit (especially the shots featuring Lou Reed). There are also pretty great shots showing John Lurie (one of the best actors ever) playing with his jazz band.
-
artzau11 January 2001Two things need to be understood, Brooklyn and Wayne Wang. Can those of you who saw Chang is Missing, really pretend that Wayne Wang's films push the envelope? I mean, it's always a bit beyond the cutting edge with WW. A great film maker, he has a great sense of humor and is smart enough to let actors take their heads sometimes. OK. Now, Brooklyn. Forget this crap about "New York," if you know Brooklyn and especially, the OLD Brooklyn of, say, 1956, that last great year of the Dodgers [I was a young Naval officer there in Brooklyn Naval Shipyard that year], then you know there's a HUGE cultural barrier separating NY from there. Now, you're getting warm. OK, when I saw Smoke, I saw a teaser of a sequel. Now, we all know sequels generally suck but Smoke had that extra something that made me want to risk a buck to see Keitel in action again. Well, waited and waited and then, this is on the shelves. It's a GEM! Don't listen to those chumps who don't know squat about WW or Brooklyn and, hey, let me ask you...did you pay to go see that Star Wars Prequel? Sure you did. So don't gripe. This is the great SMOKE PREQUEL! Go Wayne Wang! Up with Brooklyn, old (definitely not new, i.e ., LA) Dodgers, Belgian waffles, and Sexy Puerto Rican girls dialoguing with themselves in the mirror, saying "Ju lik Epanish gorls?" YES!
-
bwaynef31 March 1999The monologues by Lou Reed, as well as the scene with Harvey Keitel and Jim Jarmusch (preparing to smoke his last cigarette) would be a perfect addition to a "special edition" video release of the terrific "Smoke." Otherwise, this is nothing but a curiosity piece of interest only to the most avid admirers of the earlier film (like me).
-
Wang's followup to Smoke is a series of improvised scenes put together to represent the diveristy of Brooklyn's culture. Meanwhile Auggie is struggling with Vinnie's decision to sell the cigar store.
The "plot" to this film doesn't really matter. This was shot in the time that was left over when Smoke wrapped earlier than scheduled. In many ways this is a much better film. It's a huge amount of fun to watch and it all ends in a street party - it all makes you want to live in Brooklyn and meet all these weird and wonderful people that live there. It's sketchy nature can mean that it feels a little piecey but most of it is funny or interesting and you may not notice it's lack of structure. The actual story is actually quite good - Vinnie's decision to shut the store is handled as a threat to the friendships that exist around the story and also the importance of such places in holding the community together. It makes a good point and, mixed with the humour, isn't hard to swallow at all.
The cast are good - many of Smoke's faces are still there and are complimented by famous faces. Stars such as Fon, Roseanne, Madonna, Lou Reed, Jim Jarmusch, Lily Tomlin, Ru Paul etc all make cameos - Madonna isn't great but MJ Fox is really funny. The remainder of the cast are made up of real quality actors such as Victor Argo, Harvey Keitel and Giancarlo Esposito to name a few.
Overall this is a light reward for watching the slighly heavier Smoke. Both films are good in their own way but this is the most fun to watch. -
Mr Pants11 September 2002This is a great little set piece to celebrate the diversity and chaos that is, among many other things, my home. Brooklyn is the main character of this story and despite the film's limited scope (set mostly around a tobacco store near Windsor Terrace), it manages to really get at that feeling that makes Brooklyn the only place I wanna live. All the people here, whether they're bored by Brooklyn or fascinated by it, are connected by the genuinely weird way we manage to live together, despite our very prominent differences.
-
MovieFan98326 January 1999This was horrible, it wasn't even funny, or anything. It was dumb, pathetic. I wasted my time 0 stars or 1. Rated R for strong language and some nudity.
-
Kathryn-324 May 2001I can see why people might dislike this movie, but I love it. It's a set of improvised scenes and interviews patched together to form a sort of a story. Definitely not an ordinary movie.
It takes place in and around the cigar store at the center of the film Smoke. The only character from Smoke is Auggie, the cigar store manager, played by Harvey Keitel. Past that, it has nothing to do with the storyline of Smoke.
It is really a love letter to the Park Slope neighborhood in Brooklyn, celebrating all the characters who live there. There are so many great standout hilarious scenes in this film. My favorites are the interviews with musician Lou Reed and indie director Jim Jarmusch, as well as the film about the guy who spends his spare time taking plastic shopping bags out of the trees in Prospect Park. Lots of other funny cameos too - Madonna, Mira Sorvino, Giancarlo Esposito, Michael J. Fox, Roseanne and Malik Yoba. And Auggie's hot mama Puerto Rican girlfriend, played by Mel Gorham, is a riot.
I think it is very well executed and should be viewed as a bold, light-hearted experiment. It just looks like the actors are having so much fun, it is hard to resist. Give it a try, preferably as a double-feature with Smoke.