Wild at Heart (1990)
5/10
Lynch attempts to out-Lynch himself
12 March 2012
Wild at Heart is not without superb elements, but overall, it's a disappointment. Lynch did what has been deadly to so many talented filmmakers - he bought into his own reputation. Wild at Heart is highly self-aware, furiously cranking up the Lynchian stylistic quirks with little awareness of the delicate balance that made former Lynch films great. Blue Velvet did descend into surreal, dark chaos, but it contrasted the depraved weirdness with common decency and compassion. Wild at Heart, on the other hand, is just a heady stew of violence, sex and bizarre happenings - very little here is recognizable as human behavior, and just about nothing as human goodness. If Blue Velvet was guilty of being a little too turned on by its own darkness, Wild at Heart is downright proud of presenting evil in a lurid, gleeful manner.

Nevertheless, if all you want from Lynch movies is memorable surrealism, wacky characters and delirious energy, Wild at Heart still offers plenty to savor. Parts of Wild at Heart do possess a mad energy and offbeat humor that is infectious. The performances are also highly entertaining - Nicolas Cage has rarely been better, and Dianne Ladd is hysterically funny in an utterly unhinged performance. But the madness of Wild at Heart all starts to seem too calculated, too soulless, and too ugly. The weirdness of Blue Velvet and Eraserhead almost always seemed organic, like a natural outgrowth of the film - Wild at Heart seems awkwardly scrambled together. Wild at Heart contains flashes of true Lynchian brilliance and a game cast, but they are lost in a nauseating, patchy, sub-par work.
14 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed