Honestly, is this really a movie? It's hardly seems like it was. I wouldn't call this a movie, in my opinion, because films to me, are quite literally "moving pictures". There is nothing in the film to look at, besides a single shot of saturated blue color filling the screen for 1 hour & 17 minutes. This isn't a movie. It's an art-house experimental art project! While, it's not a movie, in my terms; Blue does have a way to move its message along the film's run time. It does this, by using audio clips of director Derek Jarman's testimony about his life, assisted by voice actors & actors; John Quentin, Nigel Terry and Tilda Swinton. This is interwoven with beautiful sound effects, and amazing music by Simon Fisher-Turner & Brian Eno, throughout the film. While, the audio-piece does have some unstructured thoughts, coming in, far left and distant right with no clear path in narrative. The majority of it, does tell a somewhat clear story. It tells the story about coming to terms with death. Very heavy stuff. Before the film was even made, Derek Jarman lose his vision due to AIDS-related complications and was near death. In many ways, the single shot of saturated blue color is a metaphor for sightlessness; the blindness before death. In a way, Jarman wanted his final film to mirror his own sight about dying. For the most part, the gimmick kinda works. This experimental film does make the audience, somewhat think. The movie has sound effects of both the wind and the ocean waves, which symbolism, both life (water) and the afterlife (heaven). It gives the viewer, a sense of vision, without the use of the eyes. The talk toward the end of the life about crossing the body of water is so haunting. It remind us as if he's travelling down the River Styx, seeing those friends and lovers that did not make it. The chiming of a gong heard occasionally throughout the film as Jarman reads out the victims of AIDS is very moving. The ticking of the clocks and the tolling of a bell, gives a sense of how much time, he still has left. The film covers all the fear, self-loathing, and even thoughts of suicide that Jarman is going through. The story of the film moves like radio show program or an early version of a video podcast, but since the movie is so melancholy. It's hard for people to get through this film. Some people might find the movie, a bit too depressing to watch. There is little humor in it and much of it, isn't that entertaining. Another problem with the film is the odd mix of emotions. Jarman's out there signature style of lyrical combination of classic theory, anecdote and poetry might, conflict with the realistic tone of the rest of the film as Jarman takes the audience through, the day to day struggles of living with the disease. The reading by Tilda Swinton from the book, Chroma: A Book of Color does not match well, with the rest of the film, in my opinion. Another pet peeve, that I didn't like, about the film is how often, they use the word 'blue' or use the color, as symbolism. Come on! Couldn't Derek Jarman be a little smarter, and use some other symbol as a metaphor of death for once. Hearing the word, 'blue' for the first 30 minutes was alright, but hearing the word, throughout the film was a bit repetitive. Still, that isn't the worst problem with this film. The biggest problem with the film has to be the blue visual. I know that the filmmakers wanted to use the blue screen as a Ganzfeld effect AKA perceptual deprivation effect to get closer to God, but I don't think, it's healthy. Having the brain amplifying neural transmitted electrical signal AKA noise in order to look for the missing visual signals is not a good thing. The noise is interpreted in the higher visual cortex, has gave rise to hallucinations. Not only that, it make the audience get dizzying, nauseating or hypnotic -- depending on your sensory makeup or your attitude to visual deprivation. Overstimulation has been known as a torture device. While, it's good as an allegory to death, it's not good as long term visual. It will cause the loss of one's on vision, especially when it means everything to you. The film remind me of Russian Abstract artist, Kazimir Malevich's Black, White & Red Square paintings from the Turn of the Century. The movie is pretty much, just a big example of Suprematism art. Suprematism is an art movement that focused on basic geometric forms, such as circles, squares, lines, and rectangles, painted in a limited range of colors. In many ways, the movie might be blue print copy of Blue Monochorme by artist, Yves Klein. The movie seem to also very similar to the short-lived ambient sketch-comedy radio program Blue Jam that had a parallel concept. The title of the movie has a habit of getting people, very confused. First off, while, the movie does describe homosexual sex, the movie isn't adult film or amateur pornography. It's not that kind of a blue film. Second off, it's not part of the Three Colors trilogy. Blue, a French drama film by Krzysztof Kieślowski is a different film. The DVD picture quality isn't that good. The old transfer seem to be made from a used cinema copy. It's full of dirt, dust, and reel change mark's every 20 minute. The film also is missing subtitles for hearing impaired. It sucks, particular for a film like this. Overall: While, the monochrome movie might seem pretentious, trendy, self-indulgent. It's also brilliant. Watch this film with an open mind. It might be stressful to watch, but it will empower you with a new level of perspective about life.

If you like the color Blue then this movie is for you. Because that's the long and short of it. If you close your eyes you might get more out of it besides retinal strain. Meant to be a philosophical journey this film is not for the easily distracted and/or the intellectually impaired. This is a thinking person's movie and it definitely requires a thinking person's mind. If you like this movie let me recommend to you another movie made in 2004 called "What the Bleep Do We Know?". This movie will hit home with people who can relate to the director. I know a got more out of it then most because I can relate to his continuous hospital stays. The idea of waiting and waiting for something to come on the screen mirrors what the director is talking about when he is waiting and waiting to either lose his sight, or his imminent death from aids. A good movie, but definitely not for someone who is not intellectual.

Blue had the prestige to be the first film to be shown on television and broadcast on radio at the same time, something not likely to be challenged for a long time. Naturally this doesn't make it a good movie, and if you think the films blue screen is a gimmick then you'll probably feel the same about this, however, you'd be wrong.Pretentious? Well, i think an hour and a half of blue screen by anyone who wasn't going blind at the time would be pretentious, with Blue he was operating within his capabilities, and at the same time giving the viewer an appreciation of what it is to be blind. You think an hour and a half of this is irritating, well I presume Jarman thought that too. Watching the blue screen isn't meant to be fun, but it certainly helps draw attention to what is being said, which is the most important part of all. There was no blue screen when aired on the radio, so you could even argue its superficiality on that point. Once you get over the fact that Jarman has robbed you of anything visual, then can you truly appreciate a very honest piece of work by a talented man

Derek Jarman's final work is perhaps his most unusual. The visuals are nothing but a solid screen of bright blue. The soundtrack is a montage of sound effects, voice overs, and music. The dialogue is Derek Jarman's coming to terms with himself, and his terminal illness.Some will find the whole affair a pretentious bore. Others will find it a moving farewell from a groundbreaking British film-maker who was completely blind by the time the film was completed. He broke the rules, especially with this film, and it's probably how he wanted to be remembered.