Is it me? or does nothing really happen at all in this movie? - Only Lovers Left Alive (2013) Discussion

[–] Earthmonkey16 10 years ago

It is not an action movie it is a portrait of how one can deal with eternal life, embrace it, bemoan it, or party....
Most of the attraction lies in the dialogue (if you like the references) and the atmosphere.

Maybe next time try the reviews before you watch a movie (the haters hate the lack of action, the lovers love the atmosphere), I do not know what you were expecting but I knew what kind of film it would be, a calm ode to eternal love.

I'm not crazy I'm just not your kind of sane
He who laughs last, didn't understand the joke

reply

[–] klusumaa 10 years ago

"a calm ode to eternal love " - well said!

reply

[–] AidaClarkfield 10 years ago

Not to be rude but why do we need "a calm ode to eternal love"? For all the vamps out there watching Jarmusch?

reply

[–] Zitadoeza 10 years ago

Why don't we need "a calm ode to eternal love"?

reply

[–] AidaClarkfield 10 years ago

Love doesn't last. We're not vampires.

reply

[–] ncrawford82 8 years ago

Speak for yourself.

The stories of an underappreciated retail employee.
http://cartjockeyconfessions.wordpress.com

reply

[–] Ithilfaen 9 years ago

It is not an action movie

Right because action movies have plots usually.

it is a portrait of how one can deal with eternal life, embrace it, bemoan it, or party....

That's demonstrated in about 8 minutes. The rest is superficial and shallow.
There's barely any (if at all) exploration of how it could affect someone to love for that long, how such long life and love can transform, spoil or separate people.
There's very little of anything except pretty lousy music (not one goth piece in the whole movie) and very little ambiance.

And no, I'm not into action movies and yes I loved the cast, I usually like Jarmush's brand of slow burn, and I appreciate indie cinema. This was just a waste of opportunity.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

reply

[–] little_wing 9 years ago

There's very little of anything except pretty lousy music (not one goth piece in the whole movie) and very little ambiance.

lol, I thought yours was a serious post until I read that line. You almost had me!

I love dry wit.

Reaction time is a factor in this, so please pay attention.

reply

[–] WackyKacky 8 years ago

As someone who doesn't care about action, much less vampires, I found this quite dull. The atmosphere didn't captivate me, or the pathos of their lifestyles. I watched this because of the lead actors, whom I have seen in many other roles (including Swilton who doesn't seem to age, not looking much older than Tom Hiddleston, 21 years here junior). It was slow moving to say the least, and maybe the slow feel was to give that feeling of the slowness of time for the characters, as they move from decade to decad (indicated but not seen in the movie). But their lives held no interest for me at all. I was tired of their story, and cared less what they wanted to happen it it.

reply

[–] little_wing 8 years ago

I found this quite dull. The atmosphere didn't captivate me,...

As far as the atmosphere, well, I won't denigrate your feelings for the film - that is purely subjective and everyone has a right to their own opinion. I loved the style and atmosphere and haven't tired of the film even after several viewings. The film seemed quite immersive to me; similar to the feeling I get from watching Blade Runner.

Reaction time is a factor in this, so please pay attention.

reply

[–] sweethistory25 10 years ago

I thought the film was great and I've never watched films of the director! Go see the film again and watch some youtube.com to hear the directors and actors perspective!

reply

[–] grrgoyl 10 years ago

No, it's not just you. I'll never forget watching Dead Man years and years ago and hating it even more than this movie (a whole lot of nothing happens in that one too). Gave the director another chance (mainly for the sake of Hiddleston), and boy do I regret it. Don't understand why everyone thinks he's so great (and deeply resent the implication that we "just don't get it" if we didn't like it). I mean, I don't need nonstop action to enjoy a movie, but this was a total waste of my time.

Thank you for speaking up, was starting to feel like I was living in bizarro world where bad movies are critically acclaimed.

reply

[–] TINAisKIKI 10 years ago

It's just not everyone's cup of tea. I remember in my teens people going apesh!t for Napoleon Dynamite, yet I sat there, bored as hell debating if I should get massively stoned so that the movie would become enjoyable.

It's either something that you "get" or you don't. It's not a pretentious "we're too smart for you" statement meant to demean anyone- this film is a 'love it, or leave it' thing.

~~~
What the f!ck is a Lommy?

reply

[–] MyDarkStar 10 years ago

Napoleon Dynamite sucks when you're stoned too. Trust me on that.

reply

[–] ethermusic1981 7 years ago

I enjoyed Napoleon Dynamite sober and stoned. Shrug. To each their own.

reply

[–] armensog 10 years ago

The director is NOT that great. The only good movie I saw of JJ is Broken Flowers. Also Down by the law (if thats the name) was okay. The rest is doped *beep* with nothing at all happening. Art house in its worst.

reply

[–] Yanyawa 10 years ago

I can see how you felt this way. Quite frankly, I'd say about 10 years ago I would have felt the same way....like wtf....are you serious right now kinda thing. As the years have gone by I've come to like these movies that deal more in the symbolic and imagery realm. I saw Under The Skin with Scarlet Johansson and really loved it. But with both of these, I knew what I was getting into so that helps. It's definitely not for everybody and I'd never elevate myself among someone by saying, "oh yeah I got it cause I'm more cerebral and you aren't". I hate it when people do that. It's simply boils down to whatever floats your boat.

I am glad you explained why you didn't like it versus coming on here with the generic, "I hated it cause it was stupid"...lol. Lots of that going on round here in IMDB.

reply

[–] fvazquez-1 10 years ago

I know what you say, but I've seen most of Jarmusch's films and this one I felt it needed something else, like the ending biting that couple.... well I found much better "One night on Earth"...

reply

[–] jozedxyqk 10 years ago

It's not just you, but that's rather the point, I imagine.

reply

[–] Halbermensch999 10 years ago

It's not just you, I was bored out of my mind and almost left the cinema, which I have never done. There isn't really a plot worth a damn, and too much of the movie is tiresome music. There is nothing wrong with the actors and often it can look quite good, but the plot simply isn't there.

reply

[–] armagecko 10 years ago

The days of just showing up at the movies and getting a good ol' dose of your weekly Hollywood are over - thankfully! So long Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart & Bogie. We loved ya, but we now have CHOICES. We can watch a $200M superhero extravaganza, a kickstater funded romcom, or an arthouse indy flick, among others. With all of these different voices to choose from, dear viewer, a little homework is now required to avoid disappointment.

Jim Jarmusch is no secret. He's got about a dozen projects that are all well-documented online. While the subjects are different, his storytelling style has not really deviated that much. So, if any viewers were disappointed by the slow, casual narrative in OLLA, they only have themselves to blame. Whining about this is like going to see Romeo & Juliet and complaining about iambic pentameter.....

Here's another helpful tip for those who prefer mainstream fare: if the film opens in less than 200 cinemas nationwide (in USA), you should probably see X-Men 18 instead. Again, this info is widely available for those who care to look. The good news for you is that summer is almost here, so you'll have plenty of Godzillas & Transformers to choose from.

reply

[–] jozedxyqk 10 years ago

Part of the problem, I think, is that a lot of people who aren't that familiar with Jarmusch went to go see this because of vampires and/or Tom Hiddleston. They probably weren't at all expecting an incredibly slow burn narrative without a standard movie plot, which is pretty typical of Jarmusch's films.

That being said, they are allowed to have an opinion about the film and it's not surprising if it's negative; Jarmusch isn't for everyone. Still, I do agree that it really is the viewer's fault if they're disappointed by the lack of plot or the drifting quality to the storytelling. That's kinda Jarmusch's thing.

I mean, I wouldn't complain about excessive explosions in a Michael Bay movie. You should go into it expecting that sort of thing. It's no different with Jarmusch. Even his samurai movie had a slow burn.

reply

[–] RightPalmOfMaedhros 10 years ago

Agree completely.

Jarmusch has been my favourite director for 19 years so I couldn't wait for his new Tilda project to arrive (love Tilda, too). But I have a friend who's not that familiar with his work, but is a fan of Hiddleston and especially vampires, like you said. And when I told her about this film, I remember myself telling her at least 6 times too many: "But be warned, this is a very Jim Jarmusch film, it's not a vampire film. Seriously, the genre, if any, is Jarmusch." I was so worried she's gonna hate me for making her see it, as others have before with some of his other work :D

Because his style clearly isn't for everyone.

reply

[–] lauraquiroga90 10 years ago

I think it's quite pretentious to assume that someone who doesn't like this movie only appreciates blockbusters. Can't you be a cinephile and still dislike Jarmusch's films?

I'm not that keen on his filmography, but I had watched some of his previous movies and knew more or less what to expect with this one, and still I found it excessively slow. Yes, I liked the atmosphere and absolutely loved the music, but just a little bit more action wouldn't have hurt. I hate it when you can't be critical with a filmmaker just because he's the king of underground movies (and I'm not just referring to Jarmusch, but in general).

reply

[–] jozedxyqk 10 years ago

I think it goes both ways, myself. One can easily be a cinephile and just not be into Jarmusch, no different than with any other art house/indie/whatever director. One can also be a cinephile and genuinely enjoy big, dumb, goofy blockbusters. Insisting that either statement is impossible is just playing no true Scotsman or forcing a false dichotomy.

For the record, someone can even be a fan of a particular director but not be a fan of their entire body of work. Opinions are subjective like that.

Personally, I love me some art house cinema and I love me some big, dumb, goofy blockbusters. I like movies in general and see no reason why I should limit myself when it comes to what I want to watch. I think a lot of this 100% all patrician-core, all the time nonsense is tryhard bullshít coming from people who just took a film studies class for the first time or whatever. There's more to watching movies than trying to make oneself look smart, which is why there's absolutely nothing wrong with watching "pleb-tier" movies.

reply

[–] Sook-Yongsheng 10 years ago

Insisting that either statement is impossible is just playing no true Scotsman

'No true Scotsman'?

Never heard that one...

Only Lovers Left Alive: 8
Oculus: 7
Joe: 10
Locke: 10
Blue Ruin: 9
Belle: 8
Ida: 9

reply

[–] jozedxyqk 10 years ago

It's an informal logical fallacy wherein someone claims that you can't be [x] unless you [y]. The simplified argument usually goes something like:

"No Scotsmen likes to play badminton."
"I'm Scottish and I like to play badminton."
"Well, no true Scotsman likes to play badminton."

In this case it's closer to:

"All cinephiles like Jarmusch films."
"I'm a cinephile and I don't like Jarmusch films."
"Well, all true cinephiles like Jarmusch films."

The implication being, of course, that if you don't like Jarmusch films then you're not really a cinephile. It's false rhetoric designed to redefine terms to better suit the arguer's point or retain an assertion, usually unreasoned. You see it a lot in religious arguments.

reply

[–] Chocolegz 10 years ago

Personally, I love me some art house cinema and I love me some big, dumb, goofy blockbusters. I like movies in general and see no reason why I should limit myself when it comes to what I want to watch.

"All cinephiles like Jarmusch films."
"I'm a cinephile and I don't like Jarmusch films."
"Well, all true cinephiles like Jarmusch films."

The implication being, of course, that if you don't like Jarmusch films then you're not really a cinephile. It's false rhetoric designed to redefine terms to better suit the arguer's point or retain an assertion, usually unreasoned. You see it a lot in religious arguments.

I completely agree with you. I have a big list of movies I adore. I also have a big list of campy and silly movie I adore. Signed, a Jarmusch fan.

I really like this movie, btw.

Erik Lehnsherr: You want society to accept you, but you can't even accept yourself.

reply

[–] denise1234 10 years ago

lauraquiroga90^

"I think it's quite pretentious to assume that someone who doesn't like this movie only appreciates blockbusters.

Can't you be a cinephile and still dislike Jarmusch's films?"

Certainly!

It's a Red Herring/Hasty Generalization to say that someone who doesn't like this movie must only appreciate blockbusters.

I am quite the cinephile and have a wide appreciation of all kinds of movies across genres and time periods: I did not like this movie much.

I love the actors in it and liked some of the performances. I liked some of the atmosphere and cinematography. Tom Hiddleston looked good.

Other than that: Overdone use of forced name-dropping/exposition in the dialogue. Flat characters (with the exception of 'Ian' who, although he potentially may have been a 'shady' character, was the only character I cared one whit about). Two-dimensional ambiguities sprinkled throughout. Limp.

So, I say it's worth one watch just because. Other than that...meh...

~~ The good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what fiction means ~ ~ Oscar Wilde

reply

[–] Howlin Wolf 9 years ago

Sure, you can be a cinephile and not like Jarmusch... but, I don't think you can be a cinephile and want 'action' with every film...

Some films are slow and episodic, and they aren't bad because of that, alone.



"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

reply

[–] prinde_oaia 10 years ago

I love your comment! Have a nice life sir. Movies don't mean a thing if the viewer doesn't have a certain background culture in order to make a movie relatable to him/her. I'ts the deeper thoughts that this movie implies and the refferences that make it so great. It isn't another Twilight movie and it was about time someone dealt with the vampire scene in a more mature kind of way, adapting the centuries old vapire story to the modern age and really portaying it properly without making the so called vampires use cars in order to show that it happens in the present,

reply

[–] ABoyMadeOfDust 10 years ago

This is the greatest reply I've ever read here. I like you :D

...but I'm free...

reply

[–] slazev 10 years ago

I don't like you putting X-Men (except the 3rd and Wolverine Origins) in with Transformers (a long boring sequence of explosions).

I loved Days of Future Past and Only Lovers left Alive, so it's not as clear cut as you say.

reply

[–] jozedxyqk 10 years ago

The X-Men franchise is on the same level of "pleb tier" as the Transformers franchise. That's pretty much inarguable.

However, that doesn't mean that you can't enjoy it along with more patrician films. Last I checked, there's no law stating that you can only enjoy big, dumb blockbusters or small, limited release art house films, with no crossing over.

The X-Men films are big, dumb blockbusters, OLLA is a small, limited release art house film; if you enjoyed both, more power to you.

reply

[–] jmtrc 8 years ago

The X-Men franchise is on the same level of "pleb tier" as the Transformers franchise. That's pretty much inarguable.

Only if you don't know much about film. Sure, they might be both mainstream multiplex fare, but the better X-Men movies are good multiplex fare, whereas all the Transformers movies are universally stupid. Its actualy possible for summer tentpole flicks to be quality viewing.

reply

[–] HornyDonkey 9 years ago

Meh, I love Satantango but I strongly dislike this movie. So, your simplistic opinion regarding two types of viewers (the simple-minded mainstream lovers and the sophisticated artsy-fartsy lovers) doesn't really work here.

reply

[–] armagecko 9 years ago

Congratulations. You like a movie. Satantango. Should we expect any less from a handle like HornyDonky? Meh.

I'm not sure to whose "simplistic opinion" you're referring. I never stated an opinion that there are only two types of viewers.

It works if I say it works. I run this town.

reply

[–] mattisdiagos 10 years ago

I didn't really like it, found it a bit slow but that's JJ...thought both leads were incredible and the production design was sumptuous - just loved looking at it!

Not much plot but maybe there didn't need to be?

reply