- Studio: IFC Films
- Release Date: Mar 24, 2006
- Critic Score
- Most active
- Publication
- Most clicked
-
75Buscemi does not act in Lonesome Jim, but his sly humor and keen eye for nuance resonate in every frame. I can't recall having a better time at a movie about depression.
-
75In sad-sack movies there is often a helpful woman around to help the despairing heroes. In "Garden State," it was Natalie Portman; in "Elizabethtown," Kirsten Dunst. Both were salvation angels, but Tyler has a gentle approach to this kind of role that is perfect for the tone of Lonesome Jim.
-
75With a cast of well-chosen actors, a good script, and an eye for making ordinary suburban scenes visually heartbreaking, director Steve Buscemi's small story of failure, depression-and ultimately, love-in one Indiana town rings painfully true-to-life.
-
Under Buscemi's overall smart direction, the acting is terrific.
-
70Affleck is dead on as the hapless Jim but the film is nearly stolen from him by Mark Boone Jr. who plays Jim's drug induced Uncle Evil. Kevin Corrigan is also great as Jim's brother Tim.
-
70Bleak, minimal, bone-dry and hilarious, it creates a rich and layered world from deft strokes of dialogue and action.
-
70If Lonesome Jim feels like it's perpetually on the verge of evaporating, Buscemi brings to the material the boundless empathy for misfits and screw-ups he displayed in "Trees Lounge."
-
63As a director, Buscemi is drier than he is as a performer: more quietly funny, less intense and sometimes weirdly compassionate.
-
63Affleck's gloomy, one-note performance exacerbates the problem, but the stellar supporting cast helps compensate.
-
63Humor in 'Jim' is a little too dry.
-
60There's a slightness to the mildly eccentric material here that leaves the whole enterprise in danger of fluttering away.
-
60The script is adroit: It doesn't force the humor, and it steadily keeps track of Jim's growing maturity.
-
58Mostly a snooze. Maybe if Buscemi himself had starred in it things would have turned out better.
-
58Buscemi shoots with a cloudy, melancholic air that suits the material and does nothing to prettify the setting. But you can't sense any of the surprising energy or subversive wit that characterizes his best performances.
-
50Buscemi's latest, Lonesome Jim, written by James C. Strouse, asks you to spend 91 minutes with a 30-year-old slacker and would-be writer who has the DNA of a sloth. "Slowsome Jim" is more like it.
-
One of those indie excursions to Loserville that lasts an hour and a half but feels longer than "Roots."
-
50Well-intentioned but lifeless.
-
50The narrative of Lonesome Jim pokes about aimlessly, trying to mine nuggets of amusement.
-
50It doesn't leave you much to hold on to in a comedy about apathy that can't even muster the energy to care.
-
50Lonesome Jim has the import of a deliberately squelched sitcom, or a home movie that's poisoned by unhappiness but shown anyway for stray laughs.
-
50At one point screenwriter James C. Strouse name-checks the brilliant Richard Yates, whose fiction similiarly perches between grim humor and utter despair, but the movie's hip detachment is a far cry from the unruly passions of Yates's chronic losers.
-
50It finds some fine comedic moments when it stops focusing on Affleck's never-ending angst and starts exploring small-town oddness.
-
42Buscemi is stymied here by the inertia of his material.
-
40First-time screenwriter James C. Strouse (in whose hometown the film was shot) provides so few clues to the source of Jim's malaise, or that of his entire sad-sack family, that the movie remains rudderless and not the least bit believable.
-
40Mr. Buscemi wrote and starred in the small gem of a movie ("Trees Lounge"), which had more psychological nuance than this emotionally cauterized slice of minimalist malaise.
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 3 out of 4
-
Mixed: 1 out of 4
-
Negative: 0 out of 4
-
ChadShiira8
-
NostrilR.10funny poignant excellent Affleck is superb Buscemi does an excellent job as director.
-
RonO.9