Don't get me wrong the idea for the film was a good one but the dialogue was so boring. Why not actually try and have them say something interesting?
Also, how many bloody times do we have to hear all the actors say "coffee and cigarettes".
Coffee and cigarettes Coffee and cigarettes Coffee and cigarettes Coffee and cigarettes Coffee and cigarettes Coffee and cigarettes
Please just shut up…
Oh, and the Iggy Pop sketch was embarrassingly bad, with both ‘actors’ desperately trying to manufacture some type of ‘oh you have accidentally offended me sketch, crap.’
this is an actor's movie. its not some mainstream piece of garbage that any director could pull off. this is an ACTOR'S MOVIE. its a film with nothing but halfway improvised skits. its sad to hear idiots call this movie horrible, because they just simply don't understand it. i don't know what you people were expecting but my guess is you'd probably prefer a movie with less taste such as "saw" or "fever pitch". enjoy.
oh. and the THEME OF THE MOVIE was coffee and cigarettes. thats why they said it so many times. it was sort of a joke. that you didn't get.
Spare me! There was no creativity here or acting. It was all schtick. I missed the great acting done by the White Stripes or the lame attempt at comedy done by Afred Molina. It was pretentious!
This is a very arty film, and in some of the segments, it doesn't really work. But mainly, this is a very good movie, with very good acting and great impro. The simplicity of the movie is very Jarmusch, these very simple themes that you have the entire movie to wonder about, instead of alot of everchanging themes (not that that is a bad thing at all).
>this is an actor's movie. its not some mainstream piece of garbage that any director could pull off.
The theme of the movie was coffee and cigarettes, that doesn't make it easier to swallow. What if he made a movie called "Rotting dog crap." And then shot 90 minutes of rotting dog crap? You may like it, but don't be surprised if people flood imdb boards with "that movie about rotting dog crap was a piece of rotting dog crap!"
This movie is undefendable. Jarmusch has become the worlds most pretentious film maker cliche alive.
I definitely preferred Saw and both versions of Fever Pitch to Coffee and Cigarettes and pretentious rotting dog crap.
are you joking me? there was no acting? thats ALL this movie was. skits! improv skits! and there wasn't any creativity? creativity as opposed to what, nesta? this was a movie where the director grabbed a group of his friends and said "hey wanna do some skits for this movie im making?". part of me wishes that nobody even knew about this movie except the ones who would actually understand where the director was coming from because too many people hate it for what its NOT.
maidiam, ur trying to tell me that you were enthralled during this whole movie, excited for what was to come next?i guess you could say i was on the edge of my seat but only because i was WAITING FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN.
im sorry but what is the point of this movie?the directors friends talking about smoking and drinking too much coffee and alfred molina realizing that hes not really that well known of a star? well then its just BRILLIANT isnt it;)
<< i guess you could say i was on the edge of my seat but only because i was WAITING FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN. >>
three words: Waiting for Godot.
the "waiting for something to happen" motif can be very enthralling in its own right, and while i won't say it's been done to perfection here, it still is something worth noting.
There's no god, no 'justice', no right v. wrong. All that is...simply is.
big- hahaha, actually, NO, i'm not trying to tell you i was "enthralled during this whole movie, excited for what was to come next." you are completely missing my point. this movie WAS nothing. just skits. just a movie to watch and see what some people drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes had to say. it was just creative writing... clever quips in dialogue. there was no beginning, middle, or end. this movie is simply a film of small skits. something that could only entertain some people. im not saying that im better than you because it entertained me... this just isn't a film that EVERYBODY could enjoy. you are a moron if you thought i was trying to say that i was on edge of my seat waiting in anticipation to what would happen next. think just a LITTLE bit before you write something so dumb and condescending. this isnt a suspense movie. now that might be where your problem is... you were waiting for the bomb attacks and car chases were going to enter in... :)
"you are a moron... think just a LITTLE bit before you write something so dumb and condescending. ... you were waiting for the bomb attacks and car chases were going to enter in..."
First, you should take some of your own advise.
Second, you're amazing... now can you tell me what was I thinking while watching this movie? No wait... what number am I thinking of right now? Can you tell me what the score of the Barcelona game is going to be Sunday?
Third, WTF is an "actor's movie?" Are you saying actors don't enjoy movies with a plot? Maybe they just fake it in every other movie... dumb it down for us non-actors... just think... all this time... I've been fooled by the best... they haven't been acting at all... I feel robbed.
In all seriousness, this film wasn't advertised as an acting lesson. I'd say that most people would agree that a movie is usually only good if it either entertains them or it stirs some kind of emotion... it is not unreasonable to say that this movie wasn't good based on that. Saying that people didn't get it, or missed the point is ridiculous. You said it yourself, it was just a bunch of people talking about coffee and cigarettes... not much to get... not much point. Give people more credit... we're not that stupid, you're not that smart.
After I saw the first skit and knew what I was in for, since I really wasn't sure to begin with, I accepted my fate and enjoyed the rest of the film. Each skit was different and as far as I remember less than 10 minutes long. It was very easy viewing. I didn't love it, but it was still fun and interesting.
this jarmusch bashing is shameful....this film is absolutely classic, a truly great film. The ACTING was what made it, along with the witty dialogue and GREAT character performances. Tom waits talking about performing road side surgery with a ball point pen, discussed later by rza to emphasise the connection between music and medicince, BRILLIANT. I do agree that its a somewhat aquired taste as with all jarmusch films. I think that people who get on here and bash this film should probably go back to their collection of tom cruise films and maybe even check out some stallone instead of coming on here with this rubbish.
I hate how people come on these boards and because someone doesn't like a film they do, those people are therefore stupid and enjoy simple films. What if you're the dumb one and you watch pretentious productions just because they're artistic, and don't have the strength to say " I didn't like it"? Do you say you like this sort of drivel because you genuinely think it's good or because it will make you sound all artsy and intellectual? And please don't start saying stuff about how I don't understand and all this crap about Stallone. It's frankly offensive, especially since my dvd collection would make your head spin. Cheers x
So I guess because you baught a bunch of what you consider to be cerebral films then you're the smart one and anyone who likes this is just stupid and says they like it to be artsy and cool?
I guess it's a valid possibility, but can't I just say something similar about you then? And someone else about me? And so on and so forth?
If the argument for why the film sucked makes no sense then maybe the person who developed the argument IS an idiot. Same goes for the argument for why it was good and that person.
I'm sure we really agree even if it doesn't feel like it right now.
I think that people who get on here and bash this film should probably go back to their collection of tom cruise films and maybe even check out some stallone instead of coming on here with this rubbish.
No thats not it
What if you're the dumb one and you watch pretentious productions just because they're artistic, and don't have the strength to say " I didn't like it"?
And thats not it either.
Ive watched 4 or 5 Jarmusch films now and apart from Ghost Dog which I thought was OK but wasn't that into, they've all been great. But this one just seemed way below par to me. There were one or two skits that I liked (Delerium and the tesla coil one especially), there were others, like the one with Tom Waits (who I loved in Down by Law), in fact most of the rest, that I thought were just pointless, unfunny meanderings.
Its not like he's making this out to be anything really profound, it was clearly really cheaply made and I don't think it takes itself too seriously. Can't fault Jarmusch too much IMO.
>> like the one with Tom Waits (who I loved in Down by Law), in fact most of the rest, that I thought were just pointless, unfunny meanderings.
Yes, they were meanderings. But *that* was the point. See SLACKER to see even more meanderings. What is "funny" is simply a matter of taste, and your sense of humor. It's a character study that's amusing, mildly funny, not slap your knee kind of funny.
Yep it was really bad. There was no acting. I fail to understand how it's about the "brilliant" acting when it was terrible. Meg White was embarrassing. I missed the part that everyone says is hilarious. And I'm supposed to be impressed with the repeated dialogue of "coffee and cigarettes is bad for you"??? Please... I'm guessing the people who gave this movie a high rating are pulling off some kind of prank. It's not funny.
Although people are entitled to their opinion, I totally agree with yours. This movie is clearly not mainstream, none of this Beginning Middle End bollocks or sad conventional mainstream generic conventions. The same could be said if some of these people who choose to slag off Jarmusch's work sat down and watched a John Cassavetes film. The average viewer is either too dumb, too afraid of avant-garde or watches too much cliched mainstream crap. Mainstream films have been going downhill for a long time, notice how Batman and Superman have to be ressurected into contemporary spectacle movies or how movies are drawing towards games with inevitable failures like Doom and Resident Evil: Afterlife on the horizon? How can you guys criticise something that is totally original?!
Too many narrow minded people... There is no hope!
I don't agree with the conception that you have to be Joe Schmoe moviegoer if you don't like this movie. I am heavily into independent films, and to me, this movie stank. It was pretentious, self-serving, and many of the sketches went on for way too long. The premise is very interesting, but it wears down very quickly. Virtually all of the sketches are bogged down with the same formula: two (or more, but usually two) people happen to be having coffee and cigarettes together, and they're making uneasy, and uncomfortable, conversation with each other. Yeah, yeah, we get it. If Jarmusch (I know I'm spelling it wrong) could have tried different things with the sketches, than it might have been a better film. The Molina-Coogan one could have been very funny, but it dragged on for way too long.
The one part of the film that I did like, was in "Cousins." By itself, I didn't care for the sketch, but I loved it when Cate's cousin (forget her name) remarked that when you can't afford something, it's very difficult to get, but when you can afford it, than you can get it for free. It's so true, I'm always reading about celebrities who go to these parties and get all this free stuff like IPods and digital cameras.
"I always ask myself, 'Is the movie that I am watching as interesting as a documentary of the same actors having lunch together?'" - Gene Siskel
"this is an ACTOR'S MOVIE. its a film with nothing but halfway improvised skits" Even watching the worst skit on "Whose Line Is It Anyway?" for two hours straight would not compare. Robert Deniro's "You talkin' to me?" was improvisation, most of Neil Flynn's Janitor, the medic crew dropping the soldier in MASH, etc. etc. The bloopers and outtakes at the end of some films show off-the-cuff improvising that's generally high on the lame-o factor, but it's just a DVD extra to parade on the packaging for suckers. You don't expect the bloopers reel to be the entire movie.
"you'd probably prefer a movie with less taste such as 'saw' or 'fever pitch'." As for taste, this movie isn't espresso, it's just so weakly brewed that it tastes like caffeine water, typical American gas station coffee. (That limp analogy would've taken 20 minutes to set up in Coffee and Cigarettes.) At least Saw could be taken as unintentionally funny.
Pulled from the bottom 1 percentile of YouTube clips made in an 11-year-old's bedroom.
I thought the repetition was one of the better parts of the movie, how they all seemed to be connected not just by the coffee but by the conversations too, how each time the ideas were used they were new to the speaker.
I loved this movie, but I can definately see how others didn't. That's what I like about movies like this though, they weren't making it just to sell it, they were making it for themselves, and if others liked it, great. What I get tired of with mainstream movies (not that they are all bad) is that they do very cliched things, because they know what will fill the most seats, and what will bring in the most money. It's a buisness to them. And that's fine, really. If that's what they want to do, more power to them. But unfortunately in this world, it's hard not to get wrapped up into that thinking, even if your original intentions were different. That's what I respect about this film, it was made for a very limited, defined audience. Not in a way to outcast those who didn't like it, but just to share something with those who have to same sense of humor and enjoyment as them. Now, that's not why I liked the movie, that would be a ridiculous reason to like a movie. But it is one reason I respected the movie, and those involved in making it. Why did I like it? Cause I thought it was funny. And for those of you who didn't, I'm sure that there are movies you find funny that I wouldn't. And that's a beautiful thing really. Regardless of what mainstream-hollywood tells us, we don't have to all like the same things. We can be incredibly diverse and still all get along. Bigshot movie corporations DO want to make you feel outcast for not liking what everyone else like. So let's break down these barriers put on by society, saying we all have to be the same, and instead respect each other for our differences. Sound good?
I thought it was funny. And for those of you who didn't, I'm sure that there are movies you find funny that I wouldn't.
agreed! i found myself the only one laughing in a theater full of people. not that i think it's a perfect film by any means (it certainly can seem to drag a bit in spots, and meg white couldn't act her way out of a wet paper bag) but i appreciate what jarmusch was going for. the lack of a real story line and the recurring moments of painful awkwardness could put a lot of people off, but those are some of the things i found the funniest, and a key element to the film itself.
I can cofidently say this is atleast on the the top 10 worst films of all time what the f u c k does ny wanna see ppl drinking coffee an smoking ciggarets for a hour in a half or i dont know how long it is to lazy to check.
It seems that the people making most of the negative comments in this thread are likely to be those who have had patience and looking for something beyond the superficial bludgeoned out of them, and cannot stand anything with a slower pace or with more nuance than a Hollywood Blockbuster. I'm just glad these movies still get made while the popcorn guzzling masses have their Titanics and their action heroes to dribble over.
Hey Guys, I think everybody who wrote on this thread should be proud, nobody starting any fights, nobody called anybody any names. It was actually something as rare as an IMDB thread WITHOUT namecalling.
Now if you will excuse me, I have to go diss some A-hole over at the Bowling For Columbines forum.
Although I don't think this is one of Jim Jarmusch's best (I prefer Stranger Than Paradise or Night on Earth), I can see why anyone who has not acquired a taste for Jarmusch's style would not like this film. Personally, I prefer a film with interesting characters and dialogue over some action-packed blockbuster anyday. I'm more likely to fall asleep during a car chase scene involving characters I don't care about than a talky scene between characters I do care about. It's almost redundant to state that Jarmusch is far from mainstream. I feel like nowadays we're living in the A.D.D. generation, so they seem to make movies that cater to dumb people with low attention spans. Coffee and Cigarettes is not one of those films. What I like about Jarmusch's work is that his dialogue and characters are very authentic, and I can totally relate to them, which is not something I can say about most mainstream films. So yes, his films tend to move at a very slow pace, but that's the way life is sometimes. In real life most people don't get into a cab and find themselves having to duck while some assassin is shooting at them from a nearby car. In real life, you're more likely to have to engage in meaningless conversation with the driver (hence, Night on Earth).