Stranger Than Paradise

Rating:
Summary: THE WORST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN
Review: Lest I incite hatred from that title alone, I'll explain myself: I loved "Magnolia" -- a movie many deemed boring and confusing, I loved "Bottle Rocket" and "Rushmore" -- movies that most people often overlook for their subtley and pervasive deadpan wit, I love independent cinema -- "Jesus' Son," "Welcome to the dollhouse," "Naked," "Ladybird, Ladybird" to name a few off the top of my head, and I generally like movies, classic or contemporary, even putting aside the bad ones which are negligible most of the time. To make it ever clearer, I like most of Jim Jarmusch's films. But Stranger Than Paradise is the worst movie I have ever seen.

A friend lent it to me, with effusive praise of it's "ingenious humor" and "inventive style." So I watched it, unable to bring myself to laugh at many of the movie's obvious attempts at subtle comedy or "insightful" portrayal of existential angst. I was confused, and recalled my friend having said "either you love it or hate it and don't get it's humor."

So I watched it again, perhaps it was one of those movies that grows on you, I foolishly thought. A second viewing only amplified the massive shortcomings -- inefficacious comic timing, bland and uninspired characters, poor (and utterly pointless) pacing, minimalist production that's simultaneously lifeless and grandiose (indepedent film-making that shouts indepedent film-making does not equal bold and revolutionary), and frequent blackouts that will have you tearing your hair out. Seeing this movie reminded me of something a film teacher once told me -- "when you set out to create something new, you must be willing to fail and try again, you must be willing to work with material and accept that not everything different is good." "Stranger Than Paradise" seems as if it was thrown together with the intention of "avoiding the mainstream" without any regard as to if it were even viewable, and I can assure you it is not.

There is not a single redeeming aspect of this awful, hate inducing movie. It is terrible expressionism -- if you can even call it that, it is anemic experimental cinema, it has hollow characters (not because the actors are untalented but because they are so shamelessly underutilized), and it has the audacity to call itself a film.

Normally, I would rail against berating a film, because life is short, precious, beautiful, etc. But I cannot stress enough how bad this movie is. Alfred Hitchcock said a movie is not a film of people talking and a friend of mine disagreed with that statement proclaming a movie can have all the talk it wants as long as it's interesting. Here we have a movie that would drive both shoot themselves in the head.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

Rating:
Summary: A Perfect Movie
Review: Maybe THE perfect movie, very funny, very close to the bone & improves immensely with each viewing.

Back when hip meant wise rather than trendy, I would have tagged it the hippest.

Rating:
Summary: Low-budget, minimalist meditation on the American Dream
Review: Mundane and deliberately paced, yet strangely appealing, this oddball ultra-low-budget movie (made with left-over film stock given to Jarmusch by director Wim Wenders) from Jarmusch deals with three people who take an unsuccessful road trip from Detroit to Florida.

The DVD reveals the limitations of the original film, both in terms of sound and picture. It's grainy thoughout, and the dialogue does not always sound clear. Luckily, both of these strike you as appropriate for this film. Jarmusch's characters stubbornly refuse to reveal much of anything about themselves, either to the audience or to each other.

Many find Stranger than Paradise difficult to watch, mostly because of Jarmusch minimalist approach to this film, along with the fact that boredom, frustration, and disappointment are the primary elements of the film's subject. There's very little action. . .it's not funny, exactly. . .there's not a lot of drama. . .there's no sex. . .but somehow it still manages to succeed without all of that.

Rating:
Summary: A little too minimal
Review: Next to your average, American Joe, I consider myself to be pretty preferential to minimalism, but this is a little past where I draw the line. I really wanted to like this movie, but nothing happens. Maybe somehow that's the point, and I just didn't get it or something, but it's boring as hell. The performances are good, but most of the time the actors aren't acting; they're just sitting there as the camera films them. It's a lot like watching a friend's home movies, except only the stuff where nothing's really happening. I didn't count the lines in the film, but I'm pretty sure I could. The camera work is good and so is the editing, but those things alone couldn't hold my interest.

Rating:
Summary: little character depth, boring
Review: Stranger in Paradise is a B&W film that won the Best First Feature film at the 1984 Cannes Film Festival. The story centers around two guys who like to gamble and one of their cousins, Eva who recently arrived from Hungary.

All three characters are portrayed as living boring lives... The main insight into the two guys is that they like to gamble on horses, dogs, cards. Less insight into what drives Eva.

Each scene appears to be shot from a sole stationary camera, then there is a black screen for a few seconds, then the next scene. This could of course be an effective technique, but in this case seemed to add to the one-dimensional quality of the film.

The plot can be summarized as: Willie sits in his apartment, Eva arrives, friend Eddie arrives, Eva leaves to live with her Aunt in Cleveland, a year passes, Willie & Eddie get a car and drive to Cleveland pick up Eva, drive to Florida, sit around a motel in Florida. That's about it.

The camera observes them doing pretty much nothing along the way: watching them watch television, watching them drive, watching them sit. No particularly meaningful dialog that is either especially entertaining or which gives deeper insight into their characters. In other words dull. I kept expecting it to get deeper, funnier, or something... But it just didn't happen for me.

Now I'll be the first to admit that a movie doesn't need to hit on all cylinders to be a great movie. A script alone, great cinematography, music, funny line, interesting character, or interesting concept alone can easily make a movie worthwhile. Many of my favorite movies are strong in some areas and weak in others.

For me, I didn't find any particularly good strengths in Stranger Than Paradise and therefore can't recommend it. Watching a video of boring people doing boring things was boring. Makes your local bus station look lively.

As a comparison / alternative, I would strongly recommend seeking out "The Girl on The Bridge", a B&W French film that is just finishing its US theatre run and which will hopefully be available in the US on video soon. It is a dark romatic comedy with two interesting main characters, excellent cinamatography, storyline, and humor - 5 stars for that one.

Rating:
Summary: Stranger Than Paradise is a great movie
Review: Stranger Than Paradise is the most original, sensitive, intelligently humorous and satisfying movie I have ever seen. Someday, if not already, it will rank with the greatest movies of all time. In my opinion, Stranger Than Paradise is a masterpiece of film making. I own this movie and I don't own many, not many at all. I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to see a movie of unique vision, originality and content.

Rating:
Summary: Strange Indeed, an Indie Classic
Review: The black and white is a nice touch. I was surprised to find this movie listed under Comedy, I thought it was more of a drama. Anyway, if you're looking for something quiet, see 'Paradise.' It has barely any action, so if you're loking for something exciting, I wouldn't watch it. It seems to take place in the 1960s; it's a bit dark and urban. The characters aren't too developed throughout the movie, but screamin' Jay Hawkins shows a different side of the character Eva, form Budapest, Hungary. Yet another classic film for Jarmusch. It won the Golden Leopard (an award at a Sweedish film festival).

Rating:
Summary: A Work of Art
Review: The first time I watched "Stranger than Paradise" was by accident. I turned on the TV - at the time I lived in Berlin/Germany - and there was this piece of film that was strange and fascinating and different and beautiful. Black and white and seemingly slow compared to Hollywood Standards. If normal movies are like novels, then this movie is like poetry. It truly is a piece of art. The photography is strong and beautiful but never without a purpose. This is one of the few movies where images tell the story. I watched it many times and I love it more than any other movie I have seen in my lifetime. It is "stranger than paradise".

Rating:
Summary: Just boring
Review: The only funny scene in the movie is when Wille explains to his cousin what is the american food. The music is not bad, but the movie is just boring: nothing happened, nothing to talk about. May be there are couple of good operator shots, but this is easy to make with Black and White movie.

Rating:
Summary: Beats "Last Year at Marienbad"
Review: The reviews for this movie are more interesting and categorical than most. Viewers either love the film or hate it. Like any good work of art, STP tries to get us to see the familiar in an unfamiliar way, such that our understanding of the every-day is deepened. So I'm tempted to say that anyone willing to look through Jarmusch's novel spectacles will be rewarded, while those insisting on a more conventional approach will turn away in disgust. But perhaps the results are not as simple as that. After all, who would want to sit through a double feature that extends the listlessness and minimalism to 3 hour duration. STP may have moments of real insight such as the dead-end diner, nevertheless as cinematic style, the limitations are obvious. (Andy Warhol's eight hours of fixed focus on a Manhattan skyscraper may be a profound idea, but as repeatable cinema the limitations are even more obvious.) Still and all, this one-of-a kind is salvaged by its droll humor. This is existential comedy. The zombified characters simply cannot communicate with one another and as a result are reduced to co-existing in darkly humorous fashion, carrying their mute fumblings from one seedy locale to another, (the ridiculous pork-pie hats are a brilliant comedic touch). And not even that most American of solutions, a big wad of money, helps; in fact the sudden windfall produces a final physical separation, both amusingly ironic and unexpectedly poingnant. Apparently, Jarmusch intends this on-going isolation as a musing on the so-called human condition, since a number of scenes are filmed against featureless horizons. But whatever the over-all intention, this 'Buster Keaton meets Ingmar Bergman' oddity remains a classic of deadpan understatement. And though most of us are a lot more talkative than the three principals, I wonder--when you get right down to it which Jarmusch does--if we communicate any more effectively.