I honestly think this is a film that people are afraid to admit they don't find funny or like. I read reviews from critics blasting films for not having enough plot, for being boring, for being poorly written, poorly acted, etc. And here is a film with all these negative attributes, and it's considered a classic.
I went to film school with Ms. Balint and wanted desperately to like this film, watching it as much as four times -- twice on tape and twice on A&E. I did not find all those attributes others had christened it with because frankly, they do not exist. Then I remember The Elephant Man, and the early critics using the title to savage it; "It moves at an elephant's pace", read one. Then everyone jumped on the bandwagon and never a bad word about the film again. I think this is the case for Stranger Than Paradise. The film presents the boredom and monotony of three lost people's lives, and it succeeds by itself being boring and monotonous.
I also think viewers have to put more into this film to seek enjoyment, just as an art critic will look at a solid black canvas and see the life cycle of man's humanity and mortality. And the fact is, it's just a black canvas. That is what I think this movie is. I just happen to think that it caught the people at Cannes during an odd time where they found it amusing, and then from that time out, everyone was afraid to say anything negative about it for fear of being ridiculed for "not getting it." In my opinion -- and acknowledging everything regarding the arts is subjective -- this is an average, gimmicky (mastershots and blackouts) student film.
I would rate this film 1/2 star, if that at all. Sorry to disagree with all you intellectuals out there. I enjoy a good classic film, domestic or foreign, but I do not like films that sportnon-existent writing, acting, or direction. To be snide, I've seen the Emperor, and that b*****d is buck-naked.
