MovieChat Forums > Coffee and Cigarettes (2004) Discussion > This movie is not as good as you think.

This movie is not as good as you think.

posted 16 years ago by sneakydohboy
11 replies | jump to latest

I have watched a couple Jim Jer... however you spell his name... movies and I enjoyed them. they were different they were interesting and they were well done. I do understand why other people dont like them. They are different they are slow paced and for a samuari movie and a western they are almost scary compared to the norm.

With that being said, I did not like this movie. And no it was not the fact that I am a neanderthal in the movie theater throwing my own dung at the screen. And it is not that I just dont get it. I do, really. Its the movie about nothing. its expanding on the long gazes that you see in lost in translation and broken flowers. Its taking a simple moment and keeping simple and seeing the humor and complexity behind it. I mean its all that bs "Modern Art" mentality. We take a scribble and act like its a look into someones soul. We take a splatter of paint and see the death of a close family member and the remaining angst that comes with it. It reminds me of "My kid can paint that". Its a kid painting and people think its a 40 year old artist. Then when they find out its a kid they call it scribblings of a kid. It was ridiculous. But this is almost a different topic so lets get back.

The fact is that every person who likes this movie for whatever reason (and I am not saying they are wrong. every person is allowed an opinion on a movie) they take the movie and put in on a pedistal. And they talk about how its so deep and how its so amazing. And whenever someone says anything opposing there opinion on it they protect it and say "your simple mind cant grasp it". and how it is so beyond the normal movie goer. And how we need to go back to watching our action movies, etc. etc. The fact is that you guys protecting it need to allow it to take some critisism. A good movie doesn't need to be protected a good movie doesnt need to be explained. There are plenty of amazing movies out there that the mainstream does not really care for, that are good movies and not because you say so, because they are stand alone well done movies. I am one who gets tired of the mainstream at times (movies, music, literature, etc.). I enjoy the movies that make me think, I enjoy the movies that when I leave I realize no questions ever got answered. I do, really. But this one was not one of them.

So to sum up. Stop protecting this movie. Let it take its hits. Jim (Shoot still dont know how to spell his name) is a big boy and if people dont like this movie he will go on. He will still make movies. And his movies will still only do ok in the box office. Its just how it is. He would be sad if all his movies made it to the mainstream. Thats just the type of guy he is. So stop assuming everyone that doesnt like this movie is wearing their a** as a hat and realize your opinion is not always right and other people are not as dumb as you think they are.

Oh yeah I realize no one will read this message for two reasons. Way too long and way too old of a movie. So if I get no responses I wont take offense. Just bored at work and got tired of hearing us normal folk as being too stupid.

Ricky

PS. I forgot an "Actors movie" really... you all are Tools!!! lol jk love you all and I do understand and respect your opinion even though mine differes.

[–] metrojane500 16 years ago

first of all, it's "jarmusch". not that hard to spell. "jar" then "mush" with a c before the h.

second, if you're going to criticize his work, give valid reasons as to why you don't like it. don't just wax on for five paragraphs and reach the peaks and valleys of defensive.

i like this film because the dialogue is hilarious. it is my kind of humor. that is the ONLY reason i like it, and i am okay with that.

[–] sneakydohboy 16 years ago

Fair enough I guess I did not give valid reasons either way but no matter what I say it will just be opinion.

I am not impressed by the progression or lack of story that this movie has. I guess i dont really care for the multiple stories that do not tie in with anything and I dont feel they are as deep or hilarious as everyone else thinks they are. They are ok and mediocore at the most nothing too impressive about them. I feel i have seen better writing before and I am just not too impressed with it.

As a whole the movie did not reach me. i sat through most of it and I felt it worked with the art of awkwardness and slow conversation. I understand its all about the writing but I did not see it to be impressive. I guess I feel the general conversation is not something worth filming. I think trying to make something more cult classic or more... I am struggling at finding a good word... but trying to make something too indie I guess makes it less then intersting to me... I would say the same thing about Quentin Tarantino. I love the guy but as of recent he has tried to make every movie a cult classic. And cult classics are not made by the director but rather by the fans and well in a way the lack of fans.

So I can keep rambling on I am just not impressed with the guy as a whole. A couple years ago when indie movies started to hit the mainstream I got really excited and started to watch any and everyone I could get a hold of. And after a while I started to see a trend is style in acting and in writing. I think that trend is starting to fade but that is when I started to get a little tired of those movies. I think there are good indie movies and I think there are a typical indie movies. I feel Jim falls into that atypical nothing personal against him or his style just what I think.

Sne@ky

[–] nrangerseven 10 years ago

I agree with you. There is nothing funny about this movie. I keep seeing people saying it's "hilarious" (????) How is this crap hilarious? I didn't even crack a smile.

The music isn't spectacular. The shots looking straight down onto the tables of coffee and ashtrays are redundant after the first story. The White Stripes still pretending to be brother and sister ugh

Heaven forbid someone states they don't like pretentious garbage like this.

The people you idolize wouldn't like you.

[–] d5ive 16 years ago

What if I rated this a 1?

[–] Powerslave2358 16 years ago

I have see a handful of his films and felt that some of the excerps were very good while others missed completely, I loved the Tom Waits and Iggy Pop segment and was no doubt the best, however both "Cousins" segments as well a Bill Murray are the most notable. the rest was "Meh" at best

[–] phippenm 15 years ago

I don't feel this film is meant to entertain. It's meant to be an art piece. Like a collection of photographs from different places, all with common themes. If you looked at the photograph you might think "Aww, how quaint, heh, cigarettes and coffee" but with the scenes, you're forced into the awkward boredom of the moment. There's no shine or glitter. You're not meant to be entertained.

And, I don't mean that in a particularly glorifying way to the film, or for that matter, a negative. Art is art. Whether it's good art or bad art is subjective. But watching this movie and expecting to be entertained in the way of a traditional film is a mistake. It makes fun of the glamor typical film adds to daily life, making things so exciting - when really, sometimes life is just dull. And to get that message out of the film, you have to have some of that projected on you. Of course there's humor and laughter here and there to keep the film moving - but mostly, the film stubbornly stays in reality, where not everything is solved, not everything is interesting, and some people are just plain obnoxious.

That's my interpretation at least. The only thing I don't really see how fits into it are the various lines that repeat at different parts of the film.

[–] dwpeak 14 years ago

Art is meant to be enjoyed. Artists don't make a piece and say they don't want the spectators to be entertained. If they do, they are basing their desires on a perverse idea of art.

Even the greatest, most thought-provoking films in history keep the viewer interested in what they're watching - even if it is supposed to be a representation of the boring and mundane.

COFFEE AND CIGARETTES
6/10

[–] SparkEyes 14 years ago

I'm not so sure that those with more than half a brain around here are protecting movies so much as protecting their own opinions of movies. I'd go further and say they are defending their personal experience of a movie, which I guess is a natural thing to do.
Careful you don't trip on your own argument here - no-one must assume you're wearing your "a** as a hat" for disliking the movie, but if I like it my thinking is wrong.
This movie IS as good as I think it is, as I'm sure it is also as bad as you think it is. Now, get back to work.

[–] dzukelica 14 years ago

yeah. tastes . i apsolutely adored all the things you disliked. dont get me wrong, i mean, i definitely love good story progression in movies, good plot, "entertainment level" - as this too i subjective, but il take the general thriller, action, comedy kind of suspense till the end as a general what goes under "entertainment". as it is i completely adored lack of it in this movie, scenography hitd the spot in me, dialogue, persons, actors (as themselves), coffee & cigarettes.
so yeah, this movie is as good as you think it is. and bad as you think it is.
just dont make your thinking default thinking for all thinkers.

[–] joshuayeary 13 years ago

I'm going to dodge the bigger issue, because I don't have the energy. But I will comment on your reference to "My Kid Could Paint That." Wasn't it that they loved it when they thought it was a kid painting the pictures, and didn't turn to discrediting it until after it was revealed that it may be the father?

[–] PunchB 12 years ago

Yeah, you're right. The OP is a bit confused.
I didn't think the movie as a whole is a masterpiece, but I enjoyed it (more as a series of shorts, which it is). But I can't take a guy's opinion seriously who are writing on IMDb about a movie and doesn't even bother to glance at the director's name right there on the screen when he's writing a review.