MovieChat Forums > The Limits of Control (2009) Discussion > Hollywood millionaires make me sick

Hollywood millionaires make me sick

posted 16 years ago by sedmoy
21 replies | jump to latest

Mr. Jarmusch should take his own advice and go to the cemetery. The movie is conceited, pretentious and on top of it political for no good reason. It was made by someone who clearly thinks extremely high of himself ( which would be OK for Jarmusch ) . The thing is , I don't want to see his self-indulgent love of himself in his own movie. He'd be better off keeping it off the screen. Honestly, I lost respect for the guy ,just like that. Also , I wonder what will David Lynch have to say about this film?

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sedmoy 16 years ago

WILD AT HEAR is eye candy. It has plot, action, fun to watch and none of the political anti-estblishment crap. Here, all I saw is matchboxes being passed around and assassin feasting on paper notes. He should have ate the compound map at the end, not burn it , just to be consistent.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheZoolooMaster 15 years ago

Why does David Lynch need to have anything to say about this film? Why is David Lynch the authority on quality film-making? Why do you need David Lynch to agree with you or, God forbid, disagree and force you to watch the film again?

One thing that amuses me no end is that in most if not all hostile comments regarding this film, one can detect clues of carelessness: you basically claimed to have deciphered the absolute meaning of every symbol in the film (especially when you talk about "political" -- I don't necessarily see any politics in this film). It is probably conceit that inhibits your better judgement when determining what Jarmusch really intended with the plot, the dialogue, the symbolism, etc.

Finally, may I just add how ironic this all is considering some of the tenets of the film were the subjectivity of beliefs and the arbitrary nature of reality.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] farrokh3001 12 years ago

"Why does David Lynch need to have anything to say about this film? Why is David Lynch the authority on quality film-making? Why do you need David Lynch to agree with you or, God forbid, disagree and force you to watch the film again?"
It is well said.

[–] terminallyhip 15 years ago

Jim Jarmusch as a "hollywood millionaire"! Funniest post on this board so far!

David Lynch as a film critic? Oh, I get it - You're putting us on right...

Had me going there for a minute.

[–] e-nelson 15 years ago

Jim IS hollywood. He probably ignores it, if not he hates it. But it is so... The movie did stink, because artsy and different does not make it good by itself. He has become pretencious.

Now, Lynch as a critic? that IS a laugh!

[–] FreeFallFlow 15 years ago

Very well put sedmoy! : )I'm (or was?) a huge Jarmusch fan, but i don't buy everything from someone i used to like. This movie is totally pretentious. The absence of dialogues litterally made me feel oppressed. Seriously, apart from repeating 10 times the same lines, and ending up with no plot at all, what did Jarmusch do??

Haha, came out of the theater telling my boyfriend "Does he think he's David Lynch or what?", and it's actually funny to see Lynch mentionned so much...People who don't get the connection should see Inland Empire (not for 3 hrs though, let's say watch it for 30 minutes and bear in mind there's nothing beyond..)

I'm really disappointed and angry. Does the guy realize that this movie is gonna be on his resume for ever?? And what an insult to the actors...

Such a waste of..time, money, everything.
Don't pay to see this movie, it's simply not worth it...

[–] xordu1 11 years ago

I'm confused.... this movie had more dialogue than Stranger in Paradise, didn't it? As far as I can tell, it had more action and events and mood shifts than any film he made in the 80s and some he made in the 90s.

[–] johndewhitt 15 years ago

The one thing that bothered me is Jim Jarmusch took out of his greatest assets. All of his past movies have had great Dialogue. I reckon something radical went on in his life for him to change the way he makes movies, or maybe to the degree in which he changed his style.

Visually though I would say this is one of his strongest films. But I do feel a little bit left in the dust by the story. Would love to hear some explanation for this movie.

[–] brent_harshman 15 years ago

I think adding more dialogue could possibly take away something from this film. I agree that dialogue is one of his greatest assets in his other movies. This film was beautifully photographed and, to me, one of his stronger works.

One aspect that I really enjoyed was the sound. The music does its job of setting a feel. I like to think that the movie had a similar structure to a song. The non-dialogue parts were the verse, where he would travel different places. The scenes with the other characters are the choruses, which repeated similar lines. The part with Bill Murray's character is a change, so I would consider that the bridge.

[–] joe-somebody 15 years ago

mmm... yeah.

everyone that denounces this movie because it doesn't make sense is symbolized in the movie itself by bill murray.

You just want something to make sense of, something to rationalize and control. If you don't understand it you cant control it and then you denounce it.

[–] e-nelson 15 years ago

mmm... no

I definetely do not identify myself with Bills character just becouse I do not aprreciate a riddle for the riddle itself.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] polysicsarebest 14 years ago

David Lynch hasn't made a good film in a long, long time (though the Straight Story is a masterpiece, even though it's clearly made as a Jon Jost tribute film more than anything else). And I highly doubt he watches modern films anyway.

I'd say Lynch and Jarmusch are both at about equal monetary value -- I highly doubt both are "Hollywood millionaires", though they're probably both doing well for themselves.

-
pre·ten·tious: characterized by assumption of dignity or importance.

[–] balducci2 14 years ago

You doubt that either one is a Hollywood millionaire?

I believe both must be millionaires, several times over.

Barring bad investments, anyway.

[–] dick_james 13 years ago

While I agree that both these directors are quite probably very rich, I do not agree with the "Hollywood" part. To define them as Hollywood directors would be akin to saying that their movies are not primarily independant films and that they conform to mainstream conventions in films. While it is true that there are lots of independant or foreign films that conform to such conventions, that does not make them Hollywood films, for the only way a film can truely be catagorized as a Hollywood film is if it was either made by a Hollywood based studio or made in Hollywood.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Stoshie 11 years ago

sedmoy calling Jarmusch a "Hollywood" director pretty much invalidates anything else he has to say, and shows he is clueless.

That said, while I am a fan of Jarmusch's films, this is my least favorite.

But it is funny reading the comments here, and on the other threads about this movie, from people engaged in furious debate over the merits, or lack thereof, of this movie. On the one hand you have the angry people, furious because (in spite of their denials) they didn't understand the movie, and on the other, you have people engaged in intellectual masturbation as they try oh so hard to say why the film was brilliant. Too funny!