MovieChat Forums > Coffee and Cigarettes (2004) Discussion > To all the people who hated this film...

To all the people who hated this film...


You must be "Taco Bell" kinda guys.

;)

Seriously tho. The first time I watched it, I wasn't impressed at all. But I found myself wanting to go back & see my favorite segments over again. On the 2nd or 3rd watch, it started to make sense.

Nikola Tesla believed the Earth is a conductor of acoustical resonance. That means it vibrates in sympathy with all sound waves, like a tuning fork. Ok let's get philosophical for a min... If the Earth is one giant conductor, then what's it conducting? The thoughts of people. The stupid, silly, inane or profound conversations of people are all resonating the Earth. And so Jarmusch takes us on a tour of all the coffee houses to show us what frequencies the earth is conducting.

It's all pretty damn Existential, which I never really cared for, but it's very clever. And there IS a point to it. Whaddaya think? Have suggested anything new? Are you willing to give it a 2nd chance? Or is Tesla just a rock band? ;)

reply

[deleted]

Yes, this is a really good movie and everyone who think it "has no plot" or is a stupid movie, must seriously take valium.

reply

[deleted]

Christoffer Glans.... all you do is talk about how everyone that doesnt like the movie is stupid or only likes mainstream stuff or must take valium or whatever... yet you never say why its a good movie.

You might be the most degrading, ignorant, stuck up poster I've ever seen. And that's saying a lot.

reply

[deleted]

Some will think it's very artistic and unique, others will think it's boring, others will think it's nonsensical, etc.

I enjoyed the film very much for my own reasons. Some will agree and some won't.

The film was made because the director had a story to tell and ideas to express. Not everyone is going to understand, like, or dislike it.

If they "tear it down" then let them. If they praise it, good for them. Just take it for what it is and leave it at that.


Damn kids...

reply

I think you've touched on a great point. Most haters of this movie do call it "boring, nonsensical", but I think that's just because they can't seem to figure it out (not that I claim to know what it means, but at least I have some solid ideas).

I'm the same way with Fellini movies. I don't understand them, so my gut reaction is to hate them and call them boring. And I'll be honest; it pisses me off when everyone else knows the secret meaning. But I'm working on it. I've watched 8 1/2 twice already (no luck so far, but maybe 3's a charm).

reply

I think this one of the most creative movies i've seen in awhile. No ones really touched on an idea like this before. Some parts are really funny...i love bill muray haha

reply

I completely agree this movie gives freshness to movies and is what keeps me so intrested in them. I also have to love Bill because although from IL. he owned the St. Paul Saints making him a local favorite.

reply

Some people hate it because of it's fans.

reply

Some people will hate it because they think it's a dumb movie. Case in point: me.

reply

[deleted]

The whole point is repetition. I wish you had stuck around to the end, because then you would have seen that there's a point to it. But yeah, if you walked out halfway through, of course you wouldn't get it. Kinda like walking out halfway through a murder mystery and saying "it didn't make any sense".

Shouldn't you be somewhat entertained from watching a movie?

Not always. Sometimes a movie's purpose is to teach, to enlighten or to challenge the mind. Not all directors are out for laughs and seat-gripping suspense. Take 12 Angry Men for instance: 2 rooms, 12 boring old guys and no action at all. You might want to avoid that classic if you didn't have the patience for this.

reply

[deleted]

Well I love his other films but I have to agree that this one fell short of the mark. And for that I can say thank god it takes Jim down from his throne. I think it is a good idea for a film, I believe the first post was comparing the film to a type of collective unconcious or the earthly rezonator and I do think that this is not far off the mark in describing what jim was trying to achieve. It fell short for me because he is using really loaded characters, people who you know can act and tell stories, and play amazing music, but in this he seems to not give them any direction. A film which I think does complete this idea without falling short is "Slacker" here the conversations are meandering but interesting and the characters arn't loaded with their pasts.
blah blah blah

Film is about language..parents just don't understand.

reply

I'm very anti-cig myself (and anti-coffee for that matter). Aside from alcohol & recreational drugs, these two toxins are killing our bodies & deadening our brains. But with that said...

I think you may have reversed the message of the film. Jarmusch isn't trying to make this crap look cool. On the contrary, he's showing what an absurd crutch it is in human relations. Check out all the awkward pauses where the characters have nothing to say to each other, so they light up or guzzle down.

Also check out how IN EVERY SKIT, there's a mention of how awful cigs & coffee are. Yet, the characters persist (except in the case of Bill Murray who actually takes the advice... hilarious!)

Btw, note how GZA and RZA, arguably the 2 "coolest" hipsters in the whole movie, abstain from both coffee & cigarettes. In real life, they're health food aficianados, vegetarians and anti-drugs.

So what I'm saying is that you shouldn't take this movie at face value. It's a satire. With that in mind, maybe you'll enjoy it if you see it a 2nd time. Good luck.

reply

[deleted]

That was a great reply. yay, getting this movie...i've been trying so hard to convince my flatmates to take a chance and watch it...maybe this will help :)

(although, that said, i think they really only like movies with loud explosions and Will Smith or The Rock in a main role, so perhaps the idea of resonance will be lost....)

still, thanks. That was beautiful.

reply

I think people should be willing to accept that it's not everyone's cup of tea.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I've been reading everyone's post and have gathered interesting results. It's very ironic because most of the reasons people dislike this movie are the exact same reasons Jarmusch fans appreciate him for. Examples: long seemingly pointless and meandering mise en scene and dialogue that serve little to no exposition (ie, we're supposed to have preconceived ideas of what their personas are like beforehand so it serves as an irreverent inside joke), loopy repitition to the point of boredom.

I think Jim has made these characteristics a trademark of his films and if you're familiar with his work it is much easier to, in fact quite impossible, not to resist. Being a huge fanboy of his work myself, I can spot certain thematic quirks and it brings me great satisfaction to know that I am familiar with them. Examples: foreigners and serendipitious miscommunication, family - brother/sister in laws; in this case cousins, the woman who reads a pile of magazines because she got manipulated by the newstand owner, natural spontaneity of the acting, hipster musicians with giant egos, etc. I think Jim's idea of America translates into his films: its boring, repititious, disposable. It's a more bleak and less glamorous viewpoint of the world but its starkly more real to me which is why I think he's such a cinematic poet.

This is the kind of movie that rewards contemplative viewers, and even if overtly more comic than his other works, gives the actors enough real time to observe subtle details: the nervous glances thrown between two strangers, the natural studders in speech as two real people talk, the clanking of two cups of coffee, the "gulp - smuck - aaaah", the rolling of the dice, the background music, the flicker of the lighter igniting, the caffeine induced banter all add up to, as the original poster put, the world's harmonious accoustical resonance. Do not misconstrue, I am not putting down all haters of this and/or any other Jarmusch film. I'm just simply observing the reasons for this indifference. Jarmusch films have a way of making the viewer more observational.

reply

[deleted]