Out of all the Lynch movies I've seen, this is my second favorite film of his. Right above Blue Velvet and below Mulholland Drive. This director has made some o the most original films I've ever seen. His stories are simplistic, but the way he presents his films are unlike anything I've seen in films. He is able to present his films in a way where is engaging while at the same time very blissful and dream-like. The dream-like elements in his movies gives so much unpredictability in where the story is going. Making his films feel mystical and atmospheric but also very nightmarish. No other filmmaker can encompass this aesthetic more uniquely than David Lynch. Wild at Heart is a film that has all the magic that I love about Lynch in this comedically nightmarish, romantic road movie. It's not his most serious movie if we're judging it solely as a drama. There are elements in the movie that I could understand people not getting into. But for me personally, this is a film that I can get the most enjoyment out of almost all of Lynch's filmography. It doesn't have the same impact that Mulholland Drive had. That movie is where Lynch perfected his craft and made a one of a kind masterpiece. For Wild at Heart, it's a film that embraces the surreal element rather than absorbing within. But upon revisiting and how it resonated with me in a personal sense, this movie is the kind of film that has so much re-watchable value for me. It's nightmarish, it's intense, it's comedic, it's beautiful. The acting is great, Nicolas Cage giving one of his best performance I've ever seen. It's not a film that I would recommend to first time David Lynch viewers. I would recommend them watching either Blue Velvet or Mulholland Drive first, or maybe the Twin Peaks series. Other than that, I truly adore this film. It's almost everything that I can ever ask for from a popular surrealist filmmaker.

Story and its linearity are not quite typical for Lynch, but his directing is obvious from the first scene. At times I wanted to pause the movie just to go to IMDb and give it pure ten and then at times I was at the edge to give up on this crap. That kind of conflicted reactions only Lynch can cause. Movie reminds me quite a lot of Natural Born Killers, or should I reverse it considering this one is older. And Laura Dern reminds me of Juliette Lewis too, mostly by acting, but facially in some cadres too. I think Dern and Cage are ugliest movie couple i ever saw and still they have such magical charisma together. Angelo Badalamenti did excellent job with music once again and Cage is surprisingly good in his numbers. Movie is over two hours long and, although it has lots of legendary scenes I will never forget, it has some completely redundant and even cheesy scenes in typically Lynch manner. If he could just cut off those few scenes to bring movie down to more compact shape and size it would be, if not ten, at least strong nine. But in shape it is now I can not give it more than7,5/10I was blown away by scene when Willem Dafoe comes over Laura Dern i motel room. Although this movie is full of awesome scenes, this one left the strongest impression on me.Fun fact - Diane Ladd i Laura Dern, who play roles of mother and daughter, are in fact mother an d daughter in real life. :D

Yawn.I had such high expectations for this movie since it's a Lynch and the premise sounds seriously bad ass. But it just isn't. 80% of this movie is just stupid dialogue (from a car), unnecessary sex scenes and Nicholas Cage being an awful actor. I was seriously looking forward to Bobby Peru and even he was a let down.As the title suggests, I did stop watching this movie prematurely. There was about 30 minutes left which came as a major surprise to me since there had been little to no build up at all and the movie was about to end.Creepy characters speaking nonsense (seriously, what the hell are the Cajuns even talking about?) does not make for a compelling movie. A swing and a miss from Lynch.

"Wild at Heart" is not one of the most famous films by David Lynch, but I think it is as worthy as his best ones. Perhaps its unique genre has been preventing a wider appreciation of the movie. The plot is deliberately simple. There are two sweethearts, Lula Fortune and Sailor Ripley. Sailor goes to prison for killing a gangster who tried to kill him. Lula's mother hates Sailor and wants her daughter to break up with him, but Lula waits for him. As soon as Sailor gets out of prison, he breaks parole and takes his love on a road-trip adventure. Wild at Heart has multiple allusions to the Wizard of Oz, with the wicked witch (Lula's mother) and the adventure and troubles of a little girl (Lula). Some of these references are even direct, like in the scene where Lula is clicking her ruby slippers. Of course, in modern times you don't walk down the yellow brick road – you drive. The lovers encounter numerous dangers on their way.PULP FICTION: Wild at Heart looks to me like a precursor to Pulp Fiction which was made by Quentin Tarantino four years later. Both movies are loaded with pop-culture references, which are a favorite fodder of postmodern directors (Wizard of Oz, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis, gangster novels). Both have a simple comic book-like plot. Even the names Sailor Ripley and Lula Fortune sound like they came from a comic book or a paperback novel. However, this simplicity is intentional - in the postmodern art the plot is usually no more than a loose guidance, a necessity used by the director to express his art. It's the same idea as when a jazz band takes a simple tune and transforms it into a completely new and fascinating art piece. There are many other similarities between the two movies. For example, the mobster's name Marcelo Santos resonates with Pulp Fiction's gangster Marcellus Wallace. Uma Thurman identifies Travolta as an Elvis man as opposed to a Beatles man – well, Lynch clearly casts Sailor as an Elvis man in his movie. But the main similarity between Wild at Heart and Pulp Fiction is the fact that in both cases we are watching an absolutely low-brow material – which normally we would skip - but are enjoying it as true art. We genuinely yearn to be around the characters, in the midst of an action, forgetting the fact that this marvelous artwork is actually built out of pulp. Tarantino will develop the same method even further with Kill Bill, but for David Lynch this is the only movie of such kind. One difference of the way Pulp Fiction is made is that the episodes in it are not sequential, even though you can mentally restore the time-line. Lynch will use the same approach later in Mulholland Drive, which is even harder to reconstruct than Pulp Fiction (although possible). The point is to take the viewer's attention away from the linear plot, from the comfort of knowing what's next, and instead focus on each episode or character alone. LYNCH'S AESTHETICS: There is a plethora of weird episodic characters in the movie, which is typical for Lynch. He always handpicks collections of bizarre and freaky creatures in his films, which are often unnecessary for the plot but create an intense mood. The pigeon- squawking man, the maniacal woman with orthopedic leg, the three fat "porn models", Mr. Reindeer (another typical comic book-like character) – the list can go on and on. This alluring ensemble of freaks and weirdos circles around our lovers on the yellow brick road. Some of them are just confusing, while others are menacing. Very few are amicable, like the old black gas station attendant who is tapping joyfully to Lula's dancing, his legs sticking out of short work overalls trousers as thin as the legs of the chair he is sitting on.ROAD HAZARDS: It feels like Lula and Sailor are the only sane people, devoid of evil tendencies, surrounded by hostile and mad reality - or perhaps they have accidentally landed in a scary fairy tale. Their journey to happiness hits snag after snag along the yellow brick road. The radio in the car keeps talking about horrible crimes and accidents on every frequency, and the atmosphere of distress is trying to put them down. They stop the car, jump out and start kissing. This may be their only way to escape, even if futile. Our heroes are alone in their adventure, and all they can hold onto is their love and the foolish snakeskin jacket, proclaimed to be a "symbol of individuality and personal freedom". But the clouds are darkening over them.ACTING: Willem Dafoe puts up an excellent performance as a remarkably despicable mobster Bobby Peru. He is repellent and attractive at the same time, and even Lula almost surrenders to him (remember her bent outward fingers – her "tell"?).Lula's mother displays a harmonious combination of murderous and humane sides, lying and trusting at the same time. Painting the face red before betraying and dooming her former lover is a fascinating scene reminiscent of the ancient theater. She is evil and vengeful, yet so feminine and vulnerable.GENRE: So is Wild at Heart a road-trip movie? A love story? A fairy tale? A gangster movie? Neither, even though it freely plays with the elements of all these genres. In order to understand it, one should drop the perception constraints of any specific genre and start enjoying the movie as a unique creation. Then the movie will open up, scene by scene, like a good wine which reveals the depth of taste as you sip it. Overall, Wild at Heart is a remarkable postmodern feature, unique in its kind for Lynch yet in the same league as Mulholland Drive and Eraserhead.