After about 30 minutes or so, I found it more interesting to watch my fingers than to watch this film. Absolutely boring beyond comprehension.
I have no interpretation to offer. It would just play into the con. This is Jarmusch trying to imagine the sound of one hand clapping. My mind was made numb by the stultifying emptiness of the thing. It’s not murderously bad. It’s shaking your head woefully and saying, “Jim, really, c’mon, man.” It is rife with film school bullshit (jokes, characters, references) which he should be beyond, at this point. What is intended as irony crashes like a lead slab. Plenty of critics, finding this a favorable experience, will dig down deep to construct some kind of defense of it. They’ll look at the shelf of possible references and they’ll pick aplenty. At his worse, Jarmusch relies heavily on attitude and the cool posture of the hipster artiste. This is Jarmusch at his worse. It looks good, though.
There’s either too much in the film or too little. It’s sort of puzzling, and you wonder what the hell Jarmusch was thinking, which is probably on purpose. No one I’ve spoken to can decide if it’s decent or completely awful, but we’re all on the same page that it’s the first film to make us really think about it in a while—since I’m Not There and There Will Be Blood for me.
But, I know I wouldn’t tolerate this film from anyone else.
Beautiful film though, just with a maddening film studenty obtuse philosophical dialog about hipsters vs squares that really pulls you out of the moody experience that is the rest of the picture. Maybe misguided, maybe way too effectively Brechtian. I know I’d enjoy it more if it were a silent film, but maybe it will prove to be something better with another viewing.
be patient with jarmusch’s films. they grow on you like maturity and age. and you can be sure theres always something bubbling under the surface of a jarmusch film. youre in good hands with him, some of the best in contemporary cinema. hes too smart, too discerning, too caring a director to make a lazy, worthless film. not saying every film of his is perfect, but i find it hard to believe that anything he does could be a total waste of time. i’m really looking forward to seeing it.
I wish I saw this film rather than Wolverine.
I enjoyed the film. I would have to say its not his best film, but not his worst either. The soundtrack was amazing and added to the experience of the entire film. I would have to say that when I left the theater I felt a little numb. As the day went on and I kept referring back to the film, it grew on me. With all the bad press associated with this film I still saw it. If you are a fan of Jarmusch, or you like boris, sunn 0))) and earth THEN GO SEE IT IMMEDIATELY :)
I mean its better than some of the shit out now!
With the limits of control, it sounds like Jarmush did a parody of himself, a compilation of his work, with signature’s ingredients from Dead man, Coffee and cigarettes and other of his movies. Just for his fans. It also reminds a lot video artist Doug Aitken’s work. Anyway, a couple of frames, perfect images, compensate for the way too long, too boring result, and the flamenco moment is simply magical in all respects.
Oh KJ, this is the silliest line I’ve read all day: “It is rife with film school bullshit (jokes, characters, references) which he should be beyond, at this point.” Although I know you’re probably referring to the specific jokes, characters and references he uses in the movie, it sounds like he should be beyond all jokes, characters and references. Heh.
Um, do the haters realise that this is the best film this decade? Because it is. It’s a masterpiece, and if a viewer has a short attention span, then they shouldn’t be watching art films. I can’t see how anyone could find this boring.
c’mon now. get up to speed. no generic, silly “you shouldnt be watching art films” attacks. we all obviously like art films on this website, and we’re all knowledgeable and supportive of different kinds of them. youre not the only one. please defend the film with some interesting thoughts about it. otherwise, take it to imdb.
A work of monumental self-indulgence in which a great director becomes a parody of himself. Jarmusch’s attempt at political commentary is so sophomoric and juvenile that you hope the film was some kind of bad joke and not the pathetic effort of an otherwise intelligent middle-aged man.
A work of monumental self-indulgence in which a great director becomes a parody of himself. Jarmusch’s attempt at political commentary is so sophomoric and juvenile that you hope the film was some kind of bad joke and not the pathetic effort of an otherwise intelligent middle-aged man.
well put Bobby and ARI.
ART FILMS? That title sends uneasiness through my bowels.
now, if you’ll excuse me, I either have to crash at 930 in the morning, go to goodwill, or watch: flight of the red balloon, hands over the city some bresson.
*please defend the film with some interesting thoughts about it. *
I’d like to hear an interpretation that helps bring meaning to this film or at least explains why someone would really like it. I’m not trying to gang up on Derek, either. I’m really curious to hear a take that would help me see the film in a different light.
Personally, I really had no idea what was going on—try as I might to come up with some way of understanding what I was watching.
I thought it was the best film of 2009 next to Tetro. I really don’t understand why many people didn’t like it. Is it because there isn’t a very clear plot? I think it was actually a very intellectual piece of work from Jarmusch.
Dalton,
I think the film is very difficult to understand, not just because the plot wasn’t clear. I’d be interesting in hearing your explanation of the film.
@ jazzaloha
Well, I understand that there is two sides to every story, and I have tried to look at the non positive views and the positive ones. What I have found, is that most people view it as pretentious, although others like the art-house feel of the film. What I liked about it was how fascinating it was and the simplicity of it, although I realized that watching the film and thinking about it are two different endeavors: both have their pleasures and neither is simple. It is also beautifully photographed by Christopher Doyle. Another thing I liked about it was the Antonioni feel it had with a little sence of emptiness.
Dalton,
I’m assuming the film made sense to you—that you have someway of understanding what was going on. That’s what I’m asking. I mean, I know the basics, such as a guy was hired to some executive. But I’m interested in an interpretation that gives more meaning to the film.
@jazzaloha
Well, my interpretation was that the main character was hired for an assination on an important man who runs diamond mines, (which is the reason for the actual diamonds that are included in the film) and the main character took the job because he worked in the mines, so i feel that it was for revenge, in a sense. I know there is a lot that still doesn’t make sense, but that is just what I understood for the plot.
Dalton, I don’t mean to pry but you didn’t find that whole confrontation with the “American” to be corny and sophomoric? You know, the whole Bill Murray-as-Dick Cheney thing with dialogue that appeared written by a Chomsky-channeling Freshman in a liberal arts college playwriting class attempting some “serious” political commentary (and I say this as someone who probably shares Jarmusch’s politics).
@ari
I wouldn’t really say corny, but I do understand what your trying to say. I think it was more preachy and unnecessairy, although just because of think, I wasn’t completely blown off.
@Dalton R
That is a brilliant interpretation!! The diamonds and the American…..it makes so much sense to me now. ( I just watched the film a few hours ago and i was trying to make some sense of it.) I felt like the clothes he changed into at the end of the movie had something to do with where he comes from but I couldn’t put my finger on it.
I had been wanting to watch this film ever since the trailer was out and I’ve been sitting on my hands just waiting for it. I was dissapointed about the reviews but I still wanted to see it for myself. I enjoyed the film to be honest but my patience was put to the test. It is understandable why it got poor reviews and why a lot of people didn’t like it.
I would interpret the film as a story imagined in someones head as he looks at a series of art, poetry, architecture and music. So all the art and music are all connected with a plot of a man either hired or on his own vendetta trying to kill ‘The Man’ or ‘The Suit’. It almost felt to me like whatever happened around the Lone Man was surreal. He even says that he broke into the American’s office by using his imagination. The Guitar also gives his opinions on Bohemians.
I would love to watch the movie again with more insight i’m sure i’ll like it even more.
Love the site by the way. Just joined!!
Looked great but boy, did the ending stink of hot garbage.
Ari: What made the final dialogue with Murray any less simplistic than the rest of the conversations in the film? They were deliberately vague and shallow, in my opinion. They didn’t mention politics at all either, only differing ways of looking at the world.
I love slow movies, and am a fan of Jarmusch’s earlier work, but this film is just awful. I was very tempted to turn it off halfway through but forced myself to finish it in hoped it would turn into something interesting. It didn’t. It looked nice, and that’s the only positive thing I can say about it.
This was highly disapointing, shallow, dull, calculated, pretentious and mediocre at the same time. this for not saying stupid.
A complete waste of Doyle’s exquisite images, I can’t believe i was actually expecting something good out of this, Jarmusch is way past his bed time. He claims to have made a film inspired by the spirit and sensibilities of Rivette’s films, a complete misunderstanding.
I would even call Broken Flowers a masterpiece after this.
Dalton, et. al.
I just finished this film, and here’s where I fall in on it:
Every speaking character aside from the assassin represents an aspect of the Humanities, and the villain obviously represents Capitalism.
So Arts and Sciences destroying Capitalism is what this film is all about.
Yes, it takes awhile to unravel, but int he meantime we are witness to examples of beauty in art, architecture, dance—reinforcing the theme of the film.
Shallow? You don’t look deep enough.
Dull? You have no patience.
Calculated? This is not an argument.
Pretentious? Pardon me while I puke.
Mediocre? No. Borderline exquisite.
But to each their own. If you only look at the surface, that is all that reflects back. This film is all about the meta.
Josh,
That interpretation has potential (i.e. I would buy it). Unfortunately, I don’t remember enough specifics of the movie to “test it.” You may not be able to do this, but if you could give specifics examples from the film to support that interpretation, that would be great!
How does the title fit into that interpretation?
Anthony N
The response is surprisingly negative, but there are plenty who still love the film.
Any thoughts or interpretations on the film? Does this film deserve its critical reaction?