Broken Flowers

Whether it was (shrewdly) planned or not, Bill Murray has become one of our greatest cinematic resources, just as comfortable doing dry comedy as he is acting in a mood piece; his whole melancholy being has become perfect for avant-garde comedy, and this meticulously-mounted and shaded dramedy is a true Bill Murray vehicle. The loosely-structured plot is open to interpretation; it deals with calling up the past--which the film says you can't really do because it's gone--and not worrying about the future because it isn't here yet. Murray plays a computer businessman, a committed bachelor and "over-the-hill Don Juan", who receives news he might have fathered a child with an ex-girlfriend 20 years ago. Originally titled "Dead Flowers" (more effective and appropriate), the film is an unintended journey of self-discovery from writer-director Jim Jarmusch, purposely incomplete but not pointless. Jarmusch's screenplay leaves the scenario open for discussion, with each sequence structured in such a cockeyed way that we don't really know where the movie is headed. This is perfect for audiences interested in something a little different (even when the pacing is dryly solemn or slow, the picture delights in being anti-formula). A good film; difficult as an entertainment per se and often puzzling or obtuse, it nevertheless continues Bill Murray on the rewarding path of an actor with incredible taste, decision and consequence. **1/2 from ****

Barely dramatic, thematic but enigmatic, that's Jim Jarmusch's Broken Flowers. His Stranger than Paradise was exactly that, a Cleveland road trip to existential uncertainty. In Broken Flowers, Bill Murray as Don Johnston is also on a trip, but more certain of his goal than anyone in Stranger, for he seeks out his alleged son by visiting former lovers, one of whom anonymously wrote that she had borne him a child 19 years ago. The formidable women, including a randy Sharon Stone happily lampooning her film persona and Tilda Swinton, tougher and more dangerous than all the others in her biker mom role, never really sway him from seeking his son or finding himself. Beyond discovering that you can't change the past of "an over-the-hill Don Juan," much less understand him, reflected in the depressing but authentic lack of communication with all but one of his wives, Murray may have discovered on his low-key picaresque a truer self than he had ever known before. He may be beaten up physically, he may be unable to close the case of his putative son, and he may have divorced himself from his millionaire persona as a computer whiz, but he remains a deeply calm, lonely wanderer in his effort to solve his case. An amateur detective, neighbor Winston has the spirit and energy Don does not have, yet Don is deeper and more reflective. In fact he outstrips all of his former loves in kindness and caring in calm response to often explosive situations, for instance when Stone's daughter, Lolita, comes on to him only to find he is not available. I complain American films are not sophisticated like Euro flicks, but Jarmusch has come close with this slow, laconic, and demanding indie. Hats off to Bill Murray for mixing minimalist with passionate this time around—his purpose and his change of character make his aging Hollywood star Bob from Lost in Translation just a dress rehearsal for this Oscar-worthy performance and film. Perhaps Don's discovery is twofold: his potential to love others and himself. As Alexander Smith declared, "Love is but the discovery of ourselves in others, and the delight in the recognition."

I just can't stand Jarmusch. He's under the impression that watching uninteresting people do absolutely nothing is art. It's not art. It's like sending my grandfather with a handi-cam around for a day and watching the footage. Murray is a good actor, but any actor working with a script like this would crash and burn as Murray did. People claim to like this film because it's "the most non-mainstream/mainstream film". Psudo-intellectuals are having a ball with that statement. They love to think they're different because they like a movie with no conclusions. It's sad that the whole film was strongly pushing for continuation of the plot, yet nothing ever gets resolved. In the end Murray has no idea who his son is. There are so many different possibilities. I personally wanted an ending like Sideways. An ending where you know who it is, but there's absolutely no interaction between them, they just know. But no, in the end Murray is exactly the same. Nothing happened...literally. People can say, "Nothing needs to happen". That's fine with me, if that's what you truly like to watch, but personally I'd rather not watch a film with literally no point, un-interesting characters, no chemistry at all and an excuse for unintelligent people to enjoy something that isn't a romantic comedy. Jarmusch will always refuse to have anything actually happen in his films...it's sad...maybe he's depressed? Oh and before I forget...Jarmusch wrote the script in two and a half weeks. I'm sorry to say...it shows. The only films I can think of that were written that quickly and pulled it off were, Do the Right Thing and Reservoir Dogs. Do the Right Thing had an amazing message and characters you actually care about and Reservoir Dogs was a great character study with a REAL ending. I do want to thank Jim Jarmusch though. I'm writing my fourth screenplay right now and I got so bored in the theater that I actually figured out how to end it. I got some good thinking time. A dark place, nothing going on, good combination for thinking. Bad combination for watching a film that's supposed to be very good.

After viewing the trailer, I was hopeful that Broken Flowers might prove to be a subtly humorous and sweet film such as Lost in Translation, which I very much liked. But by the end I, and my family, couldn't believe we had been made to sit through two hours of excruciatingly slow pacing for no seeming reason. I am not a film buff, but am a theater person. Though I don't know all of Jarmusch's previous films, tactics, or techniques, I do understand some basic principles of storytelling, and I feel that this did not meet them satisfactorily. It is a beautiful and satisfying thing for the writer to leave something to the audiences' imagination, making them engage their imaginations to complete the story rather than remain passive viewers who are spoon fed answers and entertainment.But this can be taken too far, and I felt that the film left too much to the audience, without providing enough meat to sink our imaginations into. The one really touching moment came,I thought, when at the end of his list of former girlfriends, he visits a graveyard and the gravestone of a former flame. A close shot catches Murray with tears welling in his eyes. This would have been a terrific moment...if we hadn't been made to wait so long that we didn't even care. I agree with other comments that I saw little to no trace of the Don Juan that could have attracted so many women (including the four women in the film whom he supposedly bedded the same year). Even if he had had an incredible vigor in the past, why would he have a gorgeous girlfriend apparently 20 years his junior at present? And what does he want? I was never able to discover that. Without any seeming motivation and without the development of relationships or any type of build that culminated in anything significant, I felt cheated by the end. Any point that could be made in the film feels like it could have been made in the first 30 minutes. After that it was just more of the same. Whereas Lost in Translation made a statement about the loneliness of two people in a foreign country by its slow pace, it also interwove the pacing with a touching and unconventional relationship that gave the audience something to engage in and watch develop. Nothing seemed to develop here. Which raises the question, Why should we care?

source: Broken Flowers

In Broken Flowers (2005) , Jarmusch seems to be conveying a mood, rather than a straight-forward story, in which we as the viewer embark on a cross-country search with Don Johnston (played by Bill Murray in perhaps his best performance) filled with self-reflection and the revisiting of old memories. Murray portrays Johnston as a worn-out individual, whom at one time likely lived a life of great vigor but in the present state lives on the outskirts of society, idle and apathetic. He revisits old flames and seeks out answers that he never really gets. But such is life and Jarmusch understands this and lets this unfold beautifully.

Bill Murray's character gets a letter in the mail informing him he has a 19 year old son. His next door bohemian neighbor encourages Bill to go on an ultimately fruitless quest to see if any of his former lovers from 19 years earlier (there were 5 and one had since passed away) were the genesis of the anonymous letter! The visit with Sharon Stones character went well but she clearly wasn't the sender, two visits were uncomfortable and neither of them were candidates either and the final visit went very, very badly (Tilda Swinton's character, who looks remarkably different in every movie I see her in) and she clearly wasn't the genesis of the letter either and in the process of that final visit Bill gets beat up! Actually the final visit was to the grave site of the former lover who had passed away. So we never find out who sent the letter but I guess that was the annoying point! At any rate it's a good watch and I thoroughly recommend the film!

for the life of me I don't understand how anybody can think this is such a good film unless you're a pretentious sort in film school and are studying jarmusch. we watch films to be entertained and to this end, they should have a point, this had neither, I was fast forwarding through so much of this film, the sharon stone and daughter character were at least interesting and mildly amusing, everything else was instantly forgettable. And I don't need a happy ending or a definitive answer at the end of a film but at least have some sort of way of tying the film up or even a cryptic explanation of what this was all about. this was a complete waste of time, it wasn't subtle or clever, just plain dull.

I went to see this today expecting something really good but was disappointed. The film doesn't go anywhere and is rather boring. It doesn't give any explanations for the main character's depression and the way he is, nor does it give any insight into his relationships with the female characters. I also found the inclusion of the naked young females pointless and gratuitous - meant to pull the audiences in. I am astonished that there is a thread on the message boards for this film talking about Sharon Stone being nominated for an Oscar. Her performance was mediocre at best. I did like the music and the American scenery shown while the main character was driving to his destinations - but that's about it.

Bill Murray is known as comic actor. But here Mr. Murray plays the main character in a serious drama about a man who decides to confront his past, and the confrontation is inconclusive, at times nasty and painful. The women from his past are now middle aged ladies with lives of their own and are characters that do not make this story a pleasant trip down memory lane. The premise of this movie is that the main character is on some kind of quest, prompted by a letter from anonymous source saying that he fathered a child twenty years ago. But so what? Is an anonymous letter a sufficient basis for a man to travel all over the United States and impose himself on others? I don't think so. Indeed, one can reasonably question why Mr. Murray's character would even want to bother. Plus, Mr. Murray's character is not particularly likable, which makes the movie even more unfunny. The movie is not funny, the characters are troubled and sad; if you want to see a Bill Murray movie, rent "Caddyshack."