Avaliações de usuários

An abstract reflection on power and its transience. A risky film by Jim Jarmusch which, despite having stars in secondary roles, having the exoticism of being filmed in Spain and having many of the qualities to which this irreverent North American independent filmmaker has accustomed us, ends up leaving a slight bitter taste in the mouth.

Deep down because Jarmusch stripped the film of everything superfluous, summarizing it as a bare course, without a classic plot beyond the essential message. Life is short and all power is vain and transitory. A simple journey whose destination is discovered at each stop.

I was thinking that this was the abstract baby Lost in Translation and The American had, and just like that Bill Murray eventually makes an appearance. The way he looked at the skull on his desk really made me smile.

The reason I watched this movie was because of Boris & Sunn O)))'s contribution to the soundtrack, and that was the only reason. Well, I was in for it! Personally I don't think this drone / doom metal soundtrack fits this movie, or almost any movie, but surely I am biased. And perhaps I've just listened too much to the songs beforehand so that I find they are too cut down, repetitive and out of place here. Boris's music worked in Kokuhaku, though.

Also, did I get what The Limits of Control was about? Not overall, and I didn't like the unrealistic dialogues. It made the dominating silence in the movie seem more meaningless and less thought-provoking. Still, having random (famous) people ramble on about long-winded, ambiguous and quite irrelevant topics didn't lack charm (I'm not being completely sarcastic, especially in John Hurt's case). But hey, it is a very symbolic and long-dragged movie that shrouds its various points with mystery. It is a full-blown "show, don't tell" piece of film. Make what you will of it; I was entertained throughout but I did not arrive at any satisfactory conclusion.

However, the wavering of the camera in the last second of the movie had me wondering. Did I limit this movie?

I'm not going to waste anyone's time with subjective yammering, whether it be positive ("a cinematic tour de force!") or negative ("pretentious artsy fluff!") because, let's face it, those comments don't mean squat to anyone but the person saying it.

Instead, just rifle through this list of movies and if you liked any of them, you'll probably like this movie.

"Tetro" (director Francis Ford Coppola, 2009), "Broken Flowers" (director Jim Jarmusch, 2005), "Before It Had a Name" (director Giada Colagrande, 2005), "A Scene at the Sea" (director Takeshi Kitano, 1991), "Der Himmel über Berlin" a.k.a. "Wings of Desire" (director Wim Wenders, 1987), "Paris, Texas" (director Wim Wenders, 1984).

If you haven't heard of, or seen, any of those then just bear in mind that "Limits of Control", like the movies mentioned above, is very slow, almost uneventful, without a lot of revealing dialogue to carry the story. These stories are told in images, and it can be a real challenge keeping up, not because there are a lot of crazy twists and turns, but because there's almost nothing. I could sum up the plot of this movie in 8 words: "a day in the life of a hit-man". But if you're up for a challenge, give it a shot.

This movie had a great buildup to a massive letdown. The whole movie although painfully slow at times did a great job leading to it's conclusion, but the conclusion just didn't deliver. I'm not real sure about the moral degradation that this film portrays as an enlightening revolution, but the acting is good enough to pass. I enjoyed Dead Man a lot more and Jarmusch may have taken the slow pace and limited dialogue a tad too far in this film. The character interaction is interesting, but always one sided and unfulfilled, maybe that was the point. Overall, and interesting but flawed movie. Under careful scrutiny this is a carefully laid out plot that just doesn't live up to the expectation.

'The Limits of Control' is easy to misunderstand, and even easier to dislike. I can certainly understand the bad reviews. What I can't agree to is anyone calling it 'pretentious'; it doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not. It's not a clever allegory or a meaningful social critique, and it doesn't have a hidden message - nor does it pretend to be any of those things. It's a big mistake to try to find a hidden message, or a coherent plot, as it doesn't have either. What it is is a series of fragments and dreams, characters, places and encounters, more like Coffee & Cigarettes than Ghost Dog. But it's lots of fun, for cinema lovers and for art lovers, and it's incredibly beautiful (a given with a Jim Jarmusch film), and for a movie in which nothing ever really happens, it keeps the viewer interested the whole time; that in itself is an accomplishment.

The "storyline": Nothing much happens at all. A man in Madrid orders an espresso, takes a train, walks in and out of a spanish museum in madrid, walks around town in madrid. No drama, no humor, just a man wandering about in Madrid getting secretive messages from strange secretive people

Despite the failure to create drama, humor or suspense this movie still kept me curious about it's ending. I did enjoy it, but in the same way as I would enjoy watching landscapes pass by in the train. Soothing, mellow, calm. But for those who expect a story with some drama, my advice is to walk away. Only suited for die hard Jim Jarmusch fans. This is definitely NOT a typical gangster movie, although some might (wrongly) perceive it to be, having watched the trailer.

I really adore (some of) Jim Jarmusch' work. But I do get bored by some of his movies as well. Jarmusch has a great knack for telling stories about people, who just wander about. Really. That's all they usually do in his movies. All of his movies are about people wandering around searching for something, waiting for something, escaping from something. Walking, waiting, wandering around. He has perfected these "wandering" storylines. He always slows his movies down to a level which is very uncommon and sometimes bordering on boring. The latter unfortunately is the case with "No limits No controls". It is basically a rather boring movie only interesting for die hard Jim Jarmusch fans, like myself . It is suited for those who love to relate to 100 year old paintings or movies no one has ever heard of beside an incrowd of movie geeks.

Soundtracks in Jarmusch'movies are always eccentric. The music by "Boris" is impressive, edgy and heavy, but I felt it wasnt suited for the mood of this picture. The photography was lacking in originality, although some shots were very gorgeous, because of the beauty of Madrid. BUT the photography was almost entirely consisting of still shots, which were mostly not very impressive. Director Wes Anderson has perfected this still photography in his movies, many others have tried to copy it, but failed at it. So did the photographer in "No limits No control".

Acting is great though. Great leading actor, which I had never heard of before. What a powerful face. He indeed doenst have to say anything, which he doesnt. Almost a silent movie, little to none dialogue. But it works. It creates some kind of mystery. Another trade mark of Jim Jarmusch. And there is also a great supporting cast although they only appear very short: Bill Murray (3minutes), John Hurt (5minutes), Abbass (5 minutes), Tilda Swinton (only 15 seconds), being pushed inside a car...

Trivia endnote: The end credits mention "Quantum respect and broken flowers to Bart Walker". This Bart Walker fellow is one of the most thanked characters in movie history, because the man has a staggering 30 special thanks credits to his name at Imdb. He must be some sort of mysterious muse for Jim Jarmusch and other directors, because many great directors have thanked this Bart Walker guy many times over the last decades.

Limits of Control seems to me to be designed for the attitude of European Art-Film lovers. Not American multiplex mall rats.

If you like Fellini and Picasso you'll find something in this movie.

If you prefer James Cameron and combat computer games you'll hate this movie.

If you're an American Republican you'll hate this movie. If you're a Psychedelic Socialist you'll love this movie.

What I like about Jim Jarmusch's film is that his surrealism is just the right dose of strangeness to keep me interested when it seems there is little or no action. Unlike David Lynch, who to me, seems to want to make his audience ill and disturbed. Lynch is LSD laced with Strychnine. Jarmusch is magic mushrooms and periodic hits of DMT.

I suspect people who gave Limits of Control a bad review didn't see the whole movie.

It has been said that God is a circle whose center is everywhere and whose perimeter is nowhere. In the beautiful and enigmatic The Limits of Control, director Jim Jarmusch puts it this way, "The universe has no center and no edges" and, "everything is subjective", or "reality is arbitrary". Based on a script of only twenty five pages, The Limits of Control is about an immaculately dressed but emotionally frozen hit man (Isaach de Bankolé) who goes from place to place awaiting further instructions. He has no overview of the entire game plan but waits for his next move whenever he meets the next contact.

Set in Madrid and Seville as well as some isolated villages in the South of Spain, the cinematography by Christopher Doyle, who has worked extensively with Wong Kar-wai, is filled with elegantly-composed images of dark streets, barren landscapes, city skylines, and world class paintings. Getting his instructions at the airport before leaving for Madrid from Creole, played by the French actor Alex Descas, de Bankolé is told simply to go to a café and look for the violin. Further instructions come from various people he meets along the way in the form of a greeting "you don't speak Spanish, right?" and the exchange of matchboxes, one of which contains a curious code which the hit man simply eats. De Bankolé hardly ever speaks other than to say "yes" or "no." We learn little about him other than he prefers two cups of espresso served in separate cups and that he practices Tai Chi. We also discover that he likes women because we can see that he is tempted by the naked beauty Paz de la Huerta who suddenly appears in his hotel room. Although he openly admires her backside, he tells her that he never engages in sex while he is working (though I've never seen anyone who is working do such little work). As de Bankolé goes from location to location, each scene becomes a variation of the one that came before. Included are some provocative sequences such as repeated visits to an art gallery in Madrid, and a scene inside a bar in which de Bankolé watches a rehearsal of an exquisite flamenco dance in which the singer delivers dialogue from the first scene of the film warning us like some spiritual guru about the limits of ego.

"Those who think they are important", he sings, "wind up in a cemetery – a handful of dust". Along the way, we are introduced to some of recognizable stars. Tilda Swinton in a platinum wig, white cowboy hat, and boots talks about film noir, saying how she admires characters that never speak. Luis Tosar talks about musical instruments. Youki Kudoh speaks about molecular reconfiguration and the things that are possible in science. John Hurt tells us about the origins of the word "bohemian". Gael Garcia Bernal talks about how consciousness can be altered by psychoactive drugs like Peyote. Finally, Bill Murray as the ugly American corporatist says that our minds have become polluted by all of the subjects that have been previously discussed.

Supported by a soundtrack of electronic music by the trio Boris, The Limits of Control is a film of mystery and silence and unexpected twists that is about the power of imagination and poetry to operate without arbitrarily imposed limits. Sensing that we are in a period of change, Jarmusch says, "I almost feel like we're really on the cusp of an apocalypse of thought because all of these old models that they tell us are reality are all crumbling." What the "apocalypse of thought" will look like is uncertain but the film has a hypnotic, dreamlike quality that challenges the distinction between what is real and what is a product of the mind. In the film's final sequence, de Bankolé surveys a compound guarded by masked security officers with guns. The next minute, we see him inside the compound confronting the object of his search. When asked how he got in, he simply replies, "I used my imagination." If you want to know how that occurs, I would echo the film's message and say – use your imagination. That's all that there is anyway.

This is a tough picture to review, although I can really only come to one conclusion: you have to watch it for yourself. Jim Jarmusch based it on the idea of making an "action movie without action", and I think that's pretty accurate. The film follows a mysterious man around Spain, where he meets with even more mysterious contacts and exchanges secret messages. Clearly he is on a mission, a dangerous and illegal one. But what is his job? Who does he work for? These questions will keep you on the edge of your seat. All the ingredients of a frantic crime thriller are there, yet the film keeps a slow pace. What exactly is going on here?

Never has it been so thrilling, beautiful, and entertaining to watch a man walk around. The audience never knows what to expect, everything could be significant. In contrast, the mysterious man never hesitates, everything he does is carefully planned and executed, according to plan. Clearly, someone is pulling the strings. Someone, somewhere, is "in control". The camera, however, focuses on this man, one cogwheel in a large machinery. You're always aware that you only see part of the picture, that everything would make sense if you could just zoom out and know a little more.

"The Limits of Control" plays with a lot of established film clichés, and it teases you with your expectations. You are familiar with the form Hollywood movies have converged to over the past decades, how they are put together and what they have in common. Mainstream productions carefully avoid surprising their audience because after all, some of them could be disappointed or irritated. You think you know what you're up against, because you've seen it before. But "The Limits of Control" will fool you. It does not care about conventions, it tells the story it wants to.

However, this means that the film actually expects you to have been spoiled by the countless movies you've seen. It helps to know a few things about film genres and eras, but it is downright essential to have seen a number of common spy movies, action flicks, mystery thrillers. If you're not familiar with the narrative conventions used in movies, you will most likely not get the point. This made me wonder whether it is acceptable to recommend a movie if it cannot be thoroughly enjoyed without having that kind of film experience beforehand. But in the end, movies are always about one thing: whether you will have a good time watching it. And I think it must have been years since I last left a theater so delighted.

The thing is that this wouldn't be the movie you show your friend who is only just starting to develop an interest in films. For those who have been devouring movies for some time, who know a thing or two about their strengths and weaknesses, and the way they tell stories, this film is an incredible piece of art. In any case, it does however require an open mind because it might initially be hard to "keep up" with the slowness of the movie. But if you can cope with anything more sophisticated than a Michael Bay movie, you should do fine. Just don't expect to have the story and all the explanations shoved down your throat. Half of the movie takes place in your head, because you are trying to make sense of what is happening.

In more technical aspects, De Bankolé gives a breathtaking performance. At first it might not seem like he's doing much, but then you realize how perfectly every move, every look, every word, spoken or unspoken, fits the scene. The film's mystery is built on his presence, and it must have been a terrible pressure to carry so much responsibility for the atmosphere of the movie. The result is a lead character that is several times cooler than any babbling wiseacre (à la Pulp Fiction) could ever be. I was also amazed by the appearances of Tilda Swinton and John Hurt. Not only their characters, but also their lines which are symbolic for the level this movie works on.

You know how movie reviewers sometimes have to look for that perfect moment for a screen capture? A frame that is beautiful to look at and, without any motion or dialog, is able to give readers an idea of the movie's style? It must be a hell of a task for this film, because you could take such a frame from almost any of the scenes. It is in this consistently high quality, in any area, that the experience of Jarmusch as a filmmaker really shows. Every moment, every scene is carefully set up, perfectly composed and just beautiful to look at, like a picture in itself. Every word spoken is deeply meaningful, almost every sentence is a one-line word of wisdom or food for thought. Sounds are carefully used, as are the minimal musical snippets. Often, there is just a very poignant silence.

I suppose that if you are trying to decide whether you are going to watch this movie, having heard what people say about it, you wonder whether you will be disappointed in the end, whether it will just be a succession of pointless scenes. This was also my concern, but I promise that you won't feel cheated in the end. I don't care for posh movies that try to be as "artsy" as possible just for the heck of it; "The Limits of Control" is genuinely entertaining, and it is as much a part of traditional cinema as it is a reflection upon it. It is a minimal thriller, a mystery feature in the true sense of the word. You will think, you will theorize, and you will simply enjoy taking in the sights and sounds. The dream-like feel, the questions, the thoughts will accompany you for a long time after you have left the theater.

Limits of control is an interesting movie; not at all what i expected. It is not boring or repetitive, but there is no 'action', it is not a thriller and there is no love interest - sort of. It is just a movie that provides a blank canvas for the viewer to make of it what they will. I am not sure if i was entertained, but i was stimulated and i found it thought provoking on a number of different levels. That said, this will not be everyones cup of tea. But if you are sanguine and go with the flow then i think there is a richness to be had from the 'journey' that others have alluded to. Overall it is a nicely put together piece that is both bizarre and curious without promising or delivering anything. It just is...and as such i enjoyed it for what it is.

At least Bill Murray had a way out. I didn't. First time in my life that a movie made me wish for a nice, fat cyanide capsule to end my suffering. It wasn't even "funny" bad, like Lesbian Vampire Killers, or Adventureland.

Without giving anything away, as a viewer, you find yourself sitting there with question marks over your head wondering how on earth anyone secured funding for something like this AND how someone could actually get PAID to write it.

No beginning...no end. And mindless drivel in between.

It was just bad bad bad. Sorry.

If you're looking for a great story, you'd better go read a book. If you think you can make up your own story, maybe you can watch this film. Before I saw it, I looked for reviews on the net. People spoke about too little dialogue, slowness and even misuse of great actors. So I was a bit prepared and knew what I could or could not expect. This wasn't bad, but after watching it and reading some reviews again, it became very clear to me that this film is very personal. Even some Jarmusch fans seemed to have trouble with the film. But to me, it was one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen. I like films who really use the imagery instead of just trying to tell a story. To me that's the whole purpose of a movie; visual composition, beautiful color, appropriate music and great characters. And it's not so important if you don't get the characters or understand what they say, as long as you feel it's a part of their character. It's like a picture of someone you don't know, and you make up your own story about them. The dialogues are short, yes, but that only adds to the fact that you can add more of your own imagination to the characters. And still, the dialogues were interesting enough to me, but like I said it's really personal. It's probably very important how you feel, where you stand in life, and what you think the priorities are. But to me everything came together. I've been waiting very long for something special like this. I would give it a ten, but you never know what's coming around the corner.

the movie gives u something to think about all those philosophical and artistic quotes and theories they worth much but the thing that connect these meanings together is the movie itself it almost has a beautiful part of every art in it: architecture,literature,dance,painting,music,... in almost the same theme as the theme of the world witch movie shows this was just about the ideas but limits of control has a meaningful story behind it too but the point is it leaves u guessing and that s the beauty of it did u ever thought why old Indian movies don't rate good and they all seem stupid and childish its because even if u put aside the extremely exaggerated mixture of feelings they used it still has a major problem and that s the story line itself their ends are so much known and the story is so simple and plain witch even a 5 year old kid could predict and it gives you nothing to think about but the regret of the money that you threw out of your pocket that s why this movie deserves 7 in rating not 6.1...

I've just sat through this entire movie and I've got no clue what it was even about. I have to admit, it was far too boring for me to devote 100% of my attention, but that's no excuse.

The movie consists mostly of the lead character's adventures of going from supposed criminal to supposed criminal exchanging matchbooks with different things in them. He hardly says a word throughout the whole flick. I think you hear more (or hopefully you don't) from him in the last 10 minutes of the movie than you do the first hour and forty. The rest of the dialogue is just the other characters attempting to have conversations with him that turn out to be almost entirely one-sided.

There was some decent nudity from a large (not to mention very lop-sided} breasted woman who was pretty cute, unfortunately that's the only good thing I can say about it.

Well, I've already devoted far too much time to this movie, I just hope this helps to save a bit of yours. I'd love to know how this movie got an IMDb rating of 6.6!!!! Sonsabitches! Hope your damned legs grow together!