I'm frankly amazed at the number of good ratings given to this pretentious waste of film. Due to his great performance in "Pirates of the Caribbean", we've recently gone on a 'Depp' binge at my house. We've rented almost every movie he's ever been in and found some previously unknown (to us anyway) gems. This was NOT one of them. This was a slow boring ride on director Jim Jarmusch's art trip. I gues it being filmed entirely in black and white should have been a clue.

As an example, let's look at the first 10 minutes of the film (was that really only 10 minutes?). We start off with Depp, dressed in a plaid suit that I think made him look like a circus clown but I'm sure Jarmusch thought was stylishly urban for the times. He's sitting on a train and is clearly out of place when compared to his fellow travelers. You get the impression he's new to this experience. As the train whisks our hero westward, we fade to black, and return, fade, return, fade, return, each time seeing that the make up of the passengers has changed. At first there are just fewer 'normal' looking passengers, then there are more and more 'odd-ball' passengers and eventually there are very rough ex-prison type passengers that make you think wild hyenas would be friendlier. I didn't count them but I think there were at least 10 fades, and since they did little to advance the story, it seemed like 20 or 30. This scene change mechanism is used throughout the whole film, usually associated with the main character passing out or falling asleep, which he does a lot. The only saving grace during the train ride was an interruption by a seemingly mad prophet played by Crispin Glover as the trains fireman. So 10 minutes later, we've learned that Depp's character is traveling very far and to a place few normal people would go. This is something that most directors could have conveyed in 10 or 15 seconds! Jim Jarmusch has already bored me and insulted my intelligence. Oh yeah, and the still unnamed character dresses badly.

So much for the first 10 minutes. Depp finally arrives at the literal end of the line in a town ironically named Machine. We now learn that Depp's character is named William Blake. He is an accountant who, for unexplained reasons, can't find a job in big city Cleveland and has traveled across the country to the edge of nowhere on the promise of employment with Dickinson's Steel Works. His path from the train station to the Steel Mill leads him past many symbolic images. At least I think they're symbolic. I'm one of the few people I know that enjoyed the symbolic nature of "2001:A Space Odyssey", but I didn't get this. For example, a man is seen 1 foot off the main street in an alleyway with a woman kneeling in front of him and obviously performing a sexual act. The only reason they couldn't go a few feet further into the alley and not be seen is that Jarmusch wanted a little shock value. Blake (Depp) glances at the scene as he walks by and the man threatens to shoot him. This scene is in case you didn't know before he got off the train with a group of Neanderthals that this was a rough town. Jarmusch would quickly attack such shock value scenes in other people's films, but I guess it's OK for him to do it. At this point I'm only slightly less bored but my intelligence has been insulted again.

The town seems to be about 100 yards long with about 12 small businesses and the very large steel mill and the end. There doesn't seem to be any place for the 100 or so people working there to live, but let's not let reality bother us now. We've obviously entered a fantasy world stranger than Alice's wonderland, and possibly just as drug induced. And after all this, the plot of the story still hasn't even started!

Well once we waste a little more film showing Blake fumbling around looking for the steel mill office, we find that he's there for a job which no longer exists because it took him two months to get there and apparently he never sent a reply confirming that he'd take the job. After waiting a month for him to show up, they gave up and hired someone else. So he's a month late for his first day, which I think would get you fired even from a government job! The owner of the mill (Robert Mitchum) literally laughs him out of the office. But not before threatening to shoot him just for being there. Oh yeah, it's been 5 minutes since we were reminded this was a rough town!

Almost broke and with no job and no place to stay, this staid, straight, respectable accountant inexplicably decides to spend his last bit of cash on a drink in the local bar. He meets an ex-prostitute named Thel (Mili Avital) who is made fun of for trying to go straight. Blake and Thel then go back to her place to do what she doesn't do anymore. Naturally, her estranged husband (Gabriel Byrne) walks in and, in a fit of jealousy, shoots her and tries to shoot Blake. Fortunately, Blake saw where she keeps her gun (it's a rough town!) so he grabs it and kills the man in self-defense. Wounded, he steals a pinto (good choice for a black and white film) to make his escape. In yet another example of excessive irony, the man he killed turns out to be the son of the steel mill owner and the pinto was his favorite horse. As if an accountant in a clown suit was going to get anything like a fair trial anyway.

Blake wakes up in the wild with his wounds being tended by a Native American (Gary Farmer) who we later learn is named 'Nobody'.

It's at this point that many with an existential bend, or some deluded sense that they understand 'true art' will start interpreting the situation as something deeply symbolic and meaningful. One common interpretation is that Blake really did die in the escape and that the Native American is a spiritual guide helping him to 'cross over'. But if that's what we're supposed to believe, then how come the guide is so stupid he thinks that Blake is the 'real' William Blake (famed artist and poet from 100 years earlier)?

Well the adventure continues, more people are killed, 'Nobody' spouts sound bites worthy of a first rate double-speak politician, but which fans find inspiring (anyone remember "Being There"?). Some really unnecessarily gross scenes follow, including a crushed head that makes me wonder how you get that graphic in a black and white movie. And through it all I continue to strain to stay awake while waiting for some scene that will redeem the movie. It doesn't come.

Speaking of Black and White, what a pretentious ploy to 'seem' artistic! There is nothing about this film that warrants the use of Black and White. It's more likely Jarmusch's attempt to snub anything remotely conventional. It DOES take place in the old west, but the black and white filming doesn't add to that since the frames are sharply focused, high resolution and well timed. It doesn't seem like an 'old' film, it seems like a 'new' film where someone forgot to turn on the color.

Overall, Depp's quirky performance is on a par with most of his other quirky performances and Glover's quirky performance is similar to his other quirky performances, but too short. Robert Mitchum and Gabriel Byrne did not live up to their reputations. Gary Farmer was bland and uninspired (actually, I think Depp in the role of Nobody might have made a better film). Throw in Iggy Pop, Billy Bob Thorton and Steve Buscemi because we want EVERY actor with a reputation for 'quirky' roles to be part of this! Sprinkle in a handful of linebackers in parka's and you're done creating the most ridiculous casting I've seen since they tried to make Meg Ryan play a 'tougher than nails' War time Captain in "Courage Under Fire".

Now I'm going to add a bit here in response to some comments from readers. If I was going to try to convince you to see this film, I'd point out the symbolic nature of the ending and how Blake's journey ends at the river. How his journey's end was always a predestined death and Nobody was his guide. I'd throw in reference to the more symbolic (I'm sorry to keep using that word but it's what the film seems to be about) scenes like when Blake lays next to a dead fawn to get a 'feeling' for what death is like. I'd mention Iggy Pop in a dress! And of course I'd mention the most quoted line of the film.

Nobody:” Did you kill the white man who killed you?"
Blake:” I’m not dead. Am I?".

But I originally left all that out because I don't want to mislead anyone by pointing out a few interesting tidbits. I'd feel guilty if someone wasted 2 hours of their life watching this trash because I accidentally made them think there was something there. Well, truth be told, there ARE a few interesting scenes and some thoughtful ideas. It's just not enough of it to wade through the violence, gore, semi-artistic cinematography and pseudo-symbolic scenes. And even if I'm wrong and there is great symbolism here, it's too hard to find for the average viewer and therefore might as well not exist.

One reader said I should mention the 3 bounty hunters who gave 'purpose' to the film. Blah, blah, blah. The bounty hunters were the sadistic and cannibalistic Cole Wilson (Lance Henriksen), the talkative Conway Twill (Michael Wincott) and Johnny 'The Kid' Pickett (Eugene Byrd) who aptly lives up to his 'kid' moniker. Their 'purpose' however was not to advance the film. They actually had 2 purposes. One was to advance Blake. They were hounds driving their prey. They were never meant to catch him. But they made sure Blakes journey to the river never slowed down. Their other purpose was a very black sort of comic relief. Or maybe it was more of a 'shock value' relief (relief for the viewer from boredom). The comedy comes from the fact that they were so inept that they would have starved to death if they really made their living as bounty hunters. But the unnecessary gore and violence, including cannibalism, could only add shock, not value. OK, OK! We get it! It's a tough town! They're really really bad guys! The old west wasn't fun, it was mean! I get it! I'm not as stupid as you (Jim Jarmusch) think! If they weren’t in the film, Blake wouldn't have had to keep pressing on to the river, but other then that they added no real value to the story.

I'll also throw in that another epinioner, Mfunk, wrote a marvelous review of this film. I totally disagree with him but he made me think of something I had not considered. He's apparently very familiar with the 'real' William Blake and has managed to see some parallels between Blake's writings and this storyline. I assume Jim Jarmusch knows Blake and I've decided that anyone else familiar with the Poets works may have a very different take on this film. They may enjoy the references and the irony. Apparently Blake wrote a poem called 'Nobodaddy' about an unseen and jealous God. But that doesn't change my overall opinion. Those of us not familiar with Blake (and I'm convinced we outnumber the others 1000 to 1) won't enjoy this film.

So let's summarize: the few good acting jobs were very short roles, except for Depp but that wasn't enough to save this mess. The plot is thin and full of holes. The symbolism is either bad or non-existent, but pretending to have symbolism gives you an excuse for all those plot holes. The direction, writing, and any other part Jarmusch had a hand in are just plain bad. But we have to give it one star just for the music (Neil Young )! So that brings my overall rating to ONE Star! Totally Rabid Depp fans and people who think Andy Worhol was the most talented artist ever might like this, but there's nothing but boredom here for the rest of us.

Recommended:
No

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: None of the Above
Suitability For Children: Not suitable for Children of any age