Monday, August 15, 2005

manic movie monday

Broken Flowers- Why would Jim Jarmusch cast Bill Murray in a movie and then direct him to sit there sadly, saying nothing and only let his charm peek out for a tiny moment here and there? It's like taking a dump on the Mona Lisa. That's my quotable blurb. And don't give me any of that "he's an American director that Europeans appreciate but Americans don't "get"'. I like all those other directors. Hal Hartley, Woody Allen, David Lynch, I even like Jerry Lewis for God's sake but I just don't like Jim Jarmusch movies. They are boring. Just a boring nothing that an occasional quirky character floats through. I can kind of admire the fact that his aesthetic is still permanently stuck in 1983 and he's pretending that he's going out to the Mudd Club all the time and hanging out with Basquiat and Debby Harry or whatever. If that's what his party barge is like, fine, but he needs to come up with some more compelling plots and characters. Stocking your movie with celebrities is not enough. In fact, for those of you who have seen it (and everyone I saw it with seemed in agreement that it was not that great) imagine this movie without the celebrity cameos and think of how it would have been even more boring than it already was. Half of the meager amount of fun that this movie could provide came from waiting to see when Jessica Lange or Chloe Sevigney would show up. That's not good.

Grade: D+

DB and Dub have provided me with their top 40 lists, which I may post later today so stay tuned...

15 comments:

Maya said...

Of late I have not been impressed with Jim Jarmusch's stuff. Sorry to hear this one isn't better.

alice said...

never been a jarmusch fan and i don't think i'm going to start being one now. i can't even articulate why i don't like his movies. mostly i just walk away thinking "this is what everyone was raving about?" and want to fall asleep.

Anonymous said...

"Broken Flowers" was such a disappointment. It was like an extended version of the preview. The movie didn't go beyond the surface of any of the characters. It felt completely flat and one dimensional. And the dream sequences! What shoddy, mediocre student in film-school crap was that. What was he thinking when he took clips from other scenes and pieced them together with colored effects. WEAK! WEAK! WEAK! Dreams aren't like that!!!!! Fuck you Jim Jarmusch. "Coffee and Cigarettes" was the worst. Why release your shitty b-sides when that's all they are. You didn't put them out before for a reason. But now that you're washed up, they're ok? Fuck that.

Brew

beckler said...

You're totally right about the dream sequences. I forgot about those. That coloration made them look like creepy karaoke videos. Maybe that's how Jarmusch's dreams look.

Anonymous said...

I was bored, plain and simple. It never occured to me that I would be excited for the end of a Bill Murray movie until this Saturday night. C- because the great animal communicator scene and Wilton's awesome mix CD's.
r dude.

DB said...

I have not seen "Broken Flowers", but before everyone dogpiles on Jarmusch, I'd just like to say that "Strangers in Paradise", "Down by Law", "Ghost Dog", "Dead Man", and the first third of "Mystery Train" are all between good and great.

Josh said...

I just do not fucking get Jarmusch AT ALL.

Anonymous said...

Yep, stuck in 1983 says it all.
In the interest of full disclosure, the film he made that year is my single favorite film of all time.
But he never came close to matching it, and he never will. Some of his follow-ups (not every single of them; I think he pulled of a couple really good ones, mebee in spite of himself) have been maddeningly, shake-your-hands-at-the-screen bad, just the kind of thing that Cannes juries hail as genius and laud with awards. So Jimbo, I'm sticking up for you here for "Stranger Than Paradise," but you can't go remaking the same movie for a quarter-century and expect me to ne impressed, buddy...

Christian said...

Dead Man is brilliant, but in my opinion it's his own truly successful film. Jarmusch is one of those directors you are supposed to like. Frankly, I feel exactly the same way about Werner Herzog, whose films have always felt completely amateurish to me (and his lighting is always fucking awful). The difference is that Jarmusch at least made one good film (in my opinion) and Herzog didn't and won't.

Anonymous said...

homzee said(imagine homzee in blue lettering)
Peeps should see the gus van sant film before it leaves the crest. its doing no business so i'm not sure if it will last another week!!! This movie has to be seen on the big screen, its shots are amazing.

beckler said...

Christian-
Those are fighting words. I will meet you at sundown by the dumpsters behind the SN&R. Prepare to be limply slapped in the face with a gauntlet.

Anonymous said...

Okay, I just heard Jarmusch say "I could care less" on NPR (rather than "I couldn't care less," which is the phrase that people mean to say in that instance), so in addition to being a director who's been going downhill since making a masterpiece 21 years ago, he has that strike against him.

sac said...

He's got great hair, you have to give him that. Also, he was fantastic in that Smoke flick. Perhaps he should stick to acting.

Anonymous said...

Good point. He was great in "Sling Blade."

DB said...

Jim Jarmusch was NOT in "Smoke". He was in the improvised shambles called "Blue in the Face", also known by its alternate title: "Worse Than 'Pearl Harbor'"