Down By Law (1986)
“Why do ya always gotta go fuck up your own future, huh?”
Synopsis: |
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review: Down By Law clearly bows towards surrealistic impulses, with several moments in the film conveniently defying reality: the three prisoners easily escape from their cell (we’re never shown how); they conveniently happen upon an Italian restaurant — with a friendly, beautiful, single owner — in the middle of nowhere; etc. These leaps of logic are mildly amusing, and Robby Muller’s gorgeous black-and-white cinematography is a wonder to behold; but ultimately, these elements weren’t enough to keep my interest. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? (Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die) Links: |
2 thoughts on “Down By Law (1986)”
Not a must — the reasons are well stated in the accurate overview here, and this may be among the rare times I won’t go back and watch the film again before adding a response. I didn’t think much of it the first time, and the overview reminded me of why. After seeing five of Jarmusch’s films, I’ve concluded he doesn’t have much to say as a filmmaker and would probably be better (perhaps rather good) at curating films in some capacity. (“Ouch!” — and I’m sorry.)
Around the time Peary’s book was published, Jarmusch had made quite a splash with ‘Stranger Than Paradise’ (admittedly interesting and the one I would sit through again). He was so hyped that it’s understandable Peary would include ‘STP’ and ‘DBL’ in his book. No doubt many film fanatics will think Jarmusch’s post-‘STP’ work noteworthy enough to watch. Fine then; just remember it’s never a good sign when Benigni is in the cast.
Agreed. I look forward to rewatching “Stranger Than Paradise” simply to see if I still find it as quirky and original as I did years ago; otherwise, I’m unimpressed with Jarmusch. I found his much-lauded recent film — “Broken Flowers”, with Bill Murray — to be especially disappointing, given the intriguing storyline and a cast of stellar supporting actors.