I just can't imagine. There's something for everyone in it. For me it's one of the greatest movies ever made. It's absolutely gorgeous, it's nearly perfect!
And I just can't think of anybody not liking it at least a bit.
As you can see, there is nobody on the whole imdb.com who absolutely NOT likes this movie. Why? Because it´s perfect (of course the movie, not imdb.com).
shareThanks, hendrixx-1, for the sarcasm but I'm really serious about my question.
What would be the reasons for anybody not to like this movie?
_____________________
--- BE TROLL 2!!! ---
I don't know. Just watched it a few moments ago and I'm still sceptical whether I now liked or disliked it. Anyhow, what is there perhaps not to like is your question, so I don't have the definitive answer, but what comes to my mind as possible downsides is this:
1) the film consists of short stories, and none of them really has a plot in the classical sense of a movie (there isn't much 'action'), yet still it is more than 2 hours long
2) more than half of the film is in foreign languages
3) maybe the dark undertone of the movie all in all
As I say, this is not necessarily what I think is bad in this film, it's just possible explanation why people could come to think that this film is not to their likes.
Perhaps some more things will turn up in my mind in the future. Anyway, I have to say I liked the film in parts, and the New York part would run the list for me. I liked the character portraits of the two guys, played by Armin Mueller-Stahl and Giancarlo Esposito. I just wished this scene would have been longer...!
Anyhow, interesting question, and I hope they'll be other posts that can either confirm or deny my explanation.
Regards,
Julian.
As you can see, there is nobody on the whole imdb.com who absolutely NOT likes this movie.
The opening story (L.A.) was pretty weak. I felt neither actress was believable in her portrayal - the dialog felt forced, and Winnoa Ryder was a real mis-cast.
Things did get marginally better with the NY episode, and better still with Paris and then Rome (Benigni was a hoot). Helsinki was ok, but a real downer after Begnini.
Maybe I live a sheltered life, but can anyone tell me, do people really throw around the "F" word so commonly in conversations - especially with strangers? That seemed way over done to me, like they were trying extra hard to be "cool" by throwing it in as much as possible. Got on a my nerves quite early on - and even in subtitles (as things progressed).
My 2 cents.
To strangers... I'd say no, but it really depends on the character and from which part of the society the person comes.
What does a cab driver have to worry about for example? I think in this point it's pretty realistic.
_____________________
--- BE TROLL 2!!! ---
Well, I did not like two chapters of the movie- LA and New York, knocking my rating down a few points, but overall I found it to be interesting and worthwhile. The images were gorgeous and the color was stunning... night photography always being impressive as it is very difficult to do. The great music by Tom Waits fit perfectly. Jarmusch said something about how he wanted this movie to be like parts of movies that are usually unseen.. you see people traveling around, getting in and out of cabs, but what happens during those lost moments?
I just thought that the New York part was sort of a stretch compared to the rest of the movie, and while helmut was quite endearing, the other two characters were loud and obnoxious.. the annoying screaming could have been cut down a little. However, I did enjoy the overhead shot of Yo-Yo's legs with the giant 1980's sneakers while he was jumping around in the cold.
The Los Angeles segment was ruined by lousy dialogue. Though the drunk rockers at the beginning were hilarious ("have you ever heard of a band called Utensil?"), and so was Gina Rowlands's big cell phone.
Well, I didn't HATE the movie, but I didn't really care that much for it either. I will give it credit, though, as prehaps I saw this film a bit too late... whereas now the idea of connecting a bunch of short stories by theme has been done to death, in 1991 it was quite a creative concept. Still, I've grown tired of this format, so, again, I saw the movie a little too late. I have to disagree with most posters, who seem to think the NY and LA pulled the movie down... I felt like they were the highlights, along with the blind girl story. The rest actually felt... campy! I'm sure the improvised confessions to the preacher was entertaining for the actors, it was too obviously overdone to be taken seriously or even funny. The speech with the guy who lost his daughter was, well, boring, as the audience could easily figure out the end of his ten-minute monologue before he even really starts it...
The script was written in eight days, and it felt like it. But It gets bonus points for at least being creative, which hollywood these days seems to have given up on.
I thought it was crap.
shareWell, honest opinion too! ;-)
_____________________
--- BE TROLL 2!!! ---
www.myspace.com/anzycpethian
The only part I truly liked was the Paris part…which I still say was good. Enough to redeem the movie? Probably not.
He said it's all in your head, and I said, so's everything--
But he didnt get it.
it was ok but not as good as people say
6/10When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...