criterionforum.org

A Q&A with Jarmusch and a peek at the diary of production designer Eugenio Caballero.

Dana Stevens doesn't like it.

Ebert gives it half a star.

kaujot wrote:Ebert gives it half a star.

That acts as a solid endorsement for me since he also hated Dead Man.

Indeed. Ebert's review actually makes me want to see the film even more. I was afraid that Jarmusch had got lost in mainstream territory, but apparently that is not the case.

Jarmusch looks a lot like Tom Waits in that picture.

Ebert's review was just weird. Just spit things out man, you're not writing a story.

Will be definitely watching this next week though.

Ha ha! That Ebert review is one of the more entertaining things I've read recently. It reminded me in a certain way of Opinion essays in The Onion. Loved it. Also, I'm sure I will love this movie.

The Dvdtalk review. It seems there are no limits of control when it comes to calling this film a boring failure.

I'm pretty sure that most people that are willing to follow Jarmusch through the murky depths of Dead Man, find each individual segment of Coffee and Cigarettes fascinating, and find Ghost Dog more profound than silly and fun, will have no trouble swallowing The Limits of Control. As a restrained Jarmusch enthusiast who thinks that the height of his career was Down By Law and who enjoys Dead Man as a beautiful exercise in style and little more than that, I found The Limits of Control to simply be another Jarmusch movie. Certainly his films haven't undergone the kind of decline that Scorsese's or Woody Allen's seem to have, but it was hard to be very excited about The Limits of Control. It's nice and slow, and definitely a refreshing break from everything else in the theaters, but unfortunately the film is at its strongest when nothing is happening—most of the dialogue, and all of the plot developments were really just too disappointing.

If I can remember the film as just the scenes of Mr. no-name passing matchboxes, ordering espresso, doing tai chi, listening to Schubert, and lying awake in bed with the naked girl, I can remember it as a wonderful film. If I remember Tilda Swinton's monologue, John Hurt's monologue, Youki Kudoh's monologue, Paz de la Huerta's lines, and the entire scene with Bill Murray, then I remember the awkwardness of the film, and its seeming struggle to be about something when for most of the time the film was wonderfully about almost nothing at all. I wonder if the film could have been made without those things, and what people would have thought of it then.

I agree - I'm surprised that so many of the reviews are so negative, or at least by the particular criticisms of "boring" and "pretentious."

I didn't think the film fully worked though. One thing I miss about Jarmusch is his sense of humor. Many of his past films have been quite funny, and this had humor in it, but it was often sophomoric.

It's interesting that Jarmusch, who's known as a minimalist, has made a movie that is probably his most minimalist in terms of plot, and his flashiest in terms of style. People love Doyle, but I prefer Muller. Jarmusch seems to be attempting a kind of dream logic here, but the movie's flashy formalism and constant references become distracting.

It seems that the Lone Man is kind of a cross between Blake in Dead Man and Ghost Dog. He sort of shares a profession with Ghost Dog, and has Ghost Dog's quiet discipline, but the Rimbaud quote at the beginning suggests that he (and the audience) is going on a kind of spiritual journey, like Blake. But there is never the sense that there is any real journey, which maybe is sort of the point. His encounters with other people who speak in philosophical monologues recall Waking Life, but the kid in Waking Life is fascinated by what he hears; here, it the Lone Man's failure to engage with anyone or anything detracts from any sense of an emotional or spiritual journey. Again, maybe that's the point, but I'm not so sure.

I agree with what's been said above. The film might have seemed more "deep" if it was shot on film. On HD (or overly digital intermediated film) it seems very thin. Still, it's worth a look if you just want to chillax. I haven't read any of the crix reviews yet but I don't see how anyone could hate it.

I would like to read an analysis of what it all means, but I'm not interested enough to work that out for myself. There's some red/green stuff and wrapping stuff going on, that's about all I worked out.

Barmy, where are you seeing that this was shot digital? IMDB lists it as 35mm, and I'd be surprised to hear of Doyle shooting digital on what must've been at least a somewhat decently-budgeted film. I also doubt Doyle would beat it to death in DI - he seems like the type to do as much as possible in-camera.

Yeah I edited my post after I read the Variety review, which indicated 35mm. It could certainly pass for HD. If JJ was going for a 70s art/trash vibe he may have partially succeeded thematically, but he has failed visually. The color scheme could not possibly be described as "rich".

AV Club interview with Jim Jarmusch.

Just got back and liked it despite its flaws. It seemed to be two films going to battle with itself. A Taste of Cherry film versus a pastiche of Bond and Bourne. I much preferred the Taste elements, but the humor was usually good in respect to its pastiche and I did enjoy the Murray scene which I found to be the only part of the 'plot' to pose any interesting questions or insight.

Also are any of Jarmusch's films like this or is this far from his style?

I have to gather myself, but damn was that good. It might even be a masterpiece, but it's a bit too early to tell. Needless to say, I really want to see it again. I don't really have much to say about the movie itself, because there isn't very much to say. There is very little there as far as plot. No, this is an exercise in mood and feeling; in how certain landscapes and characters make us feel emotionally and how they appear to us on a superficial level. It was a wonderful experience made much better by Christopher Doyle's camera work and Jarmusch's ability to get some fantastic, memorable performances out of his entire cast.

knives wrote:Also are any of Jarmusch's films like this or is this far from his style?

I haven't seen all of Jarmusch's movies, but I have seen quite a few, and a lot of them are almost episodic like this and nearly all of them feature that half-awake tone and pacing. Down by Law is probably the most conventionally of all I have seen and it is tied for my favorite with Dead Man, which meanders a lot like this one, but is more dialogue based in its approach to philosophy where as this is a more visual movie. That said, I don't think I've seen a movie by him I didn't like, so I'd say go ahead and explore his work on your own terms. This is probably my third favorite after the aforementioned two, however.

I would have actually picked up Dead Man today had the theater not been sold out. How you described his films definitely has my interest, and I think this film will be better a second time now that I have a better hold of it. For me the Murray scene is the most important.

Spoiler

The man just kills Murray over a girl that he never really got to know. Maybe that was his hit all along?

I don't know, but that question mark makes this such an excellent film. It is the best movie, even if it's not my favorite, that I have seen this year.

um, spoiler tag please

Yes, spoiler tag - christ! Some of us aren't so lucky you know.

Don't worry all, plot is completely irrelevant to the raison d'etre of the movie.

Barmy wrote:Yeah I edited my post after I read the Variety review, which indicated 35mm. It could certainly pass for HD. If JJ was going for a 70s art/trash vibe he may have partially succeeded thematically, but he has failed visually. The color scheme could not possibly be described as "rich".

I don't think it could pass for HD at all, Barmy. In fact, your theater must have projected it wrong or something, because the colors seemed perfectly 'rich' to me; like the scenes in the first hotel with the red reflection on the door and the yellow wallpaper, or the green of the Spanish countryside. Also: the yellow and red of the walls on the outside of the buildings with the reflections of streetlights bouncing off and the black moodiness of the café where the rehearsal is occurring.

Speaking of wrong theater presentation, looking at that first shot did anyone else think their theater had squeezed the image or were presenting it in the wrong AR before things turned normal?

knives wrote:Speaking of wrong theater presentation, looking at that first shot did anyone else think their theater had squeezed the image or were presenting it in the wrong AR before things turned normal?

I think it was supposed to look like that: it was a weird camera angle of a claustrophobic bathroom stall.

I'm sure it was, I was just relaying the thoughts that went through me at the time, curious if anyone else thought along similar lines. It is a very odd shot at the least.