Only Lovers left Alive

Warper

If someone is brave enough to endure this film for its 2 hour duration, then they should get a medal. I saw this yesterday and of the approx 20 in attendance, 10 got up and left. The first brave soul left after about 50 mins and was followed in 3 minute increments until only the damned were left behind. Simply put this is awful. A 2 hour film where nothing happens and you have to put up with some of the most cringe worthy lines ever put on screen. There really is nothing here to recommend. It is a test of peoples endurance and i unfortunately passed.

e_e

I watched it and in fact really enjoyed it. Medal please.

I wouldn't count walk-outs as a signifier of a movie's quality anyway. In this case I think it's more the marketing's fault.

Decuc500

I loved this. One of the most effortlessly cool films I've seen. I'd recommend it to anyone.

johnny_ultimate

An immensely watchable and slick production. After so many years of increasingly dreadful 'revisions' to vampire lore, the smart juxtaposition of these blood-drinkers with rockstars and addicts is a real pleasure to watch (helped by some kickass visuals, like the starry / record opening or the beautiful sequences of the characters finally getting their hits). It's a very funny and occasionally tragic film about the mundanity of immortality, and the various attitudes its characters have of humanity and the very unique quirks of the afterlife. The film also immensely benefits from the mid-film appearance of Mia Wasikowska, adding a more unpredictable edge and serving as a really fun contrast to Swinton and Hiddleston's characters (and that whole segment and its consequences ensure that yes, stuff does actually happen). Audience I saw it at JDIFF seemed completely on-board with Jarmusch's proudly idiosyncratic film.

Having seen it in between viewings of Her and The Grand Budapest Hotel, I wouldn't quite put it up there with those two but this is still a pleasure to watch.

JP Liz V1

I have only read and heard good things about it so cant wait to see it myself

Miguel_Sanchez

Warper wrote: »

If someone is brave enough to endure this film for its 2 hour duration, then they should get a medal.

Jim Jarmusch films aren't always big on story and action but I quite like a lot of them.

Having said that his last one, Limits of Control, I found to be pretty poor.

So I'm encouraged to hear the (mostly) good reports about this one.

Just as a measure of your criticism - have you seen any of Jarmusch's other films? If you have, what did you think of them?

Sad Professor

I loved it. It’s tied with Her as my favourite film of the year so far. Easily Jarmusch’s best film. Far superior to the tedious Limits of Control.

The trailer (which i only watched afterwards) is misleading though. There’s no plot. It’s basically Withnail and I with vampires. Either that’s your kind of thing or it isn’t.

Warper

Miguel_Sanchez wrote: »

Jim Jarmusch films aren't always big on story and action but I quite like a lot of them.

Having said that his last one, Limits of Control, I found to be pretty poor.

So I'm encouraged to hear the (mostly) good reports about this one.

Just as a measure of your criticism - have you seen any of Jarmusch's other films? If you have, what did you think of them?

I had to google his name as i never heard of him. The only one i seen was Ghost Dog and thought it was alright at the time.

Baze

Couldn't agree with the OP more.

Seen it today and it was an ordeal just to sit through..

Great music, but the film felt like watching skits or some really poor, never ending comedic parody of vampire flicks. I can't honestly understand how anyone could enjoy watching it, let alone think it was worthy of praising. The dialogue is laughable. It is a sad excuse for a film and God alone knows why they bothered making it.

Had to accompany two young preteens to the cinema today (to see New York Winter's Tale) but had a few hours to kill beforehand and so thought this would do the job nicely. Was really quite looking forward to seeing it actually (after hearing so many good things about it) and was dreading watching NYWT (what with it bombing at the box office in the states and the generally bad vibes regarding it online).

However, NYWT was an absolute pleasure to watch compared to this crap.. and it's a pretty useless film itself!

However, it comparison to what I had just sat through, even Russell Crowe with a pathetic howya boss accent, Collin Farrell with a similarly nonsensical Dublin one (given that his character had never actually stepped foot outside of New York, apparently), a Will Smith ear-ring clad Lucifer, and added to the fact that horses inexplicably also seem to have the ability to fly..

..it yet all was still was a fecking league away from the excruciating junk that I had just had to endure previously.

e_e

Baze wrote: »

I can't honestly understand how anyone could enjoy watching it, let alone think it was worthy of praising.

Hey I happen to like rambling, relatively plotless films (though this is like Die Hard when compared to Stranger Than Paradise) that are more a slice of somebody's life. Moreover I think the film effectively showed how mundane their existence had become having lived for centuries. Overall found it haunting, funny and warm as well as being an aural and visual delight. But then again I knew what I was gonna see when I bought the ticket, as well as most of the audience I was with who applauded the film afterwards.

It's very much Jarmusch doing his own thing and not giving a damn about the casual viewer, so it might help to be acquainted with his other movies first.

Baze

e_e wrote: »

Hey I happen to like rambling, relatively plotless films that are more a slice of somebody's life.

As do I. I adore them in fact. When they are done well at least.

Moreover I think the film effectively showed how mundane their existence had become having lived for centuries. Overall found it haunting, funny and warm as well as being an aural and visual delight. But then again I knew what I was gonna see when I bought the ticket, as well as most of the audience I was with who applauded the film afterwards.

Some of the best films I have ever seen at the cinema were not met with applause and some of the worst, have been. In my experience it's no marker for quality. If anything, it is generally just indicative that director is of some note and / or, possibly in attendance. I certainly wouldn't deem it all that relevant.

It's very much Jarmusch doing his own thing and not giving a damn about the casual viewer, so it might help to be acquainted with his other movies first.

For the record, I am more than well acquainted with Jarmusch's films. Bounced off school to go and see Down By Law in fact and it remains one of my all time favourite films and of his more recent work, I also really liked Broken Flowers. However, I don't judge films on directors past films. When I sit down to watch a film and it turns out to be crap, past accomplishments are of no solace to me and no matter how found I am of a director, I will slate a film if I feel it deserves to be. To me, the film is all style and zero substance. Although, I do however think a film based on how mundane vampires lives could be, is a cracking idea for a film, but you really don't have to make such mind numbing drivel in an attempt to portray and convey that.

Warper

e_e wrote: »

Hey I happen to like rambling, relatively plotless films (though this is like Die Hard when compared to Stranger Than Paradise) that are more a slice of somebody's life. Moreover I think the film effectively showed how mundane their existence had become having lived for centuries. Overall found it haunting, funny and warm as well as being an aural and visual delight. But then again I knew what I was gonna see when I bought the ticket, as well as most of the audience I was with who applauded the film afterwards.

It's very much Jarmusch doing his own thing and not giving a damn about the casual viewer, so it might help to be acquainted with his other movies first.

You said earlier you wouldnt count walkouts as an indicator of a films quality. Using your logic then how can you consider applaud an indicator?

Also are you saying to enjoy a film i need to be acquainted with the artists prior work? Is this film a sequel or something? I feel a film should be judged on its own merits. It feels to me that some people had their mind made up about this film before they actually saw it basing it on their view of the director.

e_e

Warper wrote: »

Using your logic then how can you consider applaud an indicator?

I don't, I was just contrasting your audience's negative response with mine's appreciative response.

Warper wrote: »

Also are you saying to enjoy a film i need to be acquainted with the artists prior work? Is this film a sequel or something? I feel a film should be judged on its own merits. It feels to me that some people had their mind made up about this film before they actually saw it basing it on their view of the director.

Well firstly I don't feel it's necessary to be familiar with Jarmusch to enjoy the film, I think this is very much a matter of expectation which brings it back to being an issue of marketing. I personally could imagine finding the film a lot more jarring had I seen the trailer and none of Jarmusch's other work beforehand.

But really I no longer believe in this "watch a film on its own terms" theory anyway. Your experience of films change depending on what you've watched before, be it the previous films in a serious, a book or the director's past work. You watch everything within a certain context and that can impact your opinion of the work.

e_e

Baze wrote: »

Some of the best films I have ever seen at the cinema were not met with applause and some of the worst, have been. In my experience it's no marker for quality. If anything, it is generally just indicative that director is of some note and / or, possibly in attendance. I certainly wouldn't deem it all that relevant.

Again, I was only saying that in contrast to Warper's post.

Baze wrote: »

I don't judge films on directors past films. When I sit down to watch a film and it turns out to be crap, past accomplishments are of no solace to me and no matter how found I am of a director, I will slate a film if I feel it deserves to be.

Don't get me wrong, so will I. But it's the case of knowing Jarmusch's territory that allowed me to settle into this film a whole lot easier.

Baze wrote: »

To me, the film is all style and zero substance. Although, I do however think a film based on how mundane vampires lives could be, is a cracking idea for a film, but you really don't have to make such mind numbing drivel in an attempt to portray and convey that.

What was mind numbing drivel about it? Genuinely curious.

Sad Professor

e_e wrote: »

But really I no longer believe in this "watch a film on its own terms" theory anyway. Your experience of films change depending on what you've watched before, be it the previous films in a serious, a book or the director's past work. You watch everything within a certain context and that can impact your opinion of the work.

I’d also add that many director’s films can’t be fully appreciated when taken individually. To use a recent example, Hong Sang-soo. I think I would have been a lot less negative about Our Sunhi if I was more familiar with his work or if Nobody's Daughter Haewon (which it’s almost in conversation with) was fresher in my mind.

As far as Jarmusch goes, he’s not like Wes Anderson with his fans and detractors. Even people who like his style tend to find him hit-and-miss, so I don’t think anyone went into Only Lovers Left Alive expecting to love it, especially not after The Limits of Control.

Fysh

I enjoyed this, though I can certainly see why some would see it as pretentious. I liked the use of music and certain visual tics, and the performances were great - in particular I thought that Tom Hiddlestone as the weird lovechild of Morrisey and Robert Smith, relentlessly trapped in the recesses of his own navel, was fantastic.

Jarmusch's claim that the characters aren't pretentious is interesting but doesn't ring true, at least not for me, and I thought that Eva's assessment of Adam & Eve

after they kick her out of Adam's house

could be applied as easily to the film and by extension Jarmusch as to the characters. (The characters are most definitely pretentious, achingly concerned with their appearances and yet more often than not looking like rejects from a Matrix sequel :P).

Between We Are The Night, Byzantium and Only Lovers Left Alive it's been a pleasant surprise in the last couple of years to see filmmakers doing something actually interesting with vampires on screen.