Very disappointing...

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

The film is not a film. It is a radio show. Derek Jarman is dying of AIDS and he tells us how he sees his disease and his coming death. For him the color is blue, because blue is the sky, it is absolute limitless space and it is the perfect color for going to the other side of the gate or door or portal you have to cross on your last breath. After that point you do not need to breathe any more.The story, if it is a story, is poignant but told on a rather desultory tone and with as much poetry as possible. He explains what this disease means for him and probably for many others in his case. He repeats the names of the men he has loved and who may have infected him or who he may have infected. Sad and tragic that love led to death. I say love and I follow Derek Jarman on that term, but in fact it was not love. It was sexual intercourse and most of the time nothing much more in those post 68 years when everything was possible and everyone was doing it. Well everyone, not, really, but many considered promiscuity as a norm and bisexuality as a must. As Derek Jarman says he has to resign himself to the disease and the coming death. The drugs used in those years were very experimental, had tremendous side effects and were nothing but tinkering about with what doctors had under their hands and fingers and research went very slowly, when it was funded, which was not the case everywhere in the world.And then Derek Jarman has to come to terms with his life, what he had done, what he would have done, what he did not do, and he has to build a balance sheet of his work: has he achieved enough for his films to survive his own death? Probably, though some of these films are aging rather fast. And then he has to push suicide aside and he has to cope with the pain and try to find some peace of mind to move on and pass to the other side in serendipity. And his telling his last moments of consciousness on this planet must have helped him to find some catharsis with death.Apart from that the radio show that is behind this constant blue screen is a testimony of a social and human situation and it is nothing else. The testimony is done with great talent but it is being carried away by the wind of time. The situation does not have any duration in itself. It is already in the past for the countries where safe sex is a real objective and the present treatment is available. It will not cure you but it will give you a more or less normal life for quite a good number of years. But it remains necessary to revisit what it was in the past not to slacken our efforts to find a real cure."Glitterbug," that generally accompanies this "Blue," is only a montage and collage of tit bits from Derek Jarman's personal super eight and video documents he left behind after his death. This film is a testimony about him and his work and life in order to pay our respects to the departed filmmaker.Apart from that dimension the film does not really bring anything new about the man or his films. And since it was not professional camera work, it is not even comparable to his work. So this documentary gives us an intimate vision of the man and the people around him and this is a good thing to give some human depth to a man who went away too fast.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

Blue. Hmmm. Blue, in case you aren't aware by now is a film with no visuals whatsoever, it is simply a blue screen.It amuses me no end that reviewers are stating that blue was a better colour to choose over others. As if it's really clever to use the colour blue as opposed to red, or green, or anything. What on earth are they talking about? It's a blank screen. And besides, how do they know blue is better? Have they sat for 79 minutes in front of screens all the colours of the rainbow and afterwards thought "you know, watching a yellow screen just isn't as satisfying as watching a blue one, I'm giving this film a 10"I noticed a review on IMDb that has stated this film does not even need visuals. What is a film without visuals I ask you? It's a radio play, surely. The fact that this is released as a film but is nothing but a blue screen is just a joke on the audience. However, as with all 'art' there are always people who will take it really seriously and credit such things as innovative, original, new and refreshing.Film is a visual medium. To stare at a blank screen for 79 minutes while listening to narration is entirely pointless. Your eyes need visuals and if nothing is happening in front of them they naturally look somewhere else. To have to force yourself to stare at a blue screen is insanity. Unfortunately I am unable to comprehend why other reviewers state the blue screen is to be appreciated. I would be willing to bet that had an unknown film maker done such a thing it would not get the respect it is getting. Likewise I do not believe said reviewers would stare at a blue wall and wax lyrical about how stunning it is, but should Derek Jarman (were he still alive) come and frame the wall I can imagine they would never be able to stop talking about it.And that is where this film would appear to get its audience - people who would never normally appreciate such things until a respected artist comes along and tells them how wonderful it is.

Anyone who's been to the Tate in London or MOMA in New York finds themselves facing an interesting dilemma: am I being ignorant or is this some joke I'm not getting? Do I not understand the importance of having a canvas all one color, or is someone getting paid for a much easier job than I have? Should I publicly deride this load of nonsense, or get rid of my briefcase, buy some square black glasses, and get short spiky hair? And so it is with this glorious practical joke of a movie that has Mr Jarman laughing to the bank, Tilda Swinton getting so surreal that at some point her body is going to evaporate from the implausibility of her entire career, and once more goodbye to another ten dollars wasted on a popcorn-less experience at some new weird Village cinema.I'd really be interested to hear if anyone disagrees at me, but first please qualify your comments with a disclaimer guaranteeing that you've not taken Class A drugs recently, and don't have said square glasses and spiky hair. Gentlemen, the floor is yours.

As the title implies, during the whole film the screen is simply the color blue - with voice-overs. Exceedingly irritating and artificial idea.