Did anyone else go see this? The critics are absolutely eating it up and going on about how Jarmusch is so much more appreciated in Europe than the US and maybe this will be his breakthrough.

I thought it was a bad movie for a number of reasons. It shares numerous qualities with your average student film:

if you cut out the time spent driving between the locations where the story & characters are advanced at all, you would be left with half of the film.

everyone with whom Murray interacts is the kind of parody-of-American-life that indie filmmakers seem to think is the sad truth of Middle America, and which is handled even more insultingly by Jarmusch than it was by Sam Whatshisname who did American Beauty... the viewer gets to share Murray's implied superiority-via-detachment and realize how truly disconnected they are from this sad surreal life that everyone else leads.

the sympathetic characters are as hackneyed as the unsympathetic... so clever of jarmusch to set up murray's nextdoor neighbor as an enthusiastic amateur detective so we can have lots of little laughs at his cute methods starting in the very same scene when murray opens a mysterious letter.

apart from murray, the acting ranges from stiff to atrocious.

the ending is depressed and unsatisfying by design, just so you know that this is no wes anderson or sophia copola bill-murray-as-searching-and-detached-older-man movie.

i gave jarmusch another try because i figured coffee and cigarettes was just a cute experiment ("hey, meg white can't drum but maybe she can act?") gone awry, but alas... jim jarmusch is just the only student filmmaker who gets to work with bill murray.

i have not seen it......but no nay saying will keep me away from it....

ghost dog......fucking ghost dog.......

i'm also a little curious now as to where the mpaa draws the line between art and child pornography.

EDIT: my bad, apparently she is in fact 21 years old

I would have saw that last week, but was talked into 'March of the Penguins'. I'll see it this week.

Did see Red Eye and 40 Year Old Virgin however!

I presume you refer to the beaver-shot?

It was choice.

I think it's funny the official MPAA rating of this is partially rated R because of "some graphic nudity"....since when did a brief full frontal (from what I've heard, I haven't seen it yet) become graphic?

When the implication is that the female showing her area is fifteen or sixteen. And that a fifty-years-old man is arroused by it.

I saw it and I thought it was pretty good, but it's not as good as the hype.

I also saw Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance which was great although a completely different kind of film.

How was Red Eye?

Yeah when I was watching that, I wondered that myself. Then I looked her up on IMDB and noticed she was well over 18. She looked 14 or 15 though.

i liked the movie allright although it did drag in parts

Captain Indie dissing the king of indie movies?

Surprising to no one, to be sure, I fucking hate Jarmusch.

Jarmusch isn't all bad. I think that Ghost Dog, Down By Law, and Mystery Train are all good films. But this new one was pretty disappointing. My wife left the theater really angry about the fact that the driving scenes took like half an hour of the runnning time.

- T

It was alright....Pretty standard formula thriller type movie...Very predicatable, but enjoyable as well. 85 minutes of Rachel McAdams isn't a bad thing.

I thought Broken Flowers ended rather abruptly. Wasn't much of an ending.

Red Eye - It was pretty much as I expected. Genuinely suspenseful, if not entirely unique. Cillian is good at playing creepy people. And Rachel McAdams is pure eye candy.

The 40 Year Old Virgin - Not a bad movie. It certainly had heart. It played up the dorkiness of Carell's character but also the sensible human side as well. But I was expecting a bit more. Wasn't as funny as I thought it would be.

Haq, I heard similar reviews from two friends who saw it as well. Think I'll be waiting for this one on video. It's a shame, really.

But, more attractive -

(a) [img][431:500]http://vegasartscorner.com/images/RACHEL-McAdams.JPG[/img]
Rachel MC ADAMS

or

(b) [img][257:500]http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/01/17/ggemilyrossum_gallery__283x550,0.jpg[/img]
Emmy ROSSUM

not even close.

Don't know Emmy. Where would I have seen her?

I'll take Scarlett J. over both. I didn't fully appreciate Rachel until I saw The Notebook. And she was hot in Wedding Crashers too. But mean Girls, she just seemed like another random pretty face.

Scarlett JOHANNSON is nice, as is Emmy, but I'd take Maggie GYLLENHALL over either. Or any.

mcadams wins that one.

but...

[img][350:500]http://linuxreviews.org/software/x11-terms/aterm/elisha-cuthbert-3.jpg[/img]

i thought red eye was retarded. i figured it wouldn't be that great, but i absolutely adore cillian murphy. should've went to see 40 yr. old virgin instead.

i've been dying to see broken flowers, must go see it soon.

Broken Flowers was good, you fucking idiots.

Down by Law, Ghost Dog, Mystery Train are all REALLY GOOD.
Everything else by Jim has been PURE SHIT.

Dead Man wasn't THAT bad.

dumb