Movie Review
Broken Flowers

By: Rob Lott

Posted 08/24/2005 - 07:52:53 AM by J_R_K_:
 i enjoyed this movie... good jarmusch... sorta like "lost in translation II
Posted 08/25/2005 - 10:36:49 AM by redstars1:
 this movie was a huge let-down... a watered-down script that deserved a better pay-off... sorry, but i love murray and i love jarmusch but there wasn't enough substance there... i understand the anti-hollywood script and the director trying to leave it up to the viewer, but it was just not good enough... there were a few funny moments but they only cannot float the picture to even come close to murrays last three pictures... lost in translation was better cause you had some closure and weren't left in the dark... there was no change in murray's character... "ok, so he finally realizes he may want a son"... so what?
Posted 08/25/2005 - 02:33:57 PM by J_R_K_:
 i think this movie is, to use a cliche, more about the journey than the destination.
Posted 08/25/2005 - 09:11:16 PM by dmicevic:
 I'm in agreement with redstars1 here. It's like we've reached a point where the standards for what we define as an "indie" film have become just as contrived and predictable as the typical hollywood potboiler. This is the result: a sort of "Lost in Translation-lite." Not Jarmusch's best and certainly not Murray's either. To reiterate; huge, huge let-down.
Posted 08/26/2005 - 11:38:18 AM by HarryA:
 I feel like the Lost In Translation comparisons are sort of facile. There are obvious similarities between Bill Murray's two characters, but at their core the films are about very different things. Broken Flowers deals primarily in visual metaphore and creates a significantly more somber mood because, well, fuck, half the film is about uncertainty and disappointment. Lost In Translation isn't nearly that sinister. Both have their merits, and while Broken Flowers could have used a little more narrative meat prehaps, putting "closure" on this film would have completely murdered the point.
Posted 08/26/2005 - 02:19:33 PM by J_R_K_:
 lets see... bill murray is a fish out of water in both movies. has a jarmusch film ever been about anything else? i'd say broken flowers has a bit more of a wes anderson directed bill murray vibe at points, more so than lost in translation. especially the soundtrack. but the cinematic style in which the movie unfolds reminds me of lost in translation. was the broken flowers supposed to have obvious subtance or closure? would bill murray's character even been able to embrace or recognize it? he always seems difficult to please, and when he wants to be nice it is misconstrued, and when he makes himself vunerable, he gets screwed. both lost in translation and broken flowers have his character idling through situations he cannot escape, though he is there through his own choice. he's forcing these situations upon himself. and i think jarmusch tried to make a beautifully simple movie, very obvious and straightfoward, but understates all the expository existential stuff you'd find in a typical jarmusch flick.
Posted 08/29/2005 - 03:27:16 AM by petebromaghim:
 almost the only thing wes anderson-like about this movie are the jumpsuits. to me, anderson = generally ridiculous, funny, fast-paced dialogue and equally ridiculous, memorable characters. jarmusch = always a mosey or saunter, meditative quality, common(-ish) characters. as for lost in translation, coppolla's pic was so much more moving, beautiful.