The thing I love about Jarmusch films is the narrative nature of the presentation. Like most of todays fiction that read more like scripts than stories, films making their way into cinemas nowadays are far too reliant upon dialog and explaining every little thing for the viewer. The "story" has to have all of its loose ends nicely tied up by the end of the flick. Much of the negative reviews I read about this film found fault with "unexplained" elements of the story and with things like Jarmusch's tendency to eschew dialog. Anyone who knows anything at all about Jarmusch understands exactly why he does what he does. I love the fact that many of the user reviews seem negative regarding this film; it reassures me that Jarmusch (and filmmakers like him) has yet to sell out to the masses. If you like the kind of cookie-cutter junk coming out of Hollywood that passes for film nowadays, this movie will most likely not appeal to you. If, on the other hand, you enjoy a story as much for the way in which it is told as the "story" itself, check it out. I must also point out that very little was said by the critics deriding this movie about the cinematography, acting, setting, locations, or overall visuals. In fact, very little critique is given regarding its direction. I do find it telling that so many critics refer to this film as a "Jarmusch" project, as if this work was meant as some kind of directorial "study" independent of everyone else involved. For example, when most people think "Down by Law" they don't think Roberto Benini, they think Jarmusch. This implies a great deal. If, on the other hand, we are talking about a film like "Sweeney Todd" most people think Johnny Depp, not Tim Burton. Jim Jarmusch is a unique director and I am glad that he is. I don't like everything he's done, but I certainly hold most of his work in high regard--usually for the very reasons that the masses do not.