MovieChat Forums > L.A. Without a Map (1999) Discussion > 6.2 on the IMDB scale; why?

6.2 on the IMDB scale; why?

posted 14 years ago by groggo
4 replies | jump to latest

L.A. Without a Map is an instantly forgettable piece of fluff featuring terrible acting, embarrassingly bad dialogue, a derivative story that's been told too many times, and an attempt at satire and parody that falls flat on the screen. When it went straight to video, why was I not surprised?

Despite all these negatives, the film received a respectable score of 6.2 (to date) on the IMDB ratings board. This usually means that everyone connected with the film, from the producers, crew, publicists, friends, families, all the way down to coffee-gofers, very possibly gave it a solid '10' on IMDB that was so richly undeserved. This kind of 'padding' of films on IMDB is common. If you're looking for an objective analysis of a film's worth, do not, under any circumstances, use IMDB as your sole guide.

The central problem with this film lies, I believe, with the Finnish director Mika Kaurismaki, brother of the esteemed Aki, who has made many superlative films. Mika almost certainly wanted to parody the madness of Hollywood, but he apparently doesn't know that much about it. His timing, pacing and editing were meant to elicit laughs that just weren't there. How could something that ostensibly started as a parody end up, more or less, as a romantic drama, and very predictable drama at that? Everything in this film seemed so forced, so off-centre; all of the actors seem uncomfortable. When you can't make an effective parody about LaLaLand, a sure-fire target, and instead somehow turn it into just another entirely predictable love triangle, something is surely amiss.

To watch a terrific actress like Julie Delpy make an absolute fool of herself in this film is testament to its misguided intentions. They weren't given much to work with in this film, but one has to wonder why the other actors -- from Tennant to Gallo -- even signed on for this. I think they may have been seduced by Kaurismaki's name; or perhaps the script looked good. But they all looked (and acted) as cardboard figures in a film that just doesn't go anywhere.

[–] lor_ 14 years ago

Your reaction is right on the money. The idiotic fascination with so-called "independent" cinema, which gets nonsensical scripts like this one financed (especially with European subsidies available) misses the whole point of cinema: it doesn't matter if Warner Bros. or merely one's benevolent uncle gets involved on the greenlighting/financing end -it takes talent and a drive to excel to come up with great films, experimental or mainstream. The Kaurismakis, as well as their dear friend and fellow jet-setter Jim Jarmusch, have gotten caught up in this modern version of the Emperor's New Clothes -a bizarre form of cronyism where all the top flavor of the month (Gallo) or decades (Depp) critters will sign up for anything as a lark. These films remind me of the indepedence of Warhol -casting his coterie of superstars plus Dennis Hopper from the medium-old Hollywood, or goofy mavericks like Bob Dylan when he infrequently gets behind the camera. The results are watchable if you are a sycophant or member of the in-club: I have frequently emphasized on IMDb commentary of late that these filmmakers make movies for their buddies to watch and to impress gullible film fest programmers, not for the general public or even for the limited coterie of serious film buffs.

Symptomatic is the film's dedication to Sam Fuller, and of course the pointless, unfunny cameo by his widow, Christa Lang, in a scene on a bus. Sure the Kaurismakis and Jarmusch LOVE great films and the pantheon of geniuses that includes Fuller and Ray (Nick that is; I'm not sure these self-proclaimed film history experts appreciate the vast contribution made by Satyajit). But instead of doing mindless pastiches and satires they owe it to the memories of the greats (and nearly all the geniuses of cinema have now passed on, just a few hardy souls like Jacques Rivette hanging in there) to create original, satisfying works anew. When I listened to Jarmusch's b.s. commentary on the DVD of his latest travesty THE LIMITS OF CONTROL, wherein he says nothing is original, all one can do is endless variations of what's already been done, I knew this cinema sect was creatively bankrupt.

[–] Raindog1980 12 years ago

I was wondering about the score too, but for the opposite reason. I thought the film was quite good and the satire of Hollywood very accurate. I don't respect Mika Kaurismäki as a director very much, but he made a decent film out of an excellent script. The reason I liked it the most is because I sympathized with the characters and their fates. That's essentially what matters in a film.

There was a kind of actor driven fluidity in the scenes that reminded me of Wim Wenders' films, that isn't there in Mika's other films. I think it comes from the mix of good script, good acting and good editing. For example the scenes that take place in the new apartment and with the car tyres getting stolen, I found hilarious.

[–] prettybrowneyes86 11 years ago

I'd say because some people--like me--kinda liked it?

I didn't give it a 10, for sure, it didn't deserve that. But a 6.2? Sure, why not? It's not HORRIBLE (obviously it wasn't your taste, and that's fine) and the acting isn't positively awful, either. It's a bit subtle in its humor at points, and squirmy-awkward in others, but I didn't think it was ever completely terrible. That, of course, is a matter of opinion. I gave it 7 stars. I thought it was fun and it kept me interested and I liked the character of Richard, even if he was a bit of an idiot. Others will give it one because they hated it. Others will give it 10 because they love love love it and watch it all the time. All purely a matter of opinion.

[–] franzkabuki 10 years ago

The dialogue and acting weren't really 'that' remarkably bad at all. And I don't think it's meant as some kind of serious satire of Hollywood a la The Player, but rather a sweet, simple, whimsical romantic comedy with a quirky sensibility somewhat reminiscent of bro Aki Kaurismäki (although Mika has it considerably tamed and toned down). Definitely an enjoyable piece of lightweight, but honest and unassuming entertainment.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan