Tell me why I should appreciate this film.

You're right. Limits of Control is a piece of crap. I got suckered into renting it because the trailer is somewhat intriguing, the stars like Swinton, Murray, and that Mexican kid piqued my interest, and I liked some of Jarmusch's previous films like Dead Man.

Wow, talk about false advertising! Swinton, Murray, and that Mexican kid all have about 5 minutes of screen time each. The plot is vague at best. The long never ending takes of the main character are excruciating. I fast forwarded through them and it still took 5 minutes to get past them to the next boring part! So, no plot, no story, an ugly main character....even tits and ass can't help this pile of dung.

Limits of Control is a waste of film, probably one of the worst films I've ever seen. I'm an art/indie/foreign film fan, I find many of them brilliant. On the other hand, while some films in the genre are not very good I usually can find something good even from the bad films.....like, amazing acting, cool plot idea, quirky dialogue, whatever.

With Limits of Control, you get nothing. Nothing! Good cinematography is useless when it's used on a pathetic excuse for a movie. Avoid it.

Not trying to make this personal, but for one who has such an open mind, you are surprisingly comfortable with the notion that because *you* did not see meaning in the film, nobody else could have either.

The symbolic message is not at the end. What's at the end is a stupid political platitude that should have been left out. The message is throughout the movie, everywhere *but* in the end. Yes, the film went nowhere, but why does that have to be a bad thing?

The movie didn't "talk" to you, you didn't find any meaning in it. Fair game. That does not make the film pointless or crap. It just makes it a film you don't like. I liked the film and at no point had the impression that it was just different in order to be different. I saw how Jarmusch wanted to make audiences aware of all the little details they miss in everyday life, and give back some of the child-like fantasy and curiosity.

It's a matter of personal tastes and moods and situations that makes a movie meaningful or meaningless. Out of the many films I have seen this decade, this was one of the few I liked. Not spelling out some moral or message (well, I ignore the ending now), and not having a cookie-cutter story with a happy end, is of course dangerous because many people won't relate to it. But I much prefer to take this chance than to only have Avatars and Transformers in theatres...

Cheers :)

[deleted]

One of George Orwell's favourite jokes was about a young man who had just left university. An aunt asks him what he is going to do,
"I am going to write."
"That's nice, dear. What are you going to write about?"
"One doesn't write about anything. One just writes."

There are people- and Jim Jarmusch is one- who doesn't make films about anything except, perhaps, other films.The Limits of Control simply takes the whole formula of an assassination thriller and treats it as a string on which to put a series of performances. Hitchcock used the word "Maguffin" to describe the arbitrary basis for the plot of a thriller; here the whole plot is the maguffin on which Jarmusch puts his series of arbitrary and random scenes. The film isn't about anything but itself and it is its own meaning or lack of meaning. After all, why should a film mean anything or be about anything any more than an abstract painting or a piece of music?

babyxfirefly, I've read through this thread briefly and I haven't come across an opinion that matches my own.

The title, "The Limits of Control," references the everyday lives of people being controlled from behind the curtains. The world's globalization in recent years has created corporate empires in place of nations. In that time, Jaramusch argues that culture is being sapped from society in the form of great artists, films, scientists, philosophers, etc. Everything is now packaged and delivered to us.

Jaramusch's film (and title) state that imagination is the limit to what can be controlled by external forces. Even if everything else is outside of your control, no one can ever control your imagination. That is always yours.

The film's ending pieces it all together quite nicely. Bill Murray and the compound he's in act as a metaphor.


Not only is it possible, it is essential
http://paulopicks.blogspot.com/

It is not my place to say that you should appreciate this film. All I can do is tell you why I did. Firstly, it makes you think. Nothing is spelt out and, as a consequence, the viewer has to work harder than with many films. I enjoy this process, of feeling like a detective, trying to discover something as I'm watching a film. Not 'what's going to happen next?', but what is the significance of this?... what is the connection between these things?...

I believe that the film should be assessed mainly against the director's intentions. I don't KNOW for sure what this is, but you can make some assumptions. The repetition of scenes, the soporific atmosphere, the short exchanges with enigmatic characters, each talking in a similar way, the appearance, and re-appearance of the nude, and the fact the loner never seems to eat or sleep, all lend themselves to a dream-like quality. Dream content is strongly symbolic, (as is artistic content) which would explain why the film is shot in this way, and why the visits to the gallery are used as a parallel to his progress. The repeated behaviour, and therefore images of, for example, the two espressos and the eating of the paper, don't necessarily need to be symbolic of something specific themselves. But being repetively used, they lend themselves to the overall dream-like quality that the director was aiming for. On the other hand maybe the espresso cups are specifically symbolic, but for something that I haven't realised, and that is especially relevant for the main character, whose dream we seem to be in.

I have to admit, I did feel a little impatient after 20 minutes or so. The DVD box said thriller, and it listed many well-know actors, so I was waiting for it all to kick off. My girlfriend fell asleep after 45 minutes or so, and I can understand why... it's a sleepy film. But I reckon it's probably one that I'll get even more from on the second viewing. Sounds like many people would laugh at the idea of watching it again. Oh well... their loss.

You yourself as you, did exactly that, by writing this. That is, isulting that which you call intelligence, that is.

I'm better than you.

I totally agree with you! My cable company had this listed as a "Three Star" movie. I'd give it a one. My wife left the room after about five minutes - I should have done the same. The best part of the movie was the nude girl!