Night on Earth (1992)

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Good concept, poorly executed.

A Disappointing Continuation

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

The genius of Jarmusch strkes again,but for all five segments just two worthwhile at all,the first one in LA Winona and Rowland is a peace of crap,the second one in New York lifted the degree but still low standard for a Jarmusch's level,in Paris is great really,all french people on bad temper as always and forever,the night in Rome is the best one,Benigni and the priest in some kind of christian confession is outrageous funny,dirty sins are too much for the religious man who had a heart attack,the last one is enough funny only!!!Resume:First watch: 1999 / How many: 2 / Source: Cable-TV-DVD / Rating: 7.5

Roger Ebert in his review for Jim Jarmusch's 'Night on Earth' called Jarmusch a 'poet of the night'. This is such a fitting description of Jarmusch's storytelling in not only this particular film, but also in certain parts of another Jarmusch film that I love, 'Mystery Train'. Jarmusch is interested in the random people that walk/drive in the streets at night. 'Night on Earth' is an anthology film about various characters from various cities in the world connected by the fact that they either drive/board a taxi on this particular night on earth.At the start of each vignette/episode, we get the same shot of various clocks on a wall showing the time in the different cities that the film covers and the camera zooms into the appropriate clock showing the time for the city that appears in the respective episode. Jarmusch uses some establishing shots to introduce us to each of these cities. But the interesting thing is avoids using too many shots of well known and famous locations and monuments and focuses more on the mundane and decrepit locations. This actually connects all the cities together. Of course while looking at these exterior shots of these individual cities, one can find the individuality and uniqueness of every city, but at the same time, it is noticeable how Jarmusch is deliberately attempting to make some of these shots resemble each other and thereby forge a thematic connection. Jarmusch treatment of the various colourful characters in the film is also similar. The characters come from various backgrounds with numerous unique features, sensibilities and characteristics. Jarmusch actually uses these contrasts for comedic effect during these extended conversations in the taxicabs. But Jarmusch's tender lightness of touch in terms of storytelling, the solid acting by each member of the ensemble, the relatable dialogue and the overall spirit of humanism trickling down from one episode to the next connects all of the episodes as well as the characters together. The shot with which the film ends is absolutely heartbreaking since we can easily put ourselves in the featured character's shoes and understand his hopeless situation. It's a shot that underlines one of the primary themes of the film which is human beings struggling with their mundane lonely existence. This night offered all these aimless souls an opportunity to talk to a stranger and share their fears and apprehensions. But as the sun rises again and a new day begins, the struggle starts again.Yes, the film in a few moments did flirt with the danger of being a bit too on-the-nose with its themes and the use of contrasting background and life situations of the clashing characters, but if it can make me stay captivated and engrossed by using nothing but random conversations between random characters and make me care about them so much and contemplate how their individual lives will pan out after we leave them in their respective episodes, the minor reservations become negligible. This is truly special film and is now right up there alongside 'Down by Law' and 'Mystery Train' as one of my favourite Jim Jarmusch films. Highly Recommended.

An anthology of five different cab drivers in five American and European cities and their remarkable fares on the same eventful night.Jim Jarmusch is pretty much the ultimate in independent filmmakers. He has this interesting quality about him, where he has continued to make great films over the last couple decades, has worked with everyone you could ever want to work with, and still maintains a status that is slightly shy of mainstream. The average film watcher would not know his name or almost any of his movies, but the more discriminate film lover would go out of their way to see them all.This is a great film in that it is just so simple. Most of the movie is nothing more than a cab driver and their fare having a conversation. Sometimes this is all you need to make a great picture, just a well-written script.

Few directors enjoy the cult status that Jarmusch does. Sadly, he is praised undeservedly, this film is not ingenious. So why do people praise him so much? The answer may appear at the conclusion of this review.The film's plot revolves around five taxi rides around the world, at night. They take place in Los Angeles, New York, Paris, Rome and Helsinki.The way the movie is filmed is unambitious, the camera is placed in the taxi, the driver in the front seat (to the right of the screen), the passenger in the back seat (to the left of the screen). Technically (camera placement, cinematography, lighting etc) Jarmusch doesn't offer us anything new, so people shouldn't praise him for this.The worst part about this movie is the plot. Jarmusch shows us long and boring monologues, uninteresting dialogue and a very weak plot. This is why no studio will ever finance him. Oh, but he's proud of that, isn't he? The way people talk, and what they say is very boring. Even if you have a great actor playing the part, and saying the lines in a very interesting way, this doesn't make you interested. Imagine Morgan Freeman, or David Letterman saying "We're out of milk". Even if they do say it in a way which is most accurately described as awesome, you're still not interested. The great Kurosawa said "Though a mediocre director can sometimes make a passable film out of a good script, even an excellent director can never make a good film out of a bad script". Jarmusch wrote this script in eight days. Jarmusch wrote a very bad script. You can say, "but this is how people talk in real life". If we were more entertained by real life than by movies, the movie industry would cease to exist. The reason we watch movies is to see something that we don't see everyday. Showing me something "real", something I can see everyday bores me. He isn't just showing people the way they talk in real life, he is showing us real life. He might as well have turned the camera on in a cab, and made a movie out of it. Writing a script in eight days is not impressive, it's insulting, he didn't put enough effort into it and it ends up sucking. If you are making a movie, put more effort into the script, because people watch movies. People deserve better, especially if they are paying to see the movie. Nothing happens in this movie, I'm serious, it's just people talking in a cab! That's it, nothing more! Jarmusch has said that he would rather make a movie about a man walking his dog, than a movie about the emperor of China. Does he LOVE emptiness in a movie? Does he LOVE a movie that has no story, or a very weak one? He is the biggest enemy of all fiction, he hates a good story, and he loves a bad one. He loves boring things. The most interesting thing about Jarmusch is his hair. The script is the major fault in this movie, because of the bad script the movie is terrible.The film has some good acting, I guess. Nothing memorable, though. Roberto Benigni is a great actor and director, see "A beautiful Life". Winona Rider is also respectable. The person who plays the Norwegian cab driver is very good, and his monologue, I will admit, is well written. It's not the imagery we see in Bergman's "Persona", a film which contains the single best monologue in history, but it's good. Jarmusch probably worked a whole day on it.The music in the film is not consistent with the tone. People talking in a cab at night is not Jazz. It's not The Blues. It's just people talking in a cab. Jarmusch put it in, probably because he likes Jazz, that's it.Why people like him still alludes me, but I'll give it a shot. It's because they don't want to like what everybody else likes. They want to be unique. They want to see independent film making, they probably also like Indy rock. It's OK to like something, but to wrongly preach about how great it is, when it's really just boring, and act as if you are better than people who don't like this film for a reason, that's wrong. I don't like this film for the reasons above, why you like it, I don't know. Maybe I'm just too stupid to get Jarmusch.