I'd have to agree with some of the other comments and say what a bad idea this was. Tedious to the extreme. For a start, cinema should be full of visuals however good or bad, that's the whole point of a visual/audiable medium. It just seems like a self indulgent piece of art. (Though I suppose all films/art is just that) I genuinely thinkthis would make an interesting radio play. But as a cinematic experience it is VERY poor. Watching a blue screen continually for 2 hours would make anyone shuffle in their seat. Can't imagine what the edit must have been like!!! Even the voice over seems a strained and boring though, like someone reading from a book for the first time. A lack of passion almost for the material.For radio 6 out of 10. For Film 3... and that's at a push.

Blue is here emptiness, emptiness is blue; blue is no other than emptiness, emptiness is no other than blue; that which is blue is emptiness, that which is emptiness is blue. The same can be said of red, orange, yellow, green, indigo and violet.All things here are characterized with emptiness: they are not born, they are not annihilated; they are not tainted, they are not immaculate; they do not increase, they do not decrease. Therefore, in emptiness there is no blue, no red, no orange, no yellow, no green, no indigo, no violet; no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; no form; no film, sound, color, taste, touch, objects, no element of vision, till we come to no element of consciousness; there is no knowledge, no ignorance, till we come to there is no old age and death, no extinction of old age and death; there is no suffering, no accumulation, no annihilation, no path; there is no knowledge, no attainment, no realization, because there is no attainment.

Jarman's "Blue," a feature consisting entirely of a blue screen with voice-overs, has succeeded in annoying viewers with its seemingly uninventive approach to the cinematic personal narative. As so much of what we have come to consider "good" filmaking relies primarily on our sense of sight and our ability to absorb and process hundreds of CGI critters flashing before our eyes, it is easy to forget that a "good film" relies as much if not more so on the story than it does on the visuals.Jarman's story is one that does not need visuals to support it. Reflecting upon his life in the face of his rapidly approaching death, Jarman's memories and meditations offer the viewer (listener, really) a window into the soul of a director who is losing the most important sense he could posses: his sight. Blue was the last color available to him before AIDS related complications robbed him of his sight. As he stands before death and stares it straight in the face, Jarman's writings put forth a suprising feeling of calmness, as he has accepted his own finitude and shares his meditations with us in this, his last masterpiece.

Losing his eyesight, Derek Jarman made this remarkable shortfeature in which his diaristic reminiscences, and commentary onhis current degeneration from AIDS symptoms, are set against aplacid musical score and a cool, empty blue background. An obviously simple idea, but what an amazingly rich one: Jarmanhas created the closest movie experience to a director talking tothe inside of your head. The concomitant feelings of control-losingpeace and terrifying hallucination (one obviously starts to projectimages into the blue blankness) are...well, so obviously apt, aren'tthey? For a film about spirit, and about the interiorness ofeveryone's reactions, BLUE is remarkably controlled in its effects.It provides an experience adult viewers haven't had much sincechildhood--of letting go and getting lost.