Just because you can break the code doesn't mean the message isn't worthwhile. I love his deadpan humor, the calm demeanor of his films, the lack of need for major conflict, resolution and deep character development, not to mention action and effects of course. I find it very enjoyable. I love rock n roll but every once in a while I like a piece of jazz which doesn't have stanzas and choruses or even vocals. I don't think just because I recognize it for what it is and what the musician is going for means it is any less good. Jarmusch is great, he peaked but he was great anyway. I met him once, he is quiet and shy, he isn't a fake at all. Be more open to different things coolbrett, jesus I just noticed part of your name is cool. Kind of ironic given your post huh?

dude Bay sucks , bad

These kind of people in my book are exactly the same who ravage about that Michael Bay is hack and should stop making movies. Film is a medium that need's really open mind to really enjoy them as art or simply entertainment. I guess for each their own. I can enjoy both, Bay and Jarmusch, equally. For different reasons of course. Jarmusch has very strong following and fanbase and as I have understood, he doesn't care too much about box-office success.
Please, visit my Hell Hole. Thank You!
prguauk.myminicity.com/sec

I know what you're saying, and I mostly agree, but there is a tiny problem. There are people who watch films only to get entertained, and think that only purpose of medium is entertainment. Nothing wrong with that, everyone has a right for an attitude. But then, you get people who hear somewhere something about particular director, and decide to check out. And what do they see? Something entirely different, unconventional, which doesn't quite fit into their vision of a medium. They do not understand the point, and immediately form an opinion based on their quite flimsy experience. They call director an ''arty, pretentious hack'', or something uninspiring like that. And everyone else is wrong. ''That man has no greatness! He has no talent! He is different just to be different! Boo-hooo!''
And we're talking about Jarmusch here! A guy who mixes art and entertainment perfectly, like Gilliam, for example. What would happen if he watched Tarkovsky or Bergman, who seemed to never have any intention to ''entertain'' someone whatsoever? He's head would explode.
I am sorry, but those people drive me nuts. If you do not want to watch, fine, but stop goofing around with something you clearly don't understand. Those people aren't considered top of the class for nothing.

I find Jarmusch's films very entertaining. Also Tarantino's and some of Rodriguez's work. Why the hell I would watch a film if I don't get entertained. Of course there are films that I watch only for the entertainment sake, and then there are films that entertain me, but also make me think while watching and after it. I never look for a film only because it has some deeper meaning or the director has something important to say. And Jarmusch is arty and cool, but not just for being arty and cool.
Please, visit my Hell Hole. Thank You!
prguauk.myminicity.com/sec

Watch his other films, you cannot possibly draw that conclusion just by watching only one film ( and not one of his best ). Besides, you can't watch films from acclaimed auteurs and expect narrative and plots executed conventionally. If your attitude is really that negative, then you really shouldn't watch films from Steve McQueen, Richard Lanklater, or any European master like Tarkovsky, Goddard or Dreyer You need to dig little deeper, and understand their way of filmmaking, their intentions are not to entertain, but to express ideas about subject they find interesting. Those films really aren't for everyone. It seems to me you want to hate this guy so badly out of spite. If you want to complain about pretentious filmmaking, Robert Rodriguez or Quentin Tarantino boards are your gold mine. Those guys are 'arty and cool', but without any substance. Leave masters like Jarmusch alone.