Watch Blue in the Face For Free

Absolutely the worst movie.

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

A 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.

After 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

"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.

Another underwhelming contribution from Wayne Wang. Why do people mention him in the same breath with other master directors? Even after the execrable `Anywhere But Here' and `Maid in Manhattan'? This tiny tiny film is occasionally amusing, infrequently insightful, and shrill and inane most of the time. Most of the cast appears quite uncomfortable improvising. The real reason to watch the movie is for Jim Jarmusch's short scene, cut into several small slivers. Lou Reed is occasionally interesting but more often aimless; the rest make almost no impression, even Harvey Keitel. It can only suffer more in comparison to its companion piece `Smoke.' Another film where the characters are `colorful' meaning `annoying cartoons,' for further viewing on the subject watch Alan Rudolph's execrable `Trixie.' Jarmusch is the only gem here, everything he says is funny, incisive, or both.Hopefully Paul Auster will write more for the screen. Movies with screenplays, that is. I don't think directing is the way to go, though. This film suggests that an excellent documentary is waiting to be made about the different boroughs of New York City and the intense territoriality shown by the natives.