Adam Lewis23 said:the genre itself shouldn't be used as the basis for an evaluation, it's just the format
Wait, hold on...
are you seriously telling me you don't count Starbucks as a full-length feature movie just because it's basically eleven short films stitched together... or what...?!?
Look, obviously there’s a massive gap between how Jim Jarmusch and Lars von Trier approach things, but with Jarmusch here, we're really just looking at one big, healthy joke. I mean, the guy spent seventeen years filming eleven little vignettes, only to pull a fast one and pass them off as a full-length feature—and then, get this, he announces it to the crew by shouting, "WE have Got major movie !!!!" which apparently sent the whole team into fits of laughter. Honestly, what else is there to say? Should I start nitpicking about how the whole thing lacks cohesion or how the characters aren't fully fleshed out? It feels a bit silly at this point.
And honestly, I can't bring myself to judge a film just based on its genre label. That feels way too narrow-minded to me, especially when you consider all the brilliant, clever stuff tucked away inside a single movie. Besides, it doesn't feel like an honest way to watch anything.
bluecobra9 said:but this isn't even really a movie, right? It feels more like some cinematic mosaic gathered together over about 17 years
Honestly, just because these segments were shot over several years doesn't mean I can't call it a "real" movie. To be fair, those kinds of technical formalities have never really mattered much to me anyway.
Besides, it's like how Lars von Trier spends every year working on tiny little pieces of a future masterpiece he won't actually finish until he's ancient—though, fingers crossed, both the director and the actor actually make it that far.
So, I’ve been scrolling through all these threads about Jim Jarmusch, and honestly, I can't quite wrap my head around the fact that most people arguing against him just point to how "mainstream" his movies are—or lean on that silly whole "instant cult director" cliché (I mean, okay, fine, when I was a kid watching some random flick on TV about five taxi drivers in five different cities—true story, I was "instantly" hooked) . Anyway, I finally sat down last night and watched the full Coffee and Cigarettes from start to finish, since up until now I’d only seen those first three little vignettes in order. And man, I experienced this incredibly rare cocktail of feelings—this weird blend of bliss, guilt, and total weightlessness (I don't even know how to put it into words, but it just happens after you watch one of his films). Between sips of coffee and puffs of smoke, these various—well, mostly ordinary—people just ramble on about trips to the dentist, an Elvisian evil twin, or Nikola Tesla... (except for Renea, where there's some guy named Nikita checking out a catalog of weapons). What really blew my mind, though, is that this actually works as a "real" feature-length film. Oh, and yeah, those big 🙏 episodes with Molina. It’s a massive slap in the face to all those arrogant, easily swayed blowhards. Maybe we'll see fewer of them in the future; it’s actually pretty nice to read something that reminds you what a real Human being should actually be. 😎
Hey, don't be like that! Honestly, there's really no reason to be so skeptical—especially when you consider that Cronenberg has delivered such a genuinely great piece here, one that's almost uncharacteristic for him. I mean, it's atypical because the way he expands the narrative throughout the whole movie is just seamless; he weaves through all those different subplots without ever stumbling or losing momentum.
...that one island where Malick’s soldiers start deserting right at the beginning Thin Red...and even that little spot from the Mediterranean...it's just a bunch of deserters, honestly. Is there anyone actually patriotic left in this group? 🙂 🙂
Antun Nalis....I can't seem to find a decent photo of him anywhere online...but honestly, you've probably seen his face in pretty much every classic American movie from back in the day....he was just such a phenomenal character actor.
It’s actually pretty tough for me to narrow this down to just one name—mostly because I haven't sat through every single film in the catalogs of our local directors—but if I had to pick my favorites, they'd be: unnamed US actor unnamed US director unnamed US director unnamed US director unnamed US politician unnamed US director ...I'm almost certainly leaving someone out here somewhere...
Lawrence Booth2 said:Nowadays, any movie buff—especially the slightly more informed ones—can call themselves a critic (usually just by saying "I liked this" or "I didn't").
Honestly, I think that’s actually the most honest way to approach it! It reminds me of how Stanley Kubrick once brilliantly diagnosed the core issue with film criticism—that after a while, a critic loses that raw, genuine spark that an "average" viewer brings to the screen. Sure, not everyone falls into that trap, but most do, so it’s a pretty solid rule of thumb. As for reading material, if you want the absolute essentials, you should look into the Encyclopaedia Britannica or dive into Peterlić's work—things like film theory basics, which is basically the bible of practical film terms when you're trying to wrap your head around shots, framing, and editing. I also really enjoy Gregor-Patalas's "history of film art" (though he isn't exactly the biggest fan of François Truffaut...😠 ). That said, I highly doubt you'd study all that just to become a critic. At the end of the day, the movies themselves—whether they're masterpieces or total disasters—are far more important than any textbook.
P.S. Is it just me, or are Ž. Tomić and V. Sever some of the only ones left who stay genuinely honest with themselves and their audience?!?