Bob E., I liked the movie a lot but you're eating ish when you tell people to "examine" the critic's ratings. Those are there to guide people towards potentially more rewarding movies. Critics aren't gods we should pray to and agree with on every occasion. And by the way, 64 is good, but not excellent.

Some people are crazy. it's a beautiful film.

I am a Jarmusch fan. So, my expectations were very high with this movie. I loved so much all the other Jarmusch movies. I watched 'Stranger than paradise' a dozen of time and I still like to be absorbed by its ambience. So I was a bit concerned that 'Coffee and cigarettes' would not fill the bill. It was not up with former Jarmusch's work but still I liked it pretty much. Mostly the scenes with Begnini and Iggy Pop/Waits. As allways, when Jarmusch makes a movie, it is a gift for us. Thanks again Mr. Jarmusch.… Expand

When a highly quirky, individualistic director such as Jim Jarmusch makes films that work (and usually, with Down by Law, Dead Man, Night on Earth and Ghost Dog:The Way of the Samurai, they really do), they're described with such adjectives as "brilliant", "unique", "one of a kind". When they fall flat on their face, a more frequent label is "self-indulgent". By those standards, not only can Jarmusch's latest be comfortably described as one of the most self-indulgent films in years, but it's also a textbook example of exactly why so many once-burned mainstream moviegoers won't venture out to anything more adventurous than Van Helsing. This is an almost completely unwatchable blend of pompously stylized, nail your camera to the ground direction (punctuated on occasion by absurd overhead shots of coffee cups and ashtrays that look like they were filmed by an ant in a toy helicopter) and talky, rambling skits that fall into four categories: those that make a single point, those that are completely pointless, those that go on forever making no point whatsoever, and those that go on forever beating the same point to death. The deliberately conversational format makes it extremely tempting to claim this film as proof as to why it's always a bad idea to eavesdrop on people (not because it's impolite but because their chats are boring)...but then Louis Malle did this brilliantly in My Dinner With Andre over 20 years ago. It's more tempting to label this as one of the worst uses of a fabulous cast since Irwin Allen's The Swarm even farther back, because almost straight down the line Jarmusch makes a lot of actors I really admire look and sound incredibly self-involved; obnoxious or worse. Cases in point: in any other film the terrific Cate Blanchett's dual role would be a tour-de-force; here it just comes off as a showy gimmick. The excellent actors Alfred Molina and Steve Coogan seem to be in a duel to see who can be the most off-putting. As for the highly-vaunted Bill Murray/ Wu Tang Clan skit, I can only say that even though I'm no Caddyshack fan, I'll watch him do a Wile E. Coyote on the gopher 20 more times before I watch him chug a pot of coffee again even once. Tom Waits does come off as fairly amusing, largely because his vocal tone and inflections here are so similar to those of George Wendt on TV's Cheers. Ironically, the cast member I was most impressed with was the most self-effacing: Katy Hensz, who pops up in the middle of the Molina/Coogan bit, bringing some unexpected (and totally welcome) warmth and humanity as an autograph seeker. The catch, amazingly, is that she's only on screen for about two minutes or so, and Jarmusch never shows her face. (Talk about a performer who lives up to the adage "there are no small parts, only small actors"!) As for the rest of C&C, well, in the 1975 revisionist private-eye movie Night Moves, Gene Hackman (unfairly) describes sitting through Eric Rohmer's films as "like watching paint dry". To use one of Jarmusch's favorite props here, sitting through this effort is like watching coffee evaporate.… Expand

This is one of those movies that art-house nerds assume is genius because they can't make any sense of it. I wanted to kill myself. And I am an art-house nerd.

It appears that we must give the highest praise for this engaging art-house film to counter the simplistic and commercial tastes of the users who ludicrously give the black and white charmer a 1.....

Perhaps some of the users should wake up and smell the "coffee" and examine the excellent "64" composite grade the film has received from "professional" critics.

Brilliant filmmaking. I love this kind of sh.t. If you like intelligent, real life humor, you will enjoy this film. Steven Wright and Roberto Benigni are hilarious as a comedy team. Cate Blanchett is so convincing in her two different roles that I didn't realize she was playing both characters. The White Stripes scene is brilliant. Laughed my ass off. The twins, Joie Lee and Cinque Lee, were very good. I'd never seen them before, but they got me interested to know what other work they've done. Iggy Pop I've never seen act before, and I wondered why I'd never seen him act before (though I believe he has dabbled in it). I was amazed at how natural he was. Alfred Molina and Steve Coogan's scene was very well done, as was Billy Murray, GZA, and RZA's scene toward the end (one of the funniest pieces in the film). I didn't really know anything about the two old guys at the end, but the one old guy (the sleepy one) kept me laughing throughout the entire scene. The only scenes that weren't that great were the one with the old men and the son and the one with the girl looking at gun catalogues. They didn't detract enough from it to make it a bad film, though. Overall a wonderful film. Some people may not think so because they are going into it with different expectations. Those people should read more about the films they are going to see before they get to the theatre.… Expand

Boring.

I was patient, hopeful, and expectant but next to nothing is found here.

Did I ask for a decaf?

Well, we could certainly use a second opinion here. I find that I couldn't disagree with Mark B. more, and that I find the basis for most of his points to be fairly arbitrary. Of course 1) this movie has no plot, 2) it's all dialogue, and 3) most people won't have any patience or appreciation for it. Going into this movie, one should know exactly what to expect as long as you have some familiarity with Jarmusch and a few of the actors. First of all, Jarmusch is a minimalist. He consistently showcases awkward silences, subtle tension, and candid, off-the-cuff performances in his films. He enjoys the "small things". This movie would be "almost unwatchable" to someone expecting it to behave in some way different from its very nature or statement of purpose. True in some scenarios the actors sound "self-involved", but that's all part of the dymanic Jarmusch consistently creates between the actors in almost every vignette. One character holds an aloof, confident position of power while the other plays a more sheepish, subservient role. Things also get interesting when the roles occasionally flip, and the dynamic shifts. Overall I'd say it's worth seeing, but perhaps not for everybody. A few of vignettes are pretty dull, but the good ones more than make up for the weak parts and the goofier parts (Billy Murray, RZA, GZA) I think. Tom Waits in particular nearly made it worth the admission price all by himself. And, no, it wasn't because he reminded me of Cheers, but because he's a fantastic liar with wonderful screen presence.… Expand

Havling particularly liked Night on Earth, Down by Law, and Dead Man, I put aside my fears about another one of "these movies," i.e. sit and talk in a series of little vignettes. Well, I blew it. The first skit showed some promise, in the total absurdity of Steven Wright and Roberto Benini. A strange and brief conversation, coming to a strange and brief conclusion. I started getting worried when the second "story" (I say story, though there wasn't even a hint of a plot) bit the big one. I thought the Tom Waits/Iggy Pop pairing conveyed a great dynamic and pretty much the only cleverness of the film. Most of the movie was what I can only describe as a Tower of Suck. Uninspired and self-indulgent only begin to describe this film. Jarmusch should be ashamed of himself, and I'd appreciate it if he could send me six bucks as an apology for wasting my time.… Expand

From the first two seconds of this movie I could tell I would hate it. Should have known better since I have never liked a Jarmusch movie. I saw it for the Wu and Bill Murray, which was ok. The White Stripes part gave me a headache, and Iggy Pop gives one of the worst performances I've ever seen. Really, Jarmusch should've just put together groups of unlikely people (like RZA/GZA/BM) and just let them talk about whatever rather than trying to script it. Not funny, not entertaining, a truly lazy/pointless movie. I'll say one good thing about it: it's better than Elephant, the worst movie ever made. … Expand

Quite possibly the worst movie I have seen in 2004...I'm only glad that I saw it on DVD rather than the movies, where I spent less money and could at least "break" from watching this horrorshow. I understand that Jarmusch is an acquired taste, and I obviously don't have that tastebud. Had some OK vignettes (Molina/Coogan was the best), but others were absolutely excruciating to sit through. … Expand

Goes without saying that this film is not for everyone. I rather enjoyed the film. Each scene is not great but most of them are. For Jarmusch fans this was certainly a treat.

Half of the shorts are aimless and boring. Cut half of them and you have a modestly interesting 45 minute film.

Superb! If you don't like it, I hear Shrek 2 is playing.

Judging by this film, I expect Jarmusch's next masterpiece will be called Snot, and will feature his buddies, vying to outdo each other in hipness as they sneeze and deal with their nasal secretions. I can't wait.